Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Orwell on social justice warriors in 1930s

dylancatlow
Posts: 12,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 5:31:54 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
If you want a good illustration of this, it is worth studying the novels and plays of John Galsworthy, keeping one eye on their chronology. Galsworthy is a very fine specimen of the thin-skinned, tear-in-the-eye, pre-war humanitarian. He starts out with a morbid pity-complex which extends even to thinking that ev- ery married woman is an angel chained to a satyr. He is in a perpetual quiver of indignation over the sufferings of overworked clerks, of under-paid farm hands, of fallen women, of criminals, of prostitutes, of animals. The world, as he sees it in his earlier books (The Man of Property, Justice, etc.), is divided into op- pressors and oppressed, with the oppressors sitting on top like some monstrous stone idol which all the dynamite in the world cannot overthrow. But is it so certain that he really wants it overthrown? On the contrary, in his fight against an immovable tyranny he is upheld by the consciousness that it is immovable. When things happen unexpectedly and the world-order which he has known begins to crumble, he feels somewhat differently about it. So, having set out to be the champion of the underdog against tyranny and injustice, he ends by advocating (vide The Silver Spoon) that the English working class, to cure their economic ills, shall be deported to the colonies like batches of cattle. If he had lived ten years longer he would quite probably have arrived at some genteel ver- sion of Fascism. This is the inevitable fate of the sentimentalist. All his opinions change into their opposites at the first brush of reality.

The same streak of soggy half-baked insincerity runs through all "advanced" opinion. Take the question of imperialism, for instance. Every left-wing "intel- lectual" is, as a matter of course, an anti-imperialist. He claims to be outside the empire-racket as automatically and self-righteously as he claims to be outside the class-racket. Even the right-wing "intellectual", who is not definitely in revolt against British imperialism, pretends to regard it with a sort of amused detach- ment. It is so easy to be witty about the British Empire. The White Man"s Burden and "Rule, Britannia" and Kipling"s novels and Anglo-Indian bores"who could even mention such things without a snigger? And is there any cultured person who has not at least once in his life made a joke about that old Indian havildar who said that if the British left India there would not be a rupee or a virgin left between Peshawar and Delhi (or wherever it was)? That is the attitude of the typical left-winger towards imperialism, and a thoroughly flabby, boneless at- titude it is. For in the last resort, the only important question is. Do you want the British Empire to hold together or do you want it to disintegrate? And at the bottom of his heart no Englishman, least of all the kind of person who is witty about Anglo-Indian colonels, does want it to disintegrate. For, apart from any other consideration, the high standard of life we enjoy in England depends upon our keeping a tight hold on the Empire, particularly the tropical portions of it such as India and Africa. Under the capitalist system, in order that Eng- land may live in comparative comfort, a hundred million Indians must live on the verge of starvation"an evil state of affairs, but you acquiesce in it every time you step into a taxi or eat a plate of strawberries and cream. The alternative is to throw the Empire overboard and reduce England to a cold and unimportant little island where we should all have to work very hard and live mainly on her- rings and potatoes. That is the very last thing that any left-winger wants. Yet the left-winger continues to feel that he has no moral responsibility for imperialism. He is perfectly ready to accept the products of Empire and to save his soul by sneering at the people who hold the Empire together.
Devilry
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2016 10:42:06 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
Nice little read. I like his homophobia too.
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2016 12:08:15 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
" To a political climber it is sometimes an advantage not to be taken too seriously at the beginning of his career...Obviously the most urgent need of the next few years is to capture those normal decent ones before Fascism plays its trump card. "

George Orwell, 1936
slo1
Posts: 4,353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2016 1:40:31 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 5:31:54 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
If you want a good illustration of this, it is worth studying the novels and plays of John Galsworthy, keeping one eye on their chronology. Galsworthy is a very fine specimen of the thin-skinned, tear-in-the-eye, pre-war humanitarian. He starts out with a morbid pity-complex which extends even to thinking that ev- ery married woman is an angel chained to a satyr. He is in a perpetual quiver of indignation over the sufferings of overworked clerks, of under-paid farm hands, of fallen women, of criminals, of prostitutes, of animals. The world, as he sees it in his earlier books (The Man of Property, Justice, etc.), is divided into op- pressors and oppressed, with the oppressors sitting on top like some monstrous stone idol which all the dynamite in the world cannot overthrow. But is it so certain that he really wants it overthrown? On the contrary, in his fight against an immovable tyranny he is upheld by the consciousness that it is immovable. When things happen unexpectedly and the world-order which he has known begins to crumble, he feels somewhat differently about it. So, having set out to be the champion of the underdog against tyranny and injustice, he ends by advocating (vide The Silver Spoon) that the English working class, to cure their economic ills, shall be deported to the colonies like batches of cattle. If he had lived ten years longer he would quite probably have arrived at some genteel ver- sion of Fascism. This is the inevitable fate of the sentimentalist. All his opinions change into their opposites at the first brush of reality.

