Depriving refugee groups of an entire generation of young men does not seem like a good way to start a living community in any of their new host countries. To say the least.
Also, what kind of reaction would that get from potential refugees who are trying desperately to escape conscription or slaughter? "We'll take your women and kids, but you, you're just too dangerous, so go back home to die or starve in a ditch on the way"?
Who have almost all the power and foment pathetic tribal strifes throughout the region? Men.
When you live in a patriarchal culture, the other side of the deal is that you are more expendable and that you die before the women, children and elderly do. You're the big man in charge in most areas of society? Then you get to the lifeboat last.
Also, the men who are already indoctrinated with these failed, obsolete, tribal and survival-based, anti-individual cultures? They're the one's most likely to mess things up for all the other immigrants by acting like children who navigate the world via pride, vanity, greed, chauvinism and violence, and teach other men/adolescents to do the same. They're the ones that make it politically difficult to take in more people at risk of violent death and starvation. From a utilitarian and resource-based standpoint, rejecting all humans with Y-chromosomes between 13 (maybe 15)-63 years of age is an excellent decision. They'll get their rewards in heaven for being self-sacrificing, responsible men, no?
This is a helluva way to refer to refugees. Your empathy sure knows bounds.
Like I said - hate of Islam and complaining about its views of women and gays correlate surprisingly strongly with hatred of Western feminism and "Orwellian" tolerance enforcement when it comes to LGBT-issues.
Seriously, if you have to put out modesty rules for teens at swimming pools because packs of non-Western immigrants will follow your children and sexually harass them if they're wearing the swimsuit they want to wear and then laugh it off as "two cultures coming together", if you're letting in people like this asshole
Mr. Kelifa, the African asylum seeker, said he still had a hard time accepting that a wife could accuse her husband of rape. But he added that he had learned how to read previously baffling signals from women who wear short skirts, smile or simply walk alone at night without an escort.
“Men have weaknesses and when they see someone smiling it is difficult to control,” Mr. Kelifa said, explaining that in his own country, Eritrea, “if someone wants a lady he can just take her and he will not be punished,” at least not by the police.
then I'd say you have a problem. There's nothing wrong with not wanting to let people in who take a Bronze Age view of rape.
Hate to break this to you, dude. But...a lot of people here in the west believe that shit. They're called MRAs. Go read Roosh or Paul Elam's Twitter accounts and tell me if you can spot a difference between what you quoted and what they're saying. Also, grown-ass white men sexualize teens and children all the time. Some as early as 9 years old. Don't pretend this is exclusive to "dirty Arabs".
So this means we need to add to our nasty problem by letting in others who would make it worse? Do you stop forest fires by adding more fire?
Seriously, if you have to put out modesty rules for teens at swimming pools because packs of non-Western immigrants will follow your children and sexually harass them if they're wearing the swimsuit they want to wear and then laugh it off as "two cultures coming together", if you're letting in people like this asshole
Mr. Kelifa, the African asylum seeker, said he still had a hard time accepting that a wife could accuse her husband of rape. But he added that he had learned how to read previously baffling signals from women who wear short skirts, smile or simply walk alone at night without an escort.
“Men have weaknesses and when they see someone smiling it is difficult to control,” Mr. Kelifa said, explaining that in his own country, Eritrea, “if someone wants a lady he can just take her and he will not be punished,” at least not by the police.
then I'd say you have a problem. There's nothing wrong with not wanting to let people in who take a Bronze Age view of rape.
Hate to break this to you, dude. But...a lot of people here in the west believe that shit. They're called MRAs. Go read Roosh or Paul Elam's Twitter accounts and tell me if you can spot a difference between what you quoted and what they're saying. Also, grown-ass white men sexualize teens and children all the time. Some as early as 9 years old. Don't pretend this is exclusive to "dirty Arabs".
So this means we need to add to our nasty problem by letting in others who would make it worse? Do you stop forest fires by adding more fire?
Well I doubt electing the quite nasty variant of the problem is going to help with the arguably nastier, brown and bacon-spurning variant of the nasty problem.
Seriously, if you have to put out modesty rules for teens at swimming pools because packs of non-Western immigrants will follow your children and sexually harass them if they're wearing the swimsuit they want to wear and then laugh it off as "two cultures coming together", if you're letting in people like this asshole
Mr. Kelifa, the African asylum seeker, said he still had a hard time accepting that a wife could accuse her husband of rape. But he added that he had learned how to read previously baffling signals from women who wear short skirts, smile or simply walk alone at night without an escort.
“Men have weaknesses and when they see someone smiling it is difficult to control,” Mr. Kelifa said, explaining that in his own country, Eritrea, “if someone wants a lady he can just take her and he will not be punished,” at least not by the police.
then I'd say you have a problem. There's nothing wrong with not wanting to let people in who take a Bronze Age view of rape.
Hate to break this to you, dude. But...a lot of people here in the west believe that shit. They're called MRAs. Go read Roosh or Paul Elam's Twitter accounts and tell me if you can spot a difference between what you quoted and what they're saying. Also, grown-ass white men sexualize teens and children all the time. Some as early as 9 years old. Don't pretend this is exclusive to "dirty Arabs".
So this means we need to add to our nasty problem by letting in others who would add to it? Do you stop fires by adding more fire?
So...no one should be allowed in the country, and no one in the country should be allowed to reproduce? We can eliminate rape in Europe within a century!
I guess a good start would be a decently funded educational program for arrivals from problematic regions going over the dos and don'ts and making it clear in no uncertain terms they will get thrown in prison for molesting women, mutilating their daughters, beating up a gay person, etc (however they have the right to argue that such things should be legal!)
like, sometimes this is legitimately a surprise to people
I'm reminded of a few years ago an immigrant from rural mexico sold his daughter to someone in California and the authorities had to explain that you can't do that in the US because he had, until that time, absolutely no idea it was illegal
The justice system in Nordic countries is so far from being a deterrent, it's not even funny. Prison is likely to have better habitation and food compared to the refugee centres, sentences are short, and there is no risk of expulsion from the country. Every option is basically a massive burden on the taxpayer, as prison, theoretical expulsion (which isn't going to happen as things are), and simply caring for the refugees are all very expensive, in an already depressed (and relatively small/limited) economy. There is little prospect of refugees gaining employment, or contributing in any way to the economy in the foreseeable future either, so when you mix in increased crime and other bullshit, it's not hard to understand why many people are against letting the refugees in.
Especially when you consider that to reach the north, they need to pass through a multitude of safe countries, so they are no longer under any threat of death/torture. It's very much a situation of trying to weigh how much merit the idea of setting yourself on fire to warm someone else is worth. There is no credible upside beyond the humanitarian ideological side, which is tenuous at best when you get to the end of the road countries in Europe.
But that is all racist according to many people. Statistics were invented by the nazis, don'tchaknow.
If it's not a deterrent, why is their recidivism rate so low?
Seriously, if you have to put out modesty rules for teens at swimming pools because packs of non-Western immigrants will follow your children and sexually harass them if they're wearing the swimsuit they want to wear and then laugh it off as "two cultures coming together", if you're letting in people like this asshole
Mr. Kelifa, the African asylum seeker, said he still had a hard time accepting that a wife could accuse her husband of rape. But he added that he had learned how to read previously baffling signals from women who wear short skirts, smile or simply walk alone at night without an escort.
“Men have weaknesses and when they see someone smiling it is difficult to control,” Mr. Kelifa said, explaining that in his own country, Eritrea, “if someone wants a lady he can just take her and he will not be punished,” at least not by the police.
then I'd say you have a problem. There's nothing wrong with not wanting to let people in who take a Bronze Age view of rape.
Hate to break this to you, dude. But...a lot of people here in the west believe that shit. They're called MRAs. Go read Roosh or Paul Elam's Twitter accounts and tell me if you can spot a difference between what you quoted and what they're saying. Also, grown-ass white men sexualize teens and children all the time. Some as early as 9 years old. Don't pretend this is exclusive to "dirty Arabs".
I think there is perhaps some middle ground between...
"All people from the middle east are bad, they don't respect women and refuse to integrate into our society"
and
"Men are all terrible everywhere with no differentiation, so we should just let in everyone."
Also, people who are from your country are naturally your problem. Noone else should have to deal with them. We have a responsibility to help those from other countries in need, but its not infinite.
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
+2
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
I love issues like this where it splits between 2 planks of an ideological platform, just to see where people fall on the issue. Like the right-wing position on this issue is uninteresting, they wanted the immigrants gone before this happened.
But seeing the left deciding between abandoning feminism or multimulturalism, that is really interesting. It's basically a way to ask "would you rather have more rape or more racism" and get an answer.
Holy false dichotomy Batman. You don't have to abandon either one.
In fact most of the points you see on this from the Left are based on both those concepts, as the argument is both against sexual assault and against blaming all people of vaguely foreign brown descent for these incidents.
