"In a nutshell"

Status
Not open for further replies.

lyraseven

Found the path to Fillory
#2
Too preachy to be of use, in my opinion. Because of its clear bias in favor of the refugees I can't really rely on it to have conveyed any relevant information that doesn't support its clear preference for accepting them into EU nations. While I haven't been following this specific issue even I could see that it chose to cover only the most inane of objections to accepting these refugees and assumes all bases for rejection are founded in xenophobia.

It's a nice idea, summing up years-long chains of causality that lead to whatever the 24-hour coverage news channel crisis du jour is, but this isn't a good implementation.
 
Last edited:

Silvion Night

Sir Readalot
Staff member
#3
Interesting, but way too biased unfortunately.
 

moonspawn

Journeyed there and back again
#4
I saw an article where the president of Venezuela was trying to blame the U.S. for the refugee crisis. What? Is he saying we should have gone in and taken out Assad? But ISIS would already be in control of Syria if we had done that. But somehow I got the point from the article that he seems to have a lot of anti-U.S. sentiment, blaming problems on U.S. foreign interventionism (which I agree with). If that's true and we have absolutely nothing to do with Assad's mass slaughtering of rebels then how is the U.S. culpable of blame for the refugee crisis? When you're a superpower you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.

On Saudi Arabaia they have a massive unemployment rate, an economy completely dependent on oil revenue, and way too many young people not working and dependent on welfare. So it's not at all surprising that they aren't taking in any refugees.
 

robert eggleton

Killed in the battle against the Mad King
#5
Personally, I'm not sure anybody is in a position to say "what if..." or "if they..." with respect to the Middle East mess. There's enough blame to go around that if everybody took a fair share there would be plenty leftover.
 

wakarimasen

Journeyed there and back again
#6
Interesting, but way too biased unfortunately.
It is a touch liberal perhaps. But I'm curious, what would be the alternative bias?
To say that the Syrian refugees are economic migrates taking advantage of the war to press their case for illegal immigration?

Certainly it would have been nice to see a bit more info on why Jordan isn't getting the help it needs from the international community (esp. the Gulf states). I read a report in which a journalist interviewed the Jordanian general administering their border crossing and he was complaining that he had a problem with malnutrition in his troops as they gave their rations away to the children they helped across into the camps.

From the point of view of my own country (UK) I feel that anim makes some good points. We promised to take 20,000 Syrain refugees. But that number is over 5 years and they would face compulsory repatriation at the age of 18 (implying we'd only take minors without parents for instance). This is a laughable commitment and frankly a disgrace. It's sold by comparing the Syrian refugees to those in the calais camps which are fewer in number (around 4000 souls) mostly north african, young and male (The number of vulnerable women and children is growing there though). Many of whom would be considered illegal immigrants rather than fleeing destruction in their homeland.
 

lyraseven

Found the path to Fillory
#7
It is a touch liberal perhaps. But I'm curious, what would be the alternative bias?
To say that the Syrian refugees are economic migrates taking advantage of the war to press their case for illegal immigration?
The video could simply have not talked about the rights and wrongs of individual nations' choices to help or not. Neutrality is not hard to achieve, and while this isn't journalism and therefore not subject to ethical scrutiny it does purport to be educational but then uses that draw as a platform to advocate a certain political stance and belittle others.
From the point of view of my own country (UK) I feel that anim makes some good points. We promised to take 20,000 Syrain refugees. But that number is over 5 years and they would face compulsory repatriation at the age of 18 (implying we'd only take minors without parents for instance). This is a laughable commitment and frankly a disgrace.
I'm British too and I think it's a disgrace that the government is volunteering British taxpayers' hospitality to foreigners at all, let alone so many of them.

I'm libertarian and do not believe in either governments or national borders. I believe in self-selecting communities formed around voluntary social contracts and if we had that it would be for every voluntary community to decide for itself whether or not outsiders were welcome. As things stand now though our social contract is mandatory and enforced by the State with violence.

People already resent much of what that State does with the taxes it extracts from victims when those taxes are used for the benefit of other people who have been part of the social contract from birth, so suggesting we accept an influx of people who weren't part of our social contract at birth leaves people already unhappy with being subjected to it by force shafted even harder. Not only is our social contract not voluntary, our societies aren't even being allowed to remain self-selecting and that naturally offends people.

To many taxpayers Britain offering refuge to these people is like a cousin you barely like who's staying as a house-guest until they get back on their feet inviting other house-guests to stay as long as they like for free. Can you see why they might not want that?

Plus, even if we dispense with all realism and pretend every one of these 20,000 refugees will be a productive, well-integrated and assimilated member of society, the social contract we're all forced into at birth forces us to deal with an already unsustainably exponentially increasing population just from within. Dumping another 20,000 here and there not only artificially inflates the population immediately, it increases that rate of exponential growth. Someone resigned to living in a horribly overcrowded society of X million people by 2050 now being told that it's actually going to be more like X+10 million has a right to react with horror, in my opinion.
 