The same streak of soggy half-baked insincerity runs through all "advanced" opinion. Take the question of imperialism, for instance. Every left-wing "intel- lectual" is, as a matter of course, an anti-imperialist. He claims to be outside the empire-racket as automatically and self-righteously as he claims to be outside the class-racket. Even the right-wing "intellectual", who is not definitely in revolt against British imperialism, pretends to regard it with a sort of amused detach- ment. It is so easy to be witty about the British Empire. The White Man"s Burden and "Rule, Britannia" and Kipling"s novels and Anglo-Indian bores"who could even mention such things without a snigger? And is there any cultured person who has not at least once in his life made a joke about that old Indian havildar who said that if the British left India there would not be a rupee or a virgin left between Peshawar and Delhi (or wherever it was)? That is the attitude of the typical left-winger towards imperialism, and a thoroughly flabby, boneless at- titude it is. For in the last resort, the only important question is. Do you want the British Empire to hold together or do you want it to disintegrate? And at the bottom of his heart no Englishman, least of all the kind of person who is witty about Anglo-Indian colonels, does want it to disintegrate. For, apart from any other consideration, the high standard of life we enjoy in England depends upon our keeping a tight hold on the Empire, particularly the tropical portions of it such as India and Africa. Under the capitalist system, in order that Eng- land may live in comparative comfort, a hundred million Indians must live on the verge of starvation"an evil state of affairs, but you acquiesce in it every time you step into a taxi or eat a plate of strawberries and cream. The alternative is to throw the Empire overboard and reduce England to a cold and unimportant little island where we should all have to work very hard and live mainly on her- rings and potatoes. That is the very last thing that any left-winger wants. Yet the left-winger continues to feel that he has no moral responsibility for imperialism. He is perfectly ready to accept the products of Empire and to save his soul by sneering at the people who hold the Empire together.

Sounds boring as f. Remind me to not read it.
slo1
Posts: 4,353
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2016 1:46:34 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/15/2016 11:22:42 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/15/2016 1:40:31 PM, slo1 wrote:
=(

If I was being honest I would have said it is too much intellectualism for me to focus and understand, thus care.
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2016 5:12:01 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/16/2016 4:12:05 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
You do realize that Orwell was a socialist who believed in social justice, right?

Social justice warriors are not in favor of social justice what so ever. The term is satire if you didn't realize.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2016 5:53:06 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/15/2016 12:08:15 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
" To a political climber it is sometimes an advantage not to be taken too seriously at the beginning of his career...Obviously the most urgent need of the next few years is to capture those normal decent ones before Fascism plays its trump card. "

George Orwell, 1936

Starts a thread trying to ham fistedly criticize SJW's - shows Trump is the real problem. Well played. Well played.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2016 5:55:44 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/16/2016 5:12:01 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/16/2016 4:12:05 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
You do realize that Orwell was a socialist who believed in social justice, right?

Social justice warriors are not in favor of social justice what so ever. The term is satire if you didn't realize.

Lol yes SJW's are satirizing America by reflecting its historically hateful nature in reverse.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2016 8:24:01 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/16/2016 5:55:44 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/16/2016 5:12:01 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/16/2016 4:12:05 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
You do realize that Orwell was a socialist who believed in social justice, right?

Social justice warriors are not in favor of social justice what so ever. The term is satire if you didn't realize.

Lol yes SJW's are satirizing America by reflecting its historically hateful nature in reverse.

lol... there's nothing nice about a SJW.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2016 8:33:47 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/16/2016 8:24:01 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/16/2016 5:55:44 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/16/2016 5:12:01 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/16/2016 4:12:05 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
You do realize that Orwell was a socialist who believed in social justice, right?

Social justice warriors are not in favor of social justice what so ever. The term is satire if you didn't realize.