The refugee/immigration issue is more of a specific point than 'sexual assault is it okay?' or 'Brown people-are they all criminals?'. The argument is over policy.
'It is okay to increase the risk of sexual assault on our citizens, because the refuges are facing death' vs 'Increasing the risk of sexual assault on our citizens is unacceptable, no matter how dire the situation for the refugees'
That is a real dichotomy that Europe is choosing between.
Yes, you also get the 3rd option, which is basically to pretend that these mass sexual assaults are in no way related to these very specific groups of immigrants. Often with a dash of criticism of how western countries currently handles gender issues, or a 'but these countries are terrible and we are allies with them'. But those responses are just pretending the issue isn't there, rather than make a determination.
This is like saying Bill Cosby raped people because he's black. Come on, dude.
I do not see the equivalence and invite you to make your objection clearer - I recommend avoiding analogy and simile as they are inevitably divisive.
I would point out that "black" is a subculture, not a superculture and that the sentiments expressed by the third paragraph are paraphrasing of famous and regretable statements on gender issues by muslims who have come to the west.
My point is that Bill Cosby has raped just as many, if not more women, than the men in Cologne, and he is not held to nearly the same level as scruity as the entire Muslim faith is by people feigning the most outrage over this.* Furthermore, feminists holding Bill Cosby's feet to the fire over his horrid actions show that feminism and racial unity isn't a dichotomy.
Another example is Rotherham. People want to implicate all Muslims for the actions of 5 Pakistani men? I can think of another highly religious country complicit in the mass rape of just as many, if not more children. It's called Vatican City. I don't see any calls to ban Catholics from Europe. Hell, 100% of the rapists listed were men. Where's the call to ban all men from Europe?
Overall, my point is that if you're going to levy the actions of a few people onto an entire community, you have to apply those standards universally. Not doing so is bigoted, irrational, and hypocritical.
These are all points to be discussed but only the third one has any possible connection to Cosby and being black and is the product of deeply flawed reasoning.
Being black tells us little about the likely content of one's beliefs and attitudes might be toward women - certainly not once controlled for religion, nationality and other such factors. Being a Muslim from any number of MENA countries in fact does - born out by statistical and polling data. And from first principles there is no necessary connection between the colour of one's skin and their beliefs and attitudes. There is one between one's religiousity and culture and one's beliefs and attitudes because the former is encompassed by the former by definition. So the equivalence doesn't get off of the ground. The concerns may still be unfounded but not for the reason given.
As for the first part, multiple rapes are not really held in the same disregard as a gang rape especially if they are backed by complete beliefs and intentions of rape as punishment and so forth. Rightly or wrongly people adjudicate the heinousness of an act in part by the nature of the motivations. Further,ore the type of rape is at first blush more horrific. Obviously your implication is a sort of racism or irrational bias is at play, but unless you can eliminate other factors, I don't really see the conclusion as obviously more plausible.
As for the 5 Pakistani men vs all of Pakistan or the MENA countries or The Islamic World as a whole - I don't think that anyone was doing anything of the sort, instead decrying the apparent police underresponse due to "cultural sensitivity" or at least the perception thereof.
I am also unsure who you are addressing with the Cosby vs feigned outrage thing - are you talking about US commentators, EU commentators, posters in the thread, an unnamed alternative Internet community, something else?
Seriously, if you have to put out modesty rules for teens at swimming pools because packs of non-Western immigrants will follow your children and sexually harass them if they're wearing the swimsuit they want to wear and then laugh it off as "two cultures coming together", if you're letting in people like this asshole
Mr. Kelifa, the African asylum seeker, said he still had a hard time accepting that a wife could accuse her husband of rape. But he added that he had learned how to read previously baffling signals from women who wear short skirts, smile or simply walk alone at night without an escort.
“Men have weaknesses and when they see someone smiling it is difficult to control,” Mr. Kelifa said, explaining that in his own country, Eritrea, “if someone wants a lady he can just take her and he will not be punished,” at least not by the police.
then I'd say you have a problem. There's nothing wrong with not wanting to let people in who take a Bronze Age view of rape.
Hate to break this to you, dude. But...a lot of people here in the west believe that shit. They're called MRAs. Go read Roosh or Paul Elam's Twitter accounts and tell me if you can spot a difference between what you quoted and what they're saying. Also, grown-ass white men sexualize teens and children all the time. Some as early as 9 years old. Don't pretend this is exclusive to "dirty Arabs".
I think there is perhaps some middle ground between...
"All people from the middle east are bad, they don't respect women and refuse to integrate into our society"
and
"Men are all terrible everywhere with no differentiation, so we should just let in everyone."
Also, people who are from your country are naturally your problem. Noone else should have to deal with them. We have a responsibility to help those from other countries in need, but its not infinite.
Yeah, it's called "holding everyone to the same standards". I'm a huge fan of it.
Like I said - hate of Islam and complaining about its views of women and gays correlate surprisingly strongly with hatred of Western feminism and "Orwellian" tolerance enforcement when it comes to LGBT-issues.
I am not personally of the opinion that edgy humour and tweets accurately reflect the content of peoples' beliefs
Seriously, if you have to put out modesty rules for teens at swimming pools because packs of non-Western immigrants will follow your children and sexually harass them if they're wearing the swimsuit they want to wear and then laugh it off as "two cultures coming together", if you're letting in people like this asshole
Mr. Kelifa, the African asylum seeker, said he still had a hard time accepting that a wife could accuse her husband of rape. But he added that he had learned how to read previously baffling signals from women who wear short skirts, smile or simply walk alone at night without an escort.
“Men have weaknesses and when they see someone smiling it is difficult to control,” Mr. Kelifa said, explaining that in his own country, Eritrea, “if someone wants a lady he can just take her and he will not be punished,” at least not by the police.
then I'd say you have a problem. There's nothing wrong with not wanting to let people in who take a Bronze Age view of rape.
Hate to break this to you, dude. But...a lot of people here in the west believe that shit. They're called MRAs. Go read Roosh or Paul Elam's Twitter accounts and tell me if you can spot a difference between what you quoted and what they're saying. Also, grown-ass white men sexualize teens and children all the time. Some as early as 9 years old. Don't pretend this is exclusive to "dirty Arabs".
So this means we need to add to our nasty problem by letting in others who would add to it? Do you stop fires by adding more fire?
So...no one should be allowed in the country, and no one in the country should be allowed to reproduce? We can eliminate rape in Europe within a century!
No but we can find an effective way to deal with our own problems before we start sticking our nose in new ones. I mean really. We are somehow letting people into the country without letting them know what the normal rules and social customs are here? Who the fuck thought this was a good idea?
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Depriving refugee groups of an entire generation of young men does not seem like a good way to start a living community in any of their new host countries. To say the least.
Also, what kind of reaction would that get from potential refugees who are trying desperately to escape conscription or slaughter? "We'll take your women and kids, but you, you're just too dangerous, so go back home to die or starve in a ditch on the way"?
Who have almost all the power and foment pathetic tribal strifes throughout the region? Men.
When you live in a patriarchal culture, the other side of the deal is that you are more expendable and that you die before the women, children and elderly do. You're the big man in charge in most areas of society? Then you get to the lifeboat last.
Also, the men who are already indoctrinated with these failed, obsolete, tribal and survival-based, anti-individual cultures? They're the one's most likely to mess things up for all the other immigrants by acting like children who navigate the world via pride, vanity, greed, chauvinism and violence, and teach other men/adolescents to do the same. They're the ones that make it politically difficult to take in more people at risk of violent death and starvation. From a utilitarian and resource-based standpoint, rejecting all humans with Y-chromosomes between 13 (maybe 15)-63 years of age is an excellent decision. They'll get their rewards in heaven for being self-sacrificing, responsible men, no?
This sort of logic is a little incomplete, because the ethnic Christians and so forth aren't the ones in power, and aren't likely to hold the same entirely regressive attitudes.
On the other hand, a Shiite in a majority Sunni area attempting to escape a massacre or vice versa isn't the big man and doesn't hold the sort of sway you are attributing.
Seriously, if you have to put out modesty rules for teens at swimming pools because packs of non-Western immigrants will follow your children and sexually harass them if they're wearing the swimsuit they want to wear and then laugh it off as "two cultures coming together", if you're letting in people like this asshole
Mr. Kelifa, the African asylum seeker, said he still had a hard time accepting that a wife could accuse her husband of rape. But he added that he had learned how to read previously baffling signals from women who wear short skirts, smile or simply walk alone at night without an escort.
“Men have weaknesses and when they see someone smiling it is difficult to control,” Mr. Kelifa said, explaining that in his own country, Eritrea, “if someone wants a lady he can just take her and he will not be punished,” at least not by the police.
then I'd say you have a problem. There's nothing wrong with not wanting to let people in who take a Bronze Age view of rape.