Last edited:

Silvion Night

Sir Readalot
Staff member
#8
Question:
It is a touch liberal perhaps. But I'm curious, what would be the alternative bias?
To say that the Syrian refugees are economic migrates taking advantage of the war to press their case for illegal immigration?
Answer:
The video could simply have not talked about the rights and wrongs of individual nations choices' to help or not. Neutrality is not hard to achieve, and while this isn't journalism and therefore not subject to ethical scrutiny it does purport to be educational but then uses that draw as a platform to advocate a certain political stance and belittle others.
(Lyra beat me to it).

I don't really agree with the rest of Lyra's post by the way, although I like her well versed argument.

It is a touch liberal perhaps.
It's funny how every country has their own definition of liberal, social-democrat, conservative etc. In the Netherlands that clip would be considered leftist and thus social-democrat. Our liberal parties are considered to be on the right of the political spectrum (where liberalism equals a strive for freedom -small government. low taxes. equity- and socialism equals a strive for equality -big government. high taxes. equality-)

On the topic of the movie:

There are some misrepresentations and juggling with numbers. For example, not nearly all migrants that are currently flooding the borders are Syrian refugees. Depending on which studies to believe 40-60 % is from other countries (Kosovo, Albania, Macedonia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Eritrea). Many claim to be Syrian so as to be assured of receiving asylum (these claimants all conveniently lost their passports).

Also, at one point the clip mentions the common fear that due to the influx of Muslim migrants Europe will turn into an Islamic continent. The movie goes on to state that even if all Syrians would now flee their country for Europe, the total % of Muslims would only go up by a few points. This is not true, as the migrants end up in only a few countries (notably Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands and France). This means that the % of extra Muslims in those countries will rise significantly (also taking into account the large number of Muslims already living in these countries). Most other states are not willing to allow more migrants in (especially not the Eastern European countries, who are now being bullied and threatened by Germany to sway their minds)

I'm not making a judgement call here and I'm also not saying that what I stated in the previous two paragraphs is a good or bad thing, but juggling the numbers and misrepresenting facts just to promote your own political stance on the matter should be avoided. I thought it was an interesting clip, but because I noticed this bias it didn't really make a big impression on me and I certainly don't think it can be used for educational purposes.
 

moonspawn

Journeyed there and back again
#9
History has shown time and time again that large influxes of immigrates can prove pernicious to the well being and culture of nations. I think nations like Germany, Sweden, and Britain are beset with enough problems without welcoming such a huge burden with this influx of immigrants. But I tend to prefer the objective approach instead of getting all hyper-emotional on what the humane thing to do is, etc. So the fact is Germany has a population of 82,652,256. According to the video they are planning to accept as much as 800,00 this year. I did the calculation and that's equivalent to .97% of the population rounded up to 1%. It doesn't look like much but that number also doesn't account for the amount of refugees Germany has accepted in previous years. If you're someone whose privileged and whose town isn't being affected much by this mess then it is really easy to judge and think the west should be totally responsible for taking in all Muslim refugees but honestly I think the German people have a right to be outraged by this audacity on part of their government and it's also perfectly within their right to post hate-speech online, particularly Facebook. Oh my goodness! The thought police are here!
 

Anti_Quated

Journeyed there and back again
#11
I don't want to be pessimistic, but it's hard for me to ignore the feeling that this is going to cause considerably more tension and issues in the EU than already extant. I'm also intrigued as to what the ramifications will be of Germany accepting such a large influx of people while demanding the same hospitality be extended by their neighbours, and what Germany will do if their neighbours choose not to comply. How do you enforce that? Poland, Hungary, the Czechs and Slovakia are all rather upset about the quotas and don't appear to be as motivated to soak up the foreboding numbers of incoming bodies. Germany seems pre-occupied, desperately so for my part, in trying to escape the ghosts of the Third Reich once again by demonstrably delineating their superior compassion and empathy for these refugees and is wilfully ignoring practicality and reality in favour of feel-good humanitarian optimism.

If it's a decision worthy of universal approbation, why are many of the neighbours busy squabbling over their right to decide as independent sovereignties how many to take, or even if they should take any at all? And getting shamed and bullied by Germany, their other EU counterparts, and the media for daring to vocalise what many of their citizens feel - trepidation, anxiety, and concern for their own prosperity, stability, and culture is going to make them eve more staunchly opposed to helping simply because they'll feel antagonised. Cheers, media.

The BBC have even taken to appending certain press updates with 'terminology' clarifications to avoid upsetting anyone:"The BBC uses the term migrant to refer to all people on the move who have yet to complete the legal process of claiming asylum. This group includes people fleeing war-torn countries such as Syria, who are likely to be granted refugee status, as well as people who are seeking jobs and better lives, who governments are likely to rule are economic migrants."