Lol yes SJW's are satirizing America by reflecting its historically hateful nature in reverse.

lol... there's nothing nice about a SJW.

There's nothing nice about what they're against either.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2016 8:35:50 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/16/2016 8:33:47 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/16/2016 8:24:01 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/16/2016 5:55:44 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/16/2016 5:12:01 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/16/2016 4:12:05 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
You do realize that Orwell was a socialist who believed in social justice, right?

Social justice warriors are not in favor of social justice what so ever. The term is satire if you didn't realize.

Lol yes SJW's are satirizing America by reflecting its historically hateful nature in reverse.

lol... there's nothing nice about a SJW.

There's nothing nice about what they're against either.

wrong, there's nothing nice about tolerating criminals and backwards, dangerous cultures, unless you never have to leave your gated ivory tower...then it is nice...or must be nice I guess.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2016 8:45:44 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/16/2016 8:35:50 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/16/2016 8:33:47 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/16/2016 8:24:01 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/16/2016 5:55:44 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/16/2016 5:12:01 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/16/2016 4:12:05 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
You do realize that Orwell was a socialist who believed in social justice, right?

Social justice warriors are not in favor of social justice what so ever. The term is satire if you didn't realize.

Lol yes SJW's are satirizing America by reflecting its historically hateful nature in reverse.

lol... there's nothing nice about a SJW.

There's nothing nice about what they're against either.

wrong, there's nothing nice about tolerating criminals and backwards, dangerous cultures, unless you never have to leave your gated ivory tower...then it is nice...or must be nice I guess.

Pretty sure they don't support ISIS. And supporting criminals isn't that controversial, for example I support the crime of cannabis consumption. Terrible I know, throw my in jail. It must be hard to see from your backwards swamp of a trailer park.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,304
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2016 9:26:27 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/16/2016 8:45:44 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/16/2016 8:35:50 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/16/2016 8:33:47 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/16/2016 8:24:01 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/16/2016 5:55:44 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/16/2016 5:12:01 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/16/2016 4:12:05 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
You do realize that Orwell was a socialist who believed in social justice, right?

Social justice warriors are not in favor of social justice what so ever. The term is satire if you didn't realize.

Lol yes SJW's are satirizing America by reflecting its historically hateful nature in reverse.

lol... there's nothing nice about a SJW.

There's nothing nice about what they're against either.

wrong, there's nothing nice about tolerating criminals and backwards, dangerous cultures, unless you never have to leave your gated ivory tower...then it is nice...or must be nice I guess.

Pretty sure they don't support ISIS. And supporting criminals isn't that controversial, for example I support the crime of cannabis consumption. Terrible I know, throw my in jail. It must be hard to see from your backwards swamp of a trailer park.

well.. that explains alot.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2016 9:32:21 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/16/2016 9:26:27 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/16/2016 8:45:44 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/16/2016 8:35:50 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/16/2016 8:33:47 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/16/2016 8:24:01 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/16/2016 5:55:44 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/16/2016 5:12:01 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/16/2016 4:12:05 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
You do realize that Orwell was a socialist who believed in social justice, right?

Social justice warriors are not in favor of social justice what so ever. The term is satire if you didn't realize.

Lol yes SJW's are satirizing America by reflecting its historically hateful nature in reverse.

lol... there's nothing nice about a SJW.

There's nothing nice about what they're against either.

wrong, there's nothing nice about tolerating criminals and backwards, dangerous cultures, unless you never have to leave your gated ivory tower...then it is nice...or must be nice I guess.

Pretty sure they don't support ISIS. And supporting criminals isn't that controversial, for example I support the crime of cannabis consumption. Terrible I know, throw my in jail. It must be hard to see from your backwards swamp of a trailer park.

well.. that explains alot.

Save your noble indignation for some one else.
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2016 4:28:36 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/16/2016 8:45:44 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/16/2016 8:35:50 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/16/2016 8:33:47 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/16/2016 8:24:01 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/16/2016 5:55:44 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/16/2016 5:12:01 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/16/2016 4:12:05 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
You do realize that Orwell was a socialist who believed in social justice, right?

Social justice warriors are not in favor of social justice what so ever. The term is satire if you didn't realize.

Lol yes SJW's are satirizing America by reflecting its historically hateful nature in reverse.

lol... there's nothing nice about a SJW.