Hate to break this to you, dude. But...a lot of people here in the west believe that shit. They're called MRAs. Go read Roosh or Paul Elam's Twitter accounts and tell me if you can spot a difference between what you quoted and what they're saying. Also, grown-ass white men sexualize teens and children all the time. Some as early as 9 years old. Don't pretend this is exclusive to "dirty Arabs".
I think there is perhaps some middle ground between...
"All people from the middle east are bad, they don't respect women and refuse to integrate into our society"
and
"Men are all terrible everywhere with no differentiation, so we should just let in everyone."
Also, people who are from your country are naturally your problem. Noone else should have to deal with them. We have a responsibility to help those from other countries in need, but its not infinite.
Yeah, it's called "holding everyone to the same standards". I'm a huge fan of it.
No, you don't hold everyone to the same standards.
If someone who was born in your country and is a citizen says,
"Women should be no more than property, I don't respect them. I think we should treat them like chattel"
Then you should be disgusted by what they say, speak against it, wait for them to commit a crime and then arrest them if they do.
If someone seeking asylum in your country says,
"Women should be no more than property, I don't respect them. I think we should treat them like chattel"
Then I will assume they will not treat women with respect and not grant them admission to the country, instead letting in someone whose views are more ammenable to the society I want to have.
This is not holding everyone to the same standards. You can't deport your own citizens, or penalize them for their beliefs. If someone seeks entry to your country, to become a citizen, then you can penalize them for their beliefs. Just because a society already has elements which hold abhorrent views which undermine the progress of liberty and equality, doesn't mean you should let in more.
I love issues like this where it splits between 2 planks of an ideological platform, just to see where people fall on the issue. Like the right-wing position on this issue is uninteresting, they wanted the immigrants gone before this happened.
But seeing the left deciding between abandoning feminism or multimulturalism, that is really interesting. It's basically a way to ask "would you rather have more rape or more racism" and get an answer.
Holy false dichotomy Batman. You don't have to abandon either one.
In fact most of the points you see on this from the Left are based on both those concepts, as the argument is both against sexual assault and against blaming all people of vaguely foreign brown descent for these incidents.
The refugee/immigration issue is more of a specific point than 'sexual assault is it okay?' or 'Brown people-are they all criminals?'. The argument is over policy.
'It is okay to increase the risk of sexual assault on our citizens, because the refuges are facing death' vs 'Increasing the risk of sexual assault on our citizens is unacceptable, no matter how dire the situation for the refugees'
That is a real dichotomy that Europe is choosing between.
Yes, you also get the 3rd option, which is basically to pretend that these mass sexual assaults are in no way related to these very specific groups of immigrants. Often with a dash of criticism of how western countries currently handles gender issues, or a 'but these countries are terrible and we are allies with them'. But those responses are just pretending the issue isn't there, rather than make a determination.
This is like saying Bill Cosby raped people because he's black. Come on, dude.
I do not see the equivalence and invite you to make your objection clearer - I recommend avoiding analogy and simile as they are inevitably divisive.
I would point out that "black" is a subculture, not a superculture and that the sentiments expressed by the third paragraph are paraphrasing of famous and regretable statements on gender issues by muslims who have come to the west.
My point is that Bill Cosby has raped just as many, if not more women, than the men in Cologne, and he is not held to nearly the same level as scruity as the entire Muslim faith is by people feigning the most outrage over this.* Furthermore, feminists holding Bill Cosby's feet to the fire over his horrid actions show that feminism and racial unity isn't a dichotomy.
Another example is Rotherham. People want to implicate all Muslims for the actions of 5 Pakistani men? I can think of another highly religious country complicit in the mass rape of just as many, if not more children. It's called Vatican City. I don't see any calls to ban Catholics from Europe. Hell, 100% of the rapists listed were men. Where's the call to ban all men from Europe?
Overall, my point is that if you're going to levy the actions of a few people onto an entire community, you have to apply those standards universally. Not doing so is bigoted, irrational, and hypocritical.
These are all points to be discussed but only the third one has any possible connection to Cosby and being black and is the product of deeply flawed reasoning.
Yes, that was my entire point.
Being black tells us little about the likely content of one's beliefs and attitudes might be toward women - certainly not once controlled for religion, nationality and other such factors. Being a Muslim from any number of MENA countries in fact does - born out by statistical and polling data. And from first principles there is no necessary connection between the colour of one's skin and their beliefs and attitudes. There is one between one's religiousity and culture and one's beliefs and attitudes because the former is encompassed by the former by definition. So the equivalence doesn't get off of the ground. The concerns may still be unfounded but not for the reason given.[/quote]
Oh, please. People whine about how "black culture" is "uncivilized" all the fucking time. This is no different.
As for the first part, multiple rapes are not really held in the same disregard as a gang rape especially if they are backed by complete beliefs and intentions of rape as punishment and so forth. Rightly or wrongly people adjudicate the heinousness of an act in part by the nature of the motivations. Furthermore the type of rape is at first blush more horrific. Obviously your implication is a sort of racism or irrational bias is at play, but unless you can eliminate other factors, I don't really see the conclusion as obviously more plausible.
Right. Westerners have convinced themselves that raping women using drugs is more "civilized" than raping women with violence. Because the end result is less important than whether or not you get your hands dirty.
As for the 5 Pakistani men vs all of Pakistan or the MENA countries or The Islamic World as a whole - I don't think that anyone was doing anything of the sort, instead decrying the apparent police response of underestimate due to "cultural sensitivity" or at least the perception thereof.
And how swiftly were the Catholic rapes handled? The Magdaline Laundries?
I am also unsure who you are addressing with the Cosby vs feigned outrage thing - are you talking about US commentators, EU commentators, posters in the thread, an unnamed alternative Internet community, something else?
The right-wingers most angry about the Cologne attack are the ones most likely to defend Cosby. This is extremely hypocritical for the reasons I've outlined, showing that their outrage is not, in fact, motivated by the horror of rape.
Woaaah. I popped in here to see what was up and I found casual-to-overt racism! Seriously guys?
~slowly backs out of thread~
I don't see any overt racism here. Overt misandry on the part of Absalon, sure. The concerns over refugees haven't been "all dem moose limbs r rapin the wiminz!" The concerns have been over the police responses (non-responses, withholding information from the public about mass attacks ect.) to crimes.
Like I said - hate of Islam and complaining about its views of women and gays correlate surprisingly strongly with hatred of Western feminism and "Orwellian" tolerance enforcement when it comes to LGBT-issues.
I am not personally of the opinion that edgy humour and tweets accurately reflect the content of peoples' beliefs
Seriously, if you have to put out modesty rules for teens at swimming pools because packs of non-Western immigrants will follow your children and sexually harass them if they're wearing the swimsuit they want to wear and then laugh it off as "two cultures coming together", if you're letting in people like this asshole
Mr. Kelifa, the African asylum seeker, said he still had a hard time accepting that a wife could accuse her husband of rape. But he added that he had learned how to read previously baffling signals from women who wear short skirts, smile or simply walk alone at night without an escort.
“Men have weaknesses and when they see someone smiling it is difficult to control,” Mr. Kelifa said, explaining that in his own country, Eritrea, “if someone wants a lady he can just take her and he will not be punished,” at least not by the police.
then I'd say you have a problem. There's nothing wrong with not wanting to let people in who take a Bronze Age view of rape.
Hate to break this to you, dude. But...a lot of people here in the west believe that shit. They're called MRAs. Go read Roosh or Paul Elam's Twitter accounts and tell me if you can spot a difference between what you quoted and what they're saying. Also, grown-ass white men sexualize teens and children all the time. Some as early as 9 years old. Don't pretend this is exclusive to "dirty Arabs".
So this means we need to add to our nasty problem by letting in others who would add to it? Do you stop fires by adding more fire?
So...no one should be allowed in the country, and no one in the country should be allowed to reproduce? We can eliminate rape in Europe within a century!
No but we can find an effective way to deal with our own problems before we start sticking our nose in new ones. I mean really. We are somehow letting people into the country without letting them know what the normal rules and social customs are here? Who the fuck thought this was a good idea?
Well, MRAs get REALLY offended if you try to teach men not to rape. So blame them.
One woman was attacked and raped, yes. The current allegations are that some sort of immigrant crime ring organized a mass rape across the entirety of Germany.
I can't believe you (and everyone else who repeats the party line) are treating someone who was gang-raped in public like she was an actor at Sandy Hook. It happened. She was raped. The women in Cologne were attacked. The children in Rothertham were sex slaves. I know it's kind of hard to believe after what they fed us in college, but not everything about non-Western cultures is worthy of respect.
Yes, the 'western standards'.