When did everyone become so spineless? Call it like it is - a heap of unfortunate people who need and deserve help to start over, and a swarm of people who are lazy fucks. Not difficult to distinguish, sensitivity be damned. Help those in need, turn away those who are grifters and bludgers. If people have to wait, so be it. If people had their heart set on Germany but went the wrong way and ended up in Romania first, so be it - they're fleeing war-torn hell holes aren't they? Pretty sure I'd be happy to start over anywhere as long as I knew it'd be an improvement on the minefield I'd fled. I can't understand the refusal and unwillingness many of these refugees seem to have when authorities of a particular nation try to process them there and then.

Capacity and capability to help should be determined by each nation's citizens, not be arbitrarily rammed down their throat by Germany, the media, or anyone else. And there should be greater scrutiny and processing initiatives, not less - don't let the wolves in to spare the sheep a little more inconvenience. Woe betide anyone actually takes the time and effort to ascertain who are the genuine refugees and who are the economic opportunists, or who is a convicted sexual predator and who is simply a nice person trying to get a fresh start in a more hospitable environment. Trying to shame or bully other nations and people into conformity and compliance is neither effective nor conducive to the sort of co-operative and constructive framework this crisis is going to require.

As an aside, can anyone explain why there's so many seemingly healthy adult males among these refugees that have the gumption to walk such great distances and endure such privation, hardship, and life-or-death situations, but remarkably lack commensurate testicular fortitude to bother defending or even attempting to create some sort of stability on their own patch of dirt? Displaced nationals, many hailing from a resentful and acrimonious, war-ridden culture now being transplanted en masse to a far more (though not completely) tolerant, indulgent, and politically correct Western society? I'm all for humanitarian efforts, but this seems more and more a proverbial cluster bereft of planning, insight, or sufficient leadership. I really hope I'm wrong and the transition goes smoothly, but I expect reality will serve us another helping of harsh lessons on this one.
 

lyraseven

Found the path to Fillory
#12
As an aside, can anyone explain why there's so many seemingly healthy adult males among these refugees that have the gumption to walk such great distances and endure such privation, hardship, and life-or-death situations, but remarkably lack commensurate testicular fortitude to bother defending or even attempting to create some sort of stability on their own patch of dirt?
They'd be stupid to do that while the alternative of relying on the bleeding hearts comfort has enabled first-worlders to evolve exists. Before we can expect them to do that they need to know they don't face a better fate here. I don't think they're cowards, because many of them just want to make it far enough to leave their child somewhere with a brighter future and don't expect the same benefit for themselves (though of course many do, and use said bleeding hearts' compassion for parent and child in their favor). They would be stupid to stay and fight while an alternative exists.

Of course, using immoral artificial constructs like the concept of national borders to basically lock people in an invisible-walled tenth circle of hell is wrong, but until we stop having a social contract which would require us to accept and take care of anyone who makes it here forced upon us, people are entitled to prefer the wrongness be limited to those it fell upon instead of brought here with them.
 
Last edited:

lyraseven

Found the path to Fillory
#13
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nting-constitution-Arabic-refugees-learn.html

Could anyone who speaks German please find out a little about this? I'm curious what process is being used by the government to appropriate these homes. The DM article says someone got a letter from her landlord claiming the LL's building was being turned into refugee housing, and that makes it sound involuntary.

EDIT: never mind, I was able to find another article in English that elaborates that the city council was her landlord. DM being useless as usual.

Doubts have been raised over whether the municipality’s move is legal. It has invoked a law under which a private landlord can evict a tenant if he wants to move into the property himself.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...d-with-eviction-to-make-way-for-refugees.html

That's what I wanted to know, basically.
 
Last edited:

Silvion Night

Sir Readalot
Staff member
#14
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...nting-constitution-Arabic-refugees-learn.html

Could anyone who speaks German please find out a little about this? I'm curious what process is being used by the government to appropriate these homes. The DM article says someone got a letter from her landlord claiming the LL's building was being turned into refugee housing, and that makes it sound involuntary.

EDIT: never mind, I was able to find another article in English that elaborates that the city council was her landlord. DM being useless as usual.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...d-with-eviction-to-make-way-for-refugees.html

That's what I wanted to know, basically.
The woman (and more like her) lived in that building as an anti-squater. This basically means that the landlord lets her live there real cheap (or free) in exchange for her keeping the building from being invaded by squaters. It's perfectly legal to kick her out when the building is needed for other purposes.
 

Silvion Night

Sir Readalot
Staff member
#16
Huh. That's very interesting. Is all state-owned housing in Germany offered on that basis?
I don't think so. Here in the Netherlands we have a comparable system and only part is offered on that basis.
 

Silvion Night

Sir Readalot
Staff member
#18
Okay, so Germany IS actually using violence to seize private property from innocent people.'Only'.

This is fucking abhorrent.
It was also in the news here today. Seems they've turned into a direction which frankly scares me. I fear to see where this is leading.
 

moonspawn

Journeyed there and back again
#19
This proves again that the goal of government is to take people's rights away.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.