There's nothing nice about what they're against either.

wrong, there's nothing nice about tolerating criminals and backwards, dangerous cultures, unless you never have to leave your gated ivory tower...then it is nice...or must be nice I guess.

Pretty sure they don't support ISIS. And supporting criminals isn't that controversial, for example I support the crime of cannabis consumption. Terrible I know, throw my in jail. It must be hard to see from your backwards swamp of a trailer park.

It's not just ISIS, but most of the middle east and muslim majority countries are very backwards and reactionary.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2016 10:18:37 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/16/2016 4:28:36 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/16/2016 8:45:44 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/16/2016 8:35:50 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/16/2016 8:33:47 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/16/2016 8:24:01 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/16/2016 5:55:44 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/16/2016 5:12:01 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/16/2016 4:12:05 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
You do realize that Orwell was a socialist who believed in social justice, right?

Social justice warriors are not in favor of social justice what so ever. The term is satire if you didn't realize.

Lol yes SJW's are satirizing America by reflecting its historically hateful nature in reverse.

lol... there's nothing nice about a SJW.

There's nothing nice about what they're against either.

wrong, there's nothing nice about tolerating criminals and backwards, dangerous cultures, unless you never have to leave your gated ivory tower...then it is nice...or must be nice I guess.

Pretty sure they don't support ISIS. And supporting criminals isn't that controversial, for example I support the crime of cannabis consumption. Terrible I know, throw my in jail. It must be hard to see from your backwards swamp of a trailer park.

It's not just ISIS, but most of the middle east and muslim majority countries are very backwards and reactionary.

And usually those backwards people stay in their own country. Those that don't want to be around such repression leave. But you assume they are all backwards.
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/16/2016 10:29:14 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/16/2016 10:18:37 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/16/2016 4:28:36 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/16/2016 8:45:44 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/16/2016 8:35:50 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/16/2016 8:33:47 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/16/2016 8:24:01 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/16/2016 5:55:44 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/16/2016 5:12:01 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/16/2016 4:12:05 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
You do realize that Orwell was a socialist who believed in social justice, right?

Social justice warriors are not in favor of social justice what so ever. The term is satire if you didn't realize.

Lol yes SJW's are satirizing America by reflecting its historically hateful nature in reverse.

lol... there's nothing nice about a SJW.

There's nothing nice about what they're against either.

wrong, there's nothing nice about tolerating criminals and backwards, dangerous cultures, unless you never have to leave your gated ivory tower...then it is nice...or must be nice I guess.

Pretty sure they don't support ISIS. And supporting criminals isn't that controversial, for example I support the crime of cannabis consumption. Terrible I know, throw my in jail. It must be hard to see from your backwards swamp of a trailer park.

It's not just ISIS, but most of the middle east and muslim majority countries are very backwards and reactionary.

And usually those backwards people stay in their own country.
Yet some want to accept mass migration of "refugees" of people coming from the middle east.

Those that don't want to be around such repression leave. But you assume they are all backwards.
The vast majority of them are, just tell me how many countries in the middle east don't have sharia/islamic law.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2016 1:55:20 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/16/2016 10:29:14 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/16/2016 10:18:37 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/16/2016 4:28:36 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/16/2016 8:45:44 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/16/2016 8:35:50 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/16/2016 8:33:47 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/16/2016 8:24:01 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/16/2016 5:55:44 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/16/2016 5:12:01 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/16/2016 4:12:05 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
You do realize that Orwell was a socialist who believed in social justice, right?

Social justice warriors are not in favor of social justice what so ever. The term is satire if you didn't realize.

Lol yes SJW's are satirizing America by reflecting its historically hateful nature in reverse.

lol... there's nothing nice about a SJW.

There's nothing nice about what they're against either.

wrong, there's nothing nice about tolerating criminals and backwards, dangerous cultures, unless you never have to leave your gated ivory tower...then it is nice...or must be nice I guess.

Pretty sure they don't support ISIS. And supporting criminals isn't that controversial, for example I support the crime of cannabis consumption. Terrible I know, throw my in jail. It must be hard to see from your backwards swamp of a trailer park.

It's not just ISIS, but most of the middle east and muslim majority countries are very backwards and reactionary.

And usually those backwards people stay in their own country.
Yet some want to accept mass migration of "refugees" of people coming from the middle east.