Yes, Western standards. You know, civilized behavior? The code of rules that make our civilization superior, that let our sisters, daughters and wives walk alone without being attacked?
In 2009 (the most recent year we have data from), Germans committed about 7,300~ rapes within their own borders (about 7.5~ rapes per capita). Convictions for rape in Germany have declined by about 7~ percent over the last 30 years. Like anywhere else in the western standard universe, it's largely a taboo subject where victims are the subject of scrutiny rather than the attackers.
And how many of those attacks are Rothertham-style coverups where police are too afraid to go after immigrants for fear they'll be labelled as xenophobic and racist?
Seriously, if you have to put out modesty rules for teens at swimming pools because packs of non-Western immigrants will follow your children and sexually harass them if they're wearing the swimsuit they want to wear and then laugh it off as "two cultures coming together", if you're letting in people like this asshole
Mr. Kelifa, the African asylum seeker, said he still had a hard time accepting that a wife could accuse her husband of rape. But he added that he had learned how to read previously baffling signals from women who wear short skirts, smile or simply walk alone at night without an escort.
“Men have weaknesses and when they see someone smiling it is difficult to control,” Mr. Kelifa said, explaining that in his own country, Eritrea, “if someone wants a lady he can just take her and he will not be punished,” at least not by the police.
then I'd say you have a problem. There's nothing wrong with not wanting to let people in who take a Bronze Age view of rape.
"Tolerance" does not mean "acceptance". You tolerate a screaming infant on an airline because you're forced to. If, for whatever reason, you feel you must let in massive amounts of people from cultures that view women as property then you force them to go to the anti-rape classes and institute a zero-tolerance policy. None of this "repeated" crap that Merkel's spouting; if a migrant rapes once it's twenty years in prison and a swift throw back to whatever hellhole he came from.
Then why do we need a better way? If there's nothing you know of to improve how can you say the government's just sitting on its hands?
Off the top of my head? Better surveillance. Automated social media crawlers or something- the last couple of times someone went radical and snapped they posted something like "off to jihad! Praise ISIS!" Keep track of who's leaving the country to go visit countries with jihadist training grounds- I know it's easy to get around that by flying to Spain first but maybe they could look at online vacation photos or put informants in radical mosques or something. If they had informants for the Klan they should have them for other suspect groups. And register CAIR as a foreign agent. They're almost as bad as the ADL and they're almost certainly being funded by Iran or one of the Gulf States.
I gotta say it's really strange to watch some of my left-leaning friends rail against rape culture here in the West and then when confronted by far worse rape culture perpetrated by non-Westerners do a 180 and get with the apologetic "you're just xenophobic" and "that's racist". You can be against both, there's nothing stopping you.
Ok, I know @Captain Marcus is jailed right now, but there were enough agrees on this post that I still want to call this out. That "asshole" he quoted? Volunteered for a class in Swedish sexual ethics and proper behavior toward women. After the clickbait quoted in the post, Mr. Kelifa goes on to add, “They can do any job from prime minister to truck driver and have the right to relax [in bars or on the street without being bothered]".
Woaaah. I popped in here to see what was up and I found casual-to-overt racism! Seriously guys?
~slowly backs out of thread~
I don't see any overt racism here. Overt misandry on the part of Absalon, sure. The concerns over refugees haven't been "all dem moose limbs r rapin the wiminz!" The concerns have been over the police responses (non-responses, withholding information from the public about mass attacks ect.) to crimes.
Why is it bigoted to hold 50% of the population accountable for the Cologne attack, but not if you hold 20% accountable? Where's the cut-off?
Edit: Rescinded my original reply. I'll think of a better response.
The sexual ethics class is a brilliant idea, and baffling that it isn't incorporated in every countrys immigration program.
I am all for setting standards for acceptable behavior for immigrants, but we very well can't be expect them to adhere to standards they don't know. If these standards (after taught) are broken by the way of rape and other violent crime, the hammer must come down and the countries have to have a better way of deporting these persons.
The sexual ethics class is a brilliant idea, and baffling that it isn't incorporated in every countrys immigration program.
I am all for setting standards for acceptable behavior for immigrants, but we very well can't be expect them to adhere to standards they don't know. If these standards (after taught) are broken by the way of rape and other violent crime, the hammer must come down and the countries have to have a better way of deporting these persons.
Consent courses are a thing that need to be a LOT more universal. Hell, how many of us grew up with Revenge of the Nerds, not realizing the protagonists were sex offenders?
The sexual ethics class is a brilliant idea, and baffling that it isn't incorporated in every countrys immigration program.
I am all for setting standards for acceptable behavior for immigrants, but we very well can't be expect them to adhere to standards they don't know. If these standards (after taught) are broken by the way of rape and other violent crime, the hammer must come down and the countries have to have a better way of deporting these persons.
Yeah, sexual ethics classes like that should be a thing for everyone, not just immigrants. And not just men (because it is seriously depressing how many women don't know their own rights!).
Calica on
+2
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
I love issues like this where it splits between 2 planks of an ideological platform, just to see where people fall on the issue. Like the right-wing position on this issue is uninteresting, they wanted the immigrants gone before this happened.
But seeing the left deciding between abandoning feminism or multimulturalism, that is really interesting. It's basically a way to ask "would you rather have more rape or more racism" and get an answer.
Holy false dichotomy Batman. You don't have to abandon either one.
In fact most of the points you see on this from the Left are based on both those concepts, as the argument is both against sexual assault and against blaming all people of vaguely foreign brown descent for these incidents.
The refugee/immigration issue is more of a specific point than 'sexual assault is it okay?' or 'Brown people-are they all criminals?'. The argument is over policy.
'It is okay to increase the risk of sexual assault on our citizens, because the refuges are facing death' vs 'Increasing the risk of sexual assault on our citizens is unacceptable, no matter how dire the situation for the refugees'
That is a real dichotomy that Europe is choosing between.
Yes, you also get the 3rd option, which is basically to pretend that these mass sexual assaults are in no way related to these very specific groups of immigrants. Often with a dash of criticism of how western countries currently handles gender issues, or a 'but these countries are terrible and we are allies with them'. But those responses are just pretending the issue isn't there, rather than make a determination.
This is like saying Bill Cosby raped people because he's black. Come on, dude.
I do not see the equivalence and invite you to make your objection clearer - I recommend avoiding analogy and simile as they are inevitably divisive.
I would point out that "black" is a subculture, not a superculture and that the sentiments expressed by the third paragraph are paraphrasing of famous and regretable statements on gender issues by muslims who have come to the west.
My point is that Bill Cosby has raped just as many, if not more women, than the men in Cologne, and he is not held to nearly the same level as scruity as the entire Muslim faith is by people feigning the most outrage over this.* Furthermore, feminists holding Bill Cosby's feet to the fire over his horrid actions show that feminism and racial unity isn't a dichotomy.
Another example is Rotherham. People want to implicate all Muslims for the actions of 5 Pakistani men? I can think of another highly religious country complicit in the mass rape of just as many, if not more children. It's called Vatican City. I don't see any calls to ban Catholics from Europe. Hell, 100% of the rapists listed were men. Where's the call to ban all men from Europe?
Overall, my point is that if you're going to levy the actions of a few people onto an entire community, you have to apply those standards universally. Not doing so is bigoted, irrational, and hypocritical.
These are all points to be discussed but only the third one has any possible connection to Cosby and being black and is the product of deeply flawed reasoning.
Yes, that was my entire point.
Being black tells us little about the likely content of one's beliefs and attitudes might be toward women - certainly not once controlled for religion, nationality and other such factors. Being a Muslim from any number of MENA countries in fact does - born out by statistical and polling data. And from first principles there is no necessary connection between the colour of one's skin and their beliefs and attitudes. There is one between one's religiousity and culture and one's beliefs and attitudes because the former is encompassed by the former by definition. So the equivalence doesn't get off of the ground. The concerns may still be unfounded but not for the reason given.
Oh, please. People whine about how "black culture" is "uncivilized" all the fucking time. This is no different.
As for the first part, multiple rapes are not really held in the same disregard as a gang rape especially if they are backed by complete beliefs and intentions of rape as punishment and so forth. Rightly or wrongly people adjudicate the heinousness of an act in part by the nature of the motivations. Furthermore the type of rape is at first blush more horrific. Obviously your implication is a sort of racism or irrational bias is at play, but unless you can eliminate other factors, I don't really see the conclusion as obviously more plausible.
Right. Westerners have convinced themselves that raping women using drugs is more "civilized" than raping women with violence. Because the end result is less important than whether or not you get your hands dirty.
As for the 5 Pakistani men vs all of Pakistan or the MENA countries or The Islamic World as a whole - I don't think that anyone was doing anything of the sort, instead decrying the apparent police response of underestimate due to "cultural sensitivity" or at least the perception thereof.
And how swiftly were the Catholic rapes handled? The Magdaline Laundries?
I am also unsure who you are addressing with the Cosby vs feigned outrage thing - are you talking about US commentators, EU commentators, posters in the thread, an unnamed alternative Internet community, something else?
The right-wingers most angry about the Cologne attack are the ones most likely to defend Cosby. This is extremely hypocritical for the reasons I've outlined, showing that their outrage is not, in fact, motivated by the horror of rape.
People can whine about whatever they want, but that doesn't make it a meaningful equivalence. I think that we can, as a forum, hold ourselves to a higher standard than the general discourse and allow room for nuance of content rather that a superficial similarity of form.
I cannot really speak to the Magdaline laundries as I am not aware of them but revelations of inaction with regard to Catholic (and other instituional) sexual abuse and child rape is a huge deal and source of massive outrage at the moment in Australia and the subject of one of the largest Royal commissions ever. It is also something that straddles decades and modern under reaction is more shocking because we ARE more aware, more enlightened and we have hugely distressing historical events to have learned from. Furthermore, it is the implication of kid glove treatment due to a reported concern for cultural difference and respect not merely the swiftness that is the source of outrage, which again could be a furphy but it isn't in the fashion you are describing.
I can't speak to it being "civilised" or not but certainly the apparent trauma would be greater in the case of a violent rape rather than the violation of which the victim is unaware. I also thing that murder in which the victim did not suffer is less heinous than that in which the victim was tortured to death. This seems to be pretty basic consequentialist reasoning. And while I feel it ought go without saying, I suspect it will not, a do not endorse any of the actions described.
The sexual ethics class is a brilliant idea, and baffling that it isn't incorporated in every countrys immigration program.
I am all for setting standards for acceptable behavior for immigrants, but we very well can't be expect them to adhere to standards they don't know. If these standards (after taught) are broken by the way of rape and other violent crime, the hammer must come down and the countries have to have a better way of deporting these persons.
Consent courses are a thing that need to be a LOT more universal. Hell, how many of us grew up with Revenge of the Nerds, not realizing the protagonists were sex offenders?
Oh I agree, it's something that everyone could benefit from. My criminal law professor hammered the law-contextual consent problematics into us which showed that it's a very difficult subject.
In the context of immigration, there is a huge problem with immigrants perpetrating rape.
This danish news article from last year states that every third rape is perpetrated by an immigrant which suggests to me that there is cultural problem that need to be addressed sooner than later in the immigration process.
None of this is going to get addressed while the mass migration is going on. Nobody was adequately prepared for this, and now it's kind of a powderkeg
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
One woman was attacked and raped, yes. The current allegations are that some sort of immigrant crime ring organized a mass rape across the entirety of Germany.
I can't believe you (and everyone else who repeats the party line) are treating someone who was gang-raped in public like she was an actor at Sandy Hook. It happened. She was raped. The women in Cologne were attacked. The children in Rothertham were sex slaves. I know it's kind of hard to believe after what they fed us in college, but not everything about non-Western cultures is worthy of respect.
Yes, the 'western standards'.
Yes, Western standards. You know, civilized behavior? The code of rules that make our civilization superior, that let our sisters, daughters and wives walk alone without being attacked?
In 2009 (the most recent year we have data from), Germans committed about 7,300~ rapes within their own borders (about 7.5~ rapes per capita). Convictions for rape in Germany have declined by about 7~ percent over the last 30 years. Like anywhere else in the western standard universe, it's largely a taboo subject where victims are the subject of scrutiny rather than the attackers.
And how many of those attacks are Rothertham-style coverups where police are too afraid to go after immigrants for fear they'll be labelled as xenophobic and racist?
Seriously, if you have to put out modesty rules for teens at swimming pools because packs of non-Western immigrants will follow your children and sexually harass them if they're wearing the swimsuit they want to wear and then laugh it off as "two cultures coming together", if you're letting in people like this asshole
Mr. Kelifa, the African asylum seeker, said he still had a hard time accepting that a wife could accuse her husband of rape. But he added that he had learned how to read previously baffling signals from women who wear short skirts, smile or simply walk alone at night without an escort.
“Men have weaknesses and when they see someone smiling it is difficult to control,” Mr. Kelifa said, explaining that in his own country, Eritrea, “if someone wants a lady he can just take her and he will not be punished,” at least not by the police.
then I'd say you have a problem. There's nothing wrong with not wanting to let people in who take a Bronze Age view of rape.
"Tolerance" does not mean "acceptance". You tolerate a screaming infant on an airline because you're forced to. If, for whatever reason, you feel you must let in massive amounts of people from cultures that view women as property then you force them to go to the anti-rape classes and institute a zero-tolerance policy. None of this "repeated" crap that Merkel's spouting; if a migrant rapes once it's twenty years in prison and a swift throw back to whatever hellhole he came from.
Then why do we need a better way? If there's nothing you know of to improve how can you say the government's just sitting on its hands?
Off the top of my head? Better surveillance. Automated social media crawlers or something- the last couple of times someone went radical and snapped they posted something like "off to jihad! Praise ISIS!" Keep track of who's leaving the country to go visit countries with jihadist training grounds- I know it's easy to get around that by flying to Spain first but maybe they could look at online vacation photos or put informants in radical mosques or something. If they had informants for the Klan they should have them for other suspect groups. And register CAIR as a foreign agent. They're almost as bad as the ADL and they're almost certainly being funded by Iran or one of the Gulf States.
I gotta say it's really strange to watch some of my left-leaning friends rail against rape culture here in the West and then when confronted by far worse rape culture perpetrated by non-Westerners do a 180 and get with the apologetic "you're just xenophobic" and "that's racist". You can be against both, there's nothing stopping you.
Ok, I know @Captain Marcus is jailed right now, but there were enough agrees on this post that I still want to call this out. That "asshole" he quoted? Volunteered for a class in Swedish sexual ethics and proper behavior toward women. After the clickbait quoted in the post, Mr. Kelifa goes on to add, “They can do any job from prime minister to truck driver and have the right to relax [in bars or on the street without being bothered]".
Let's be careful whom we demonize, hmm?
Panda4You NSDFRand LostNinja Absalon "Trey Never" fugacity Yall programjunkie Agahnim TheDrifter
What exactly has he typed that is reprehensible?
I don't agree with increased surveillance because it will end up looking like NYPD surveillance on mosques aka stupid and terrible. But there isn't an "I agree, except for this thing" button.
Other than that, I agree that one shouldn't be accused of being racist or a hypocritical MRA because they state that something is fucked up. Especially in a case where the values of one culture, that it's totes cool to sexually assault women in public because they are wearing a skirt or smiling, clash with the values of the state they are attempting to emigrate to. And just because I agree with that doesn't mean I think it's cool if white guys from my own nation do the same thing.
The sexual ethics class is a brilliant idea, and baffling that it isn't incorporated in every countrys immigration program.
I am all for setting standards for acceptable behavior for immigrants, but we very well can't be expect them to adhere to standards they don't know. If these standards (after taught) are broken by the way of rape and other violent crime, the hammer must come down and the countries have to have a better way of deporting these persons.
Consent courses are a thing that need to be a LOT more universal. Hell, how many of us grew up with Revenge of the Nerds, not realizing the protagonists were sex offenders?
I think that a better understanding of what the various consent related crimes really are needs to go hand in hand with that. Otherwise 'rape' will become just like 'sex offender' itself. A pointless label which tells you nothing about the person it is applied to or what they did.
edit - to describe in more detail.
Sex offender 1 - While on a dare from his buddies, ran unknowingly past a playground with no pants or underwear on. A group of 12 year old girls was upset, and he faced charges for indecent exposure and was placed on the sex offenders list.
Sex offender 2 - Kidnapped women to use them in illegal brothels. After release from jail, he was placed on the sex offenders list.
Sex offender is a meaningless word due to the breadth of things we apply it to.
I love issues like this where it splits between 2 planks of an ideological platform, just to see where people fall on the issue. Like the right-wing position on this issue is uninteresting, they wanted the immigrants gone before this happened.
But seeing the left deciding between abandoning feminism or multimulturalism, that is really interesting. It's basically a way to ask "would you rather have more rape or more racism" and get an answer.
Holy false dichotomy Batman. You don't have to abandon either one.
In fact most of the points you see on this from the Left are based on both those concepts, as the argument is both against sexual assault and against blaming all people of vaguely foreign brown descent for these incidents.
The refugee/immigration issue is more of a specific point than 'sexual assault is it okay?' or 'Brown people-are they all criminals?'. The argument is over policy.
'It is okay to increase the risk of sexual assault on our citizens, because the refuges are facing death' vs 'Increasing the risk of sexual assault on our citizens is unacceptable, no matter how dire the situation for the refugees'
That is a real dichotomy that Europe is choosing between.