Those that don't want to be around such repression leave. But you assume they are all backwards.
The vast majority of them are, just tell me how many countries in the middle east don't have sharia/islamic law.

I think you're missing the point that those leaving said backwards countries, especially fleeing ISIS, don't plan on converting the local population or impose their theocratic legal code on others in the West. Refugees are fleeing ISIS, they are not ISIS. They are not all advocates of sharia law. If you make such a generalization you could be in effect banning moderate and secular arabs from entering the country.

I know, Europe is currently experiencing ethnic tensions with refugees and whites. It's not a homogeneous outcome across the country, some countries have better policies than others that aid integration. But demonizing them and treating them like monsters only makes them more isolated and likely to radicalize.
triangle.128k
Posts: 3,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2016 3:28:20 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/17/2016 1:55:20 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/16/2016 10:29:14 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/16/2016 10:18:37 PM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/16/2016 4:28:36 PM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/16/2016 8:45:44 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/16/2016 8:35:50 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/16/2016 8:33:47 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/16/2016 8:24:01 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/16/2016 5:55:44 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/16/2016 5:12:01 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/16/2016 4:12:05 AM, BrendanD19 wrote:
You do realize that Orwell was a socialist who believed in social justice, right?

Social justice warriors are not in favor of social justice what so ever. The term is satire if you didn't realize.

Lol yes SJW's are satirizing America by reflecting its historically hateful nature in reverse.

lol... there's nothing nice about a SJW.

There's nothing nice about what they're against either.

wrong, there's nothing nice about tolerating criminals and backwards, dangerous cultures, unless you never have to leave your gated ivory tower...then it is nice...or must be nice I guess.

Pretty sure they don't support ISIS. And supporting criminals isn't that controversial, for example I support the crime of cannabis consumption. Terrible I know, throw my in jail. It must be hard to see from your backwards swamp of a trailer park.

It's not just ISIS, but most of the middle east and muslim majority countries are very backwards and reactionary.

And usually those backwards people stay in their own country.
Yet some want to accept mass migration of "refugees" of people coming from the middle east.

Those that don't want to be around such repression leave. But you assume they are all backwards.
The vast majority of them are, just tell me how many countries in the middle east don't have sharia/islamic law.

I think you're missing the point that those leaving said backwards countries, especially fleeing ISIS, don't plan on converting the local population or impose their theocratic legal code on others in the West.
Some of them are. May I remind you of the many violent incidents caused by "refugees"? Just look at Malmo in Sweden, that place has become an absolute disaster thanks to radical Islam and Sweden's overly generous immigration policy.

Refugees are fleeing ISIS, they are not ISIS. They are not all advocates of sharia law. If you make such a generalization you could be in effect banning moderate and secular arabs from entering the country.

More moderate forms of sharia law do exist. Saudi Arabia and Iran are prime examples. Is it reasonable to be careful on letting in immigrants from such areas and ensuring they do not support any of the reactionary and backwards views which Sharia law is in favor of?

Furthermore, you need to note that many "refugees" are not even refugees, but economic migrants taking advantage of the situation. And none the less, many refugees are refusing to assimilate properly into their host country's culture.

I know, Europe is currently experiencing ethnic tensions with refugees and whites. It's not a homogeneous outcome across the country, some countries have better policies than others that aid integration. But demonizing them and treating them like monsters only makes them more isolated and likely to radicalize.
I'm not demonizing all of them, but acknowledging the problem. And it has become too politically incorrect to even acknowledge the problem in many places in Europe, especially with the media and hate speech laws reacting negatively.

Truth be told, Western Europe should either stop accepting any more middle eastern migrants, or impose heavy restrictions and quotas to ensure that only the best out of the bunch are coming in.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2016 4:20:23 AM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/17/2016 3:28:20 AM, triangle.128k wrote:
At 11/17/2016 1:55:20 AM, Bennett91 wrote:

I think you're missing the point that those leaving said backwards countries, especially fleeing ISIS, don't plan on converting the local population or impose their theocratic legal code on others in the West.

Some of them are. May I remind you of the many violent incidents caused by "refugees"? Just look at Malmo in Sweden, that place has become an absolute disaster thanks to radical Islam and Sweden's overly generous immigration policy.

Refugees that cause violent crime should indeed be punished, same as native Europeans. You'll have to send a link about Malmo. Sweden has been a source of hype. http://www.theglobeandmail.com...