Yes, you also get the 3rd option, which is basically to pretend that these mass sexual assaults are in no way related to these very specific groups of immigrants. Often with a dash of criticism of how western countries currently handles gender issues, or a 'but these countries are terrible and we are allies with them'. But those responses are just pretending the issue isn't there, rather than make a determination.
This is like saying Bill Cosby raped people because he's black. Come on, dude.
I do not see the equivalence and invite you to make your objection clearer - I recommend avoiding analogy and simile as they are inevitably divisive.
I would point out that "black" is a subculture, not a superculture and that the sentiments expressed by the third paragraph are paraphrasing of famous and regretable statements on gender issues by muslims who have come to the west.
My point is that Bill Cosby has raped just as many, if not more women, than the men in Cologne, and he is not held to nearly the same level as scruity as the entire Muslim faith is by people feigning the most outrage over this.* Furthermore, feminists holding Bill Cosby's feet to the fire over his horrid actions show that feminism and racial unity isn't a dichotomy.
Another example is Rotherham. People want to implicate all Muslims for the actions of 5 Pakistani men? I can think of another highly religious country complicit in the mass rape of just as many, if not more children. It's called Vatican City. I don't see any calls to ban Catholics from Europe. Hell, 100% of the rapists listed were men. Where's the call to ban all men from Europe?
Overall, my point is that if you're going to levy the actions of a few people onto an entire community, you have to apply those standards universally. Not doing so is bigoted, irrational, and hypocritical.
These are all points to be discussed but only the third one has any possible connection to Cosby and being black and is the product of deeply flawed reasoning.
Yes, that was my entire point.
Being black tells us little about the likely content of one's beliefs and attitudes might be toward women - certainly not once controlled for religion, nationality and other such factors. Being a Muslim from any number of MENA countries in fact does - born out by statistical and polling data. And from first principles there is no necessary connection between the colour of one's skin and their beliefs and attitudes. There is one between one's religiousity and culture and one's beliefs and attitudes because the former is encompassed by the former by definition. So the equivalence doesn't get off of the ground. The concerns may still be unfounded but not for the reason given.
Oh, please. People whine about how "black culture" is "uncivilized" all the fucking time. This is no different.
As for the first part, multiple rapes are not really held in the same disregard as a gang rape especially if they are backed by complete beliefs and intentions of rape as punishment and so forth. Rightly or wrongly people adjudicate the heinousness of an act in part by the nature of the motivations. Furthermore the type of rape is at first blush more horrific. Obviously your implication is a sort of racism or irrational bias is at play, but unless you can eliminate other factors, I don't really see the conclusion as obviously more plausible.
Right. Westerners have convinced themselves that raping women using drugs is more "civilized" than raping women with violence. Because the end result is less important than whether or not you get your hands dirty.
As for the 5 Pakistani men vs all of Pakistan or the MENA countries or The Islamic World as a whole - I don't think that anyone was doing anything of the sort, instead decrying the apparent police response of underestimate due to "cultural sensitivity" or at least the perception thereof.
And how swiftly were the Catholic rapes handled? The Magdaline Laundries?
I am also unsure who you are addressing with the Cosby vs feigned outrage thing - are you talking about US commentators, EU commentators, posters in the thread, an unnamed alternative Internet community, something else?
The right-wingers most angry about the Cologne attack are the ones most likely to defend Cosby. This is extremely hypocritical for the reasons I've outlined, showing that their outrage is not, in fact, motivated by the horror of rape.
People can whine about whatever they want, but that doesn't make it a meaningful equivalence. I think that we can, as a forum, hold ourselves to a higher standard than the general discourse and allow room for nuance of content rather that a superficial similarity of form.
I cannot really speak to the Magdaline laundries as I am not aware of them but revelations of inaction with regard to Catholic (and other instituional) sexual abuse and child rape is a huge deal and source of massive outrage at the moment in Australia and the subject of one of the largest Royal commissions ever. It is also something that straddles decades and modern under reaction is more shocking because we ARE more aware, more enlightened and we have hugely distressing historical events to have learned from. Furthermore, it is the implication of kid glove treatment due to a reported concern for cultural difference and respect not merely the swiftness that is the source of outrage, which again could be a furphy but it isn't in the fashion you are describing.
I can't speak to it being "civilised" or not but certainly the apparent trauma would be greater in the case of a violent rape rather than the violation of which the victim is unaware. I also thing that murder in which the victim did not suffer is less heinous than that in which the victim was tortured to death. This seems to be pretty basic consequentialist reasoning. And while I feel it ought go without saying, I suspect it will not, a do not endorse any of the actions described.
I am holding myself to a higher standard than the general discourse. Which is why I was condemning the general discourse.
I have admitted that quickness is good in handling the situations described. Treating these situations lightly not only fosters the outrage described, but also implicitly claims that their actions are because of their nationality/race/religion (benevolent racism).
While one can make certain psychologal judgements based on the heinousness of the act, in the end of the day, is there really a difference between shooting someone in the head and bashing their skull in with a pipe?
Also, I wouldn't say that someone date raped would experience less trauma that someone violently raped. Don't think that's a rabbit hole we want to go down.
Depriving refugee groups of an entire generation of young men does not seem like a good way to start a living community in any of their new host countries. To say the least.
Also, what kind of reaction would that get from potential refugees who are trying desperately to escape conscription or slaughter? "We'll take your women and kids, but you, you're just too dangerous, so go back home to die or starve in a ditch on the way"?
During 2015 a record number of 35369 unaccompanied minors, 8% of which were female, sought asylum in sweden. The largest group by far was from afghanistan, the official number seems to be sitting at 23480 and most of those showed up during the fall and in contrast the syrians make up less then 4000 and they are the next biggest group. If anything we are depriving their home countries of a whole generation of young men.
But we are hardly talking about several tens of thousand of orphans here, they have families that are most likely stuck in deadend refugee camps, in places like eastern iran when it comes to the afghans. A lot of these people are probably going to be able to demonstrate the need for asylum but the issue has been that the current system isn't built to deal with this many people in such a short timespan and has a lot of weak bleeding heart bullshit built into it so it is starting to show alarming cracks.
Our system of not having any (noticeable) penalties on crimes committed by minors could certainly be said to be one of these weak links.
Suddenly everyone who comes here is 14, and it's been sort of depressing to read stories about 25-30 year olds in living amenities for refugee children stabbing each other ...
One woman was attacked and raped, yes. The current allegations are that some sort of immigrant crime ring organized a mass rape across the entirety of Germany.
I can't believe you (and everyone else who repeats the party line) are treating someone who was gang-raped in public like she was an actor at Sandy Hook. It happened. She was raped. The women in Cologne were attacked. The children in Rothertham were sex slaves. I know it's kind of hard to believe after what they fed us in college, but not everything about non-Western cultures is worthy of respect.
Yes, the 'western standards'.
Yes, Western standards. You know, civilized behavior? The code of rules that make our civilization superior, that let our sisters, daughters and wives walk alone without being attacked?
In 2009 (the most recent year we have data from), Germans committed about 7,300~ rapes within their own borders (about 7.5~ rapes per capita). Convictions for rape in Germany have declined by about 7~ percent over the last 30 years. Like anywhere else in the western standard universe, it's largely a taboo subject where victims are the subject of scrutiny rather than the attackers.
And how many of those attacks are Rothertham-style coverups where police are too afraid to go after immigrants for fear they'll be labelled as xenophobic and racist?
Seriously, if you have to put out modesty rules for teens at swimming pools because packs of non-Western immigrants will follow your children and sexually harass them if they're wearing the swimsuit they want to wear and then laugh it off as "two cultures coming together", if you're letting in people like this asshole
Mr. Kelifa, the African asylum seeker, said he still had a hard time accepting that a wife could accuse her husband of rape. But he added that he had learned how to read previously baffling signals from women who wear short skirts, smile or simply walk alone at night without an escort.
“Men have weaknesses and when they see someone smiling it is difficult to control,” Mr. Kelifa said, explaining that in his own country, Eritrea, “if someone wants a lady he can just take her and he will not be punished,” at least not by the police.
then I'd say you have a problem. There's nothing wrong with not wanting to let people in who take a Bronze Age view of rape.
"Tolerance" does not mean "acceptance". You tolerate a screaming infant on an airline because you're forced to. If, for whatever reason, you feel you must let in massive amounts of people from cultures that view women as property then you force them to go to the anti-rape classes and institute a zero-tolerance policy. None of this "repeated" crap that Merkel's spouting; if a migrant rapes once it's twenty years in prison and a swift throw back to whatever hellhole he came from.
Then why do we need a better way? If there's nothing you know of to improve how can you say the government's just sitting on its hands?
Off the top of my head? Better surveillance. Automated social media crawlers or something- the last couple of times someone went radical and snapped they posted something like "off to jihad! Praise ISIS!" Keep track of who's leaving the country to go visit countries with jihadist training grounds- I know it's easy to get around that by flying to Spain first but maybe they could look at online vacation photos or put informants in radical mosques or something. If they had informants for the Klan they should have them for other suspect groups. And register CAIR as a foreign agent. They're almost as bad as the ADL and they're almost certainly being funded by Iran or one of the Gulf States.
I gotta say it's really strange to watch some of my left-leaning friends rail against rape culture here in the West and then when confronted by far worse rape culture perpetrated by non-Westerners do a 180 and get with the apologetic "you're just xenophobic" and "that's racist". You can be against both, there's nothing stopping you.
Ok, I know "Captain Marcus" is jailed right now, but there were enough agrees on this post that I still want to call this out. That "asshole" he quoted? Volunteered for a class in Swedish sexual ethics and proper behavior toward women. After the clickbait quoted in the post, Mr. Kelifa goes on to add, “They can do any job from prime minister to truck driver and have the right to relax [in bars or on the street without being bothered]".
Let's be careful whom we demonize, hmm?
Panda4You NSDFRand LostNinja Absalon "Trey Never" fugacity Yall programjunkie Agahnim TheDrifter
What exactly has he typed that is reprehensible?
I don't agree with increased surveillance because it will end up looking like NYPD surveillance on mosques aka stupid and terrible. But there isn't an "I agree, except for this thing" button.
Other than that, I agree that one shouldn't be accused of being racist or a hypocritical MRA because they state that something is fucked up. Especially in a case where the values of one culture, that it's totes cool to sexually assault women in public because they are wearing a skirt or smiling, clash with the values of the state they are attempting to emigrate to. And just because I agree with that doesn't mean I think it's cool if white guys from my own nation do the same thing.
You should probably trim those notifications for the quote tree
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Germany just generally has a lot of violent maniacs
Paladin on
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Woaaah. I popped in here to see what was up and I found casual-to-overt racism! Seriously guys?
~slowly backs out of thread~
I don't see any overt racism here. Overt misandry on the part of Absalon, sure. The concerns over refugees haven't been "all dem moose limbs r rapin the wiminz!" The concerns have been over the police responses (non-responses, withholding information from the public about mass attacks ect.) to crimes.
Why is it bigoted to hold 50% of the population accountable for the Cologne attack, but not if you hold 20% accountable? Where's the cut-off?
Edit: Rescinded my original reply. I'll think of a better response.
Well I wouldn't want to put responsibility for the attacks on all the refugees. My issue is primarily the police (and quite possibly media) handling of these attacks. As an American I'm mostly concerned that this will let the far-right in Europe score big; however, the hesitance to report the attacks and the statistics about sexual assault posted by Rhan show that these countries are having much more difficult time with the integration of refugees than the governments want to admit. The governments can do more to help integration, but I think the combination of difficulty with integration and the dramatically increased burden on the welfare state make a strong argument to severely restrict the number of refugees brought in. Obviously there are good humanitarian reasons to bring them in, but any government should primarily be concerned with its current citizens.
Based on the information and events I've seen recently, the humanitarian side has lost out. That's not the fault of the refugees as whole, nor is it directly their religion or culture, and it doesn't mean the refugees already there should be deported, it's just about governments acting responsibly to both their citizens and those in need.
Edit: For instance, I'm not opposed to allowing refugees into the United States. We have a much larger population/economy, and that means we can absorb a fair number of the people fleeing the war before negatives become terribly significant for our society. I'm also sure that our law enforcement wouldn't withhold information about attacks for political reasons; our cops would be much more likely to profile and shoot refugees over nothing than to worry about political or cultural sensitivity. That being said, I wouldn't want America to take in 10 million refugees at once; such massive numbers of people needing to assimilate into western standards of law, an education-driven service economy and so forth is big trouble.
Trey Never on
0
Options
GatorAn alligator in ScotlandRegistered Userregular
Seriously, if you have to put out modesty rules for teens at swimming pools because packs of non-Western immigrants will follow your children and sexually harass them if they're wearing the swimsuit they want to wear and then laugh it off as "two cultures coming together", if you're letting in people like this asshole
Mr. Kelifa, the African asylum seeker, said he still had a hard time accepting that a wife could accuse her husband of rape. But he added that he had learned how to read previously baffling signals from women who wear short skirts, smile or simply walk alone at night without an escort.
“Men have weaknesses and when they see someone smiling it is difficult to control,” Mr. Kelifa said, explaining that in his own country, Eritrea, “if someone wants a lady he can just take her and he will not be punished,” at least not by the police.
then I'd say you have a problem. There's nothing wrong with not wanting to let people in who take a Bronze Age view of rape.
Hate to break this to you, dude. But...a lot of people here in the west believe that shit. They're called MRAs. Go read Roosh or Paul Elam's Twitter accounts and tell me if you can spot a difference between what you quoted and what they're saying. Also, grown-ass white men sexualize teens and children all the time. Some as early as 9 years old. Don't pretend this is exclusive to "dirty Arabs".
So this means we need to add to our nasty problem by letting in others who would make it worse? Do you stop forest fires by adding more fire?
Well I doubt electing the quite nasty variant of the problem is going to help with the arguably nastier, brown and bacon-spurning variant of the nasty problem.
Seriously, dude. Stop being not just a goose, but a racist goose, ok?
Posts
This is a helluva way to refer to refugees. Your empathy sure knows bounds.
Steam: pazython
So this means we need to add to our nasty problem by letting in others who would make it worse? Do you stop forest fires by adding more fire?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/11990408/Somali-rapist-Abdalla-Ali-Hemed-dubbed-a-danger-to-the-public-wins-human-rights-challenge-against-deportation.html
And it seems like Merkel's government is coming around to the right, passing new regulations making it easier to deport immigrants, along with new limits on immigration.
http://www.channel3000.com/news/german-protesters-rapefugees-not-welcome/37385760
Well I doubt electing the quite nasty variant of the problem is going to help with the arguably nastier, brown and bacon-spurning variant of the nasty problem.
So...no one should be allowed in the country, and no one in the country should be allowed to reproduce? We can eliminate rape in Europe within a century!
Steam: pazython
~slowly backs out of thread~
If it's not a deterrent, why is their recidivism rate so low?
Yup. That's the Torygraph, all right.
Steam: pazython
I think there is perhaps some middle ground between...
"All people from the middle east are bad, they don't respect women and refuse to integrate into our society"
and
"Men are all terrible everywhere with no differentiation, so we should just let in everyone."
Also, people who are from your country are naturally your problem. Noone else should have to deal with them. We have a responsibility to help those from other countries in need, but its not infinite.
These are all points to be discussed but only the third one has any possible connection to Cosby and being black and is the product of deeply flawed reasoning.
Being black tells us little about the likely content of one's beliefs and attitudes might be toward women - certainly not once controlled for religion, nationality and other such factors. Being a Muslim from any number of MENA countries in fact does - born out by statistical and polling data. And from first principles there is no necessary connection between the colour of one's skin and their beliefs and attitudes. There is one between one's religiousity and culture and one's beliefs and attitudes because the former is encompassed by the former by definition. So the equivalence doesn't get off of the ground. The concerns may still be unfounded but not for the reason given.
As for the first part, multiple rapes are not really held in the same disregard as a gang rape especially if they are backed by complete beliefs and intentions of rape as punishment and so forth. Rightly or wrongly people adjudicate the heinousness of an act in part by the nature of the motivations. Further,ore the type of rape is at first blush more horrific. Obviously your implication is a sort of racism or irrational bias is at play, but unless you can eliminate other factors, I don't really see the conclusion as obviously more plausible.
As for the 5 Pakistani men vs all of Pakistan or the MENA countries or The Islamic World as a whole - I don't think that anyone was doing anything of the sort, instead decrying the apparent police underresponse due to "cultural sensitivity" or at least the perception thereof.
I am also unsure who you are addressing with the Cosby vs feigned outrage thing - are you talking about US commentators, EU commentators, posters in the thread, an unnamed alternative Internet community, something else?
Yeah, it's called "holding everyone to the same standards". I'm a huge fan of it.
Steam: pazython
I am not personally of the opinion that edgy humour and tweets accurately reflect the content of peoples' beliefs
No but we can find an effective way to deal with our own problems before we start sticking our nose in new ones. I mean really. We are somehow letting people into the country without letting them know what the normal rules and social customs are here? Who the fuck thought this was a good idea?
This sort of logic is a little incomplete, because the ethnic Christians and so forth aren't the ones in power, and aren't likely to hold the same entirely regressive attitudes.
On the other hand, a Shiite in a majority Sunni area attempting to escape a massacre or vice versa isn't the big man and doesn't hold the sort of sway you are attributing.
No, you don't hold everyone to the same standards.