Refugees are fleeing ISIS, they are not ISIS. They are not all advocates of sharia law. If you make such a generalization you could be in effect banning moderate and secular arabs from entering the country.

More moderate forms of sharia law do exist. Saudi Arabia and Iran are prime examples. Is it reasonable to be careful on letting in immigrants from such areas and ensuring they do not support any of the reactionary and backwards views which Sharia law is in favor of?

Sure, but this is different from a total ban, and is already US policy under Obama and Trudeau. In Europe there are so many that it's not as easy to screen them.

Furthermore, you need to note that many "refugees" are not even refugees, but economic migrants taking advantage of the situation. And none the less, many refugees are refusing to assimilate properly into their host country's culture.

Many are from Libya, where if you remember a civil war is also happening. But if you have a source on the break down I'd like to see it. In terms of assimilation as I've said there are better policies in place than others. Turks in Germany are doing quite well (a sign islam is not a barrier to Western society). Germany also funds culture/integration programs. France putting their refugees in ghettos doesn't seem to be promoting social harmony.

I know, Europe is currently experiencing ethnic tensions with refugees and whites. It's not a homogeneous outcome across the country, some countries have better policies than others that aid integration. But demonizing them and treating them like monsters only makes them more isolated and likely to radicalize.
I'm not demonizing all of them, but acknowledging the problem. And it has become too politically incorrect to even acknowledge the problem in many places in Europe, especially with the media and hate speech laws reacting negatively.

Truth be told, Western Europe should either stop accepting any more middle eastern migrants, or impose heavy restrictions and quotas to ensure that only the best out of the bunch are coming in.

What do you think about the general humanitarian idea of helping those fleeing war torn countries?
Maccabee
Posts: 1,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2016 4:18:12 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/14/2016 10:42:06 PM, Devilry wrote:
Nice little read. I like his homophobia too.
What homophobia?
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born
Devilry
Posts: 465
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2016 4:33:33 PM
Posted: 3 weeks ago
At 11/17/2016 4:18:12 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 11/14/2016 10:42:06 PM, Devilry wrote:
Nice little read. I like his homophobia too.
What homophobia?

He was pretty homophobic dude. Look it up.

I think he was just a very hard sort of person, though, and just couldn't respect the softness you find in homosexuals. There's nothing really to despise about him in it.
: : : At 11/15/2016 6:22:17 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
: That's not racism. Thats economics.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,249
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/18/2016 8:27:29 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/17/2016 4:33:33 PM, Devilry wrote:
At 11/17/2016 4:18:12 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 11/14/2016 10:42:06 PM, Devilry wrote:
Nice little read. I like his homophobia too.
What homophobia?

He was pretty homophobic dude. Look it up.

I think he was just a very hard sort of person, though, and just couldn't respect the softness you find in homosexuals. There's nothing really to despise about him in it.

This might have had something to do with the fact that, in his view, leftist policies were being held back by people's disdain for leftists themselves. "It would help enormously,
for instance, if the smell of crankishness which still clings to the Socialist movement
could be dispelled. If only the sandals and the pistachio-coloured shirts
could be put in a pile and burnt, and every vegetarian, teetotaller, and creeping
Jesus sent home to Welwyn Garden City to do his yoga exercises quietly!"

He really wanted socialism to triumph, and he saw the homosexual-esque leftist as a threat to that since they're just too unbearable in most people's eyes.
Maccabee
Posts: 1,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 4:35:19 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 11/17/2016 4:33:33 PM, Devilry wrote:
At 11/17/2016 4:18:12 PM, Maccabee wrote:
At 11/14/2016 10:42:06 PM, Devilry wrote:
Nice little read. I like his homophobia too.
What homophobia?

He was pretty homophobic dude. Look it up.

I think he was just a very hard sort of person, though, and just couldn't respect the softness you find in homosexuals. There's nothing really to despise about him in it.

Can you give me an example? My definition of "homophobia" maybe different from yours.
Scripture, facts, stats, and logic is how I argue

Evolutionism is a religion, not science

When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.

"If guns are the cause of crimes then aren't matches the cause of arson?" D. Boys

"If the death penalty is government sanctioned killing then isn't inprisonment is government sanction kidnapping?" D. B

"Why do you trust the government with machine guns but not honest citizens?" D. B

All those who are pro-death (abortion) is already born