If someone who was born in your country and is a citizen says,
"Women should be no more than property, I don't respect them. I think we should treat them like chattel"
Then you should be disgusted by what they say, speak against it, wait for them to commit a crime and then arrest them if they do.
If someone seeking asylum in your country says,
"Women should be no more than property, I don't respect them. I think we should treat them like chattel"
Then I will assume they will not treat women with respect and not grant them admission to the country, instead letting in someone whose views are more ammenable to the society I want to have.
This is not holding everyone to the same standards. You can't deport your own citizens, or penalize them for their beliefs. If someone seeks entry to your country, to become a citizen, then you can penalize them for their beliefs. Just because a society already has elements which hold abhorrent views which undermine the progress of liberty and equality, doesn't mean you should let in more.
Yes, that was my entire point.
Being black tells us little about the likely content of one's beliefs and attitudes might be toward women - certainly not once controlled for religion, nationality and other such factors. Being a Muslim from any number of MENA countries in fact does - born out by statistical and polling data. And from first principles there is no necessary connection between the colour of one's skin and their beliefs and attitudes. There is one between one's religiousity and culture and one's beliefs and attitudes because the former is encompassed by the former by definition. So the equivalence doesn't get off of the ground. The concerns may still be unfounded but not for the reason given.[/quote]
Oh, please. People whine about how "black culture" is "uncivilized" all the fucking time. This is no different.
Right. Westerners have convinced themselves that raping women using drugs is more "civilized" than raping women with violence. Because the end result is less important than whether or not you get your hands dirty.
And how swiftly were the Catholic rapes handled? The Magdaline Laundries?
The right-wingers most angry about the Cologne attack are the ones most likely to defend Cosby. This is extremely hypocritical for the reasons I've outlined, showing that their outrage is not, in fact, motivated by the horror of rape.
Steam: pazython
I don't see any overt racism here. Overt misandry on the part of Absalon, sure. The concerns over refugees haven't been "all dem moose limbs r rapin the wiminz!" The concerns have been over the police responses (non-responses, withholding information from the public about mass attacks ect.) to crimes.
I wouldn't be so quick to assume that's intended as 'edgy humour'.
Being a massive honking goose is kind of his thing.
Yeah, they're not being edgy there.
Well, MRAs get REALLY offended if you try to teach men not to rape. So blame them.
Steam: pazython
Ok, I know @Captain Marcus is jailed right now, but there were enough agrees on this post that I still want to call this out. That "asshole" he quoted? Volunteered for a class in Swedish sexual ethics and proper behavior toward women. After the clickbait quoted in the post, Mr. Kelifa goes on to add, “They can do any job from prime minister to truck driver and have the right to relax [in bars or on the street without being bothered]".
Let's be careful whom we demonize, hmm?
@Panda4You @NSDFRand @LostNinja @Absalon @Trey Never @fugacity @Yall @programjunkie @Agahnim @TheDrifter
How... how did you get linked to my local, shitty CBS affiliate that copy/pastes CNN articles?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/12/europe/germany-cologne-migrants-tensions/index.html
Why is it bigoted to hold 50% of the population accountable for the Cologne attack, but not if you hold 20% accountable? Where's the cut-off?
Edit: Rescinded my original reply. I'll think of a better response.
Steam: pazython
I am all for setting standards for acceptable behavior for immigrants, but we very well can't be expect them to adhere to standards they don't know. If these standards (after taught) are broken by the way of rape and other violent crime, the hammer must come down and the countries have to have a better way of deporting these persons.
Consent courses are a thing that need to be a LOT more universal. Hell, how many of us grew up with Revenge of the Nerds, not realizing the protagonists were sex offenders?
Steam: pazython
Yeah, sexual ethics classes like that should be a thing for everyone, not just immigrants. And not just men (because it is seriously depressing how many women don't know their own rights!).
People can whine about whatever they want, but that doesn't make it a meaningful equivalence. I think that we can, as a forum, hold ourselves to a higher standard than the general discourse and allow room for nuance of content rather that a superficial similarity of form.
I cannot really speak to the Magdaline laundries as I am not aware of them but revelations of inaction with regard to Catholic (and other instituional) sexual abuse and child rape is a huge deal and source of massive outrage at the moment in Australia and the subject of one of the largest Royal commissions ever. It is also something that straddles decades and modern under reaction is more shocking because we ARE more aware, more enlightened and we have hugely distressing historical events to have learned from. Furthermore, it is the implication of kid glove treatment due to a reported concern for cultural difference and respect not merely the swiftness that is the source of outrage, which again could be a furphy but it isn't in the fashion you are describing.
I can't speak to it being "civilised" or not but certainly the apparent trauma would be greater in the case of a violent rape rather than the violation of which the victim is unaware. I also thing that murder in which the victim did not suffer is less heinous than that in which the victim was tortured to death. This seems to be pretty basic consequentialist reasoning. And while I feel it ought go without saying, I suspect it will not, a do not endorse any of the actions described.
Edit: wow that split post screwed up the bbcode
Oh I agree, it's something that everyone could benefit from. My criminal law professor hammered the law-contextual consent problematics into us which showed that it's a very difficult subject.
In the context of immigration, there is a huge problem with immigrants perpetrating rape.
http://www.b.dk/nationalt/hver-tredje-doemte-for-voldtaegt-er-indvandrer
This danish news article from last year states that every third rape is perpetrated by an immigrant which suggests to me that there is cultural problem that need to be addressed sooner than later in the immigration process.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
I don't agree with increased surveillance because it will end up looking like NYPD surveillance on mosques aka stupid and terrible. But there isn't an "I agree, except for this thing" button.
Other than that, I agree that one shouldn't be accused of being racist or a hypocritical MRA because they state that something is fucked up. Especially in a case where the values of one culture, that it's totes cool to sexually assault women in public because they are wearing a skirt or smiling, clash with the values of the state they are attempting to emigrate to. And just because I agree with that doesn't mean I think it's cool if white guys from my own nation do the same thing.
I think that a better understanding of what the various consent related crimes really are needs to go hand in hand with that. Otherwise 'rape' will become just like 'sex offender' itself. A pointless label which tells you nothing about the person it is applied to or what they did.
edit - to describe in more detail.
Sex offender 1 - While on a dare from his buddies, ran unknowingly past a playground with no pants or underwear on. A group of 12 year old girls was upset, and he faced charges for indecent exposure and was placed on the sex offenders list.
Sex offender 2 - Kidnapped women to use them in illegal brothels. After release from jail, he was placed on the sex offenders list.
Sex offender is a meaningless word due to the breadth of things we apply it to.
I am holding myself to a higher standard than the general discourse. Which is why I was condemning the general discourse.
I have admitted that quickness is good in handling the situations described. Treating these situations lightly not only fosters the outrage described, but also implicitly claims that their actions are because of their nationality/race/religion (benevolent racism).
While one can make certain psychologal judgements based on the heinousness of the act, in the end of the day, is there really a difference between shooting someone in the head and bashing their skull in with a pipe?
Also, I wouldn't say that someone date raped would experience less trauma that someone violently raped. Don't think that's a rabbit hole we want to go down.
Steam: pazython
Suddenly everyone who comes here is 14, and it's been sort of depressing to read stories about 25-30 year olds in living amenities for refugee children stabbing each other ... What did I tell you guys? :whistle:
You should probably trim those notifications for the quote tree
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Steam: pazython
Germany just generally has a lot of violent maniacs
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Well I wouldn't want to put responsibility for the attacks on all the refugees. My issue is primarily the police (and quite possibly media) handling of these attacks. As an American I'm mostly concerned that this will let the far-right in Europe score big; however, the hesitance to report the attacks and the statistics about sexual assault posted by Rhan show that these countries are having much more difficult time with the integration of refugees than the governments want to admit. The governments can do more to help integration, but I think the combination of difficulty with integration and the dramatically increased burden on the welfare state make a strong argument to severely restrict the number of refugees brought in. Obviously there are good humanitarian reasons to bring them in, but any government should primarily be concerned with its current citizens.
Based on the information and events I've seen recently, the humanitarian side has lost out. That's not the fault of the refugees as whole, nor is it directly their religion or culture, and it doesn't mean the refugees already there should be deported, it's just about governments acting responsibly to both their citizens and those in need.
Edit: For instance, I'm not opposed to allowing refugees into the United States. We have a much larger population/economy, and that means we can absorb a fair number of the people fleeing the war before negatives become terribly significant for our society. I'm also sure that our law enforcement wouldn't withhold information about attacks for political reasons; our cops would be much more likely to profile and shoot refugees over nothing than to worry about political or cultural sensitivity. That being said, I wouldn't want America to take in 10 million refugees at once; such massive numbers of people needing to assimilate into western standards of law, an education-driven service economy and so forth is big trouble.
Seriously, dude. Stop being not just a goose, but a racist goose, ok?