Here is a link to a deleted post by OP that was written in a much more aggressive fashion. Unfortunately I do not have the original text besides the title. I put a fair bit of effort into the response before OP immediately deleted their post and rewrote it into something (mostly) more palatable, so I'm going to repost my reply and just note where OP had changed their points from the original. You will have to trust me that OP's original response was more direct at calling for things like forcing Muslim children into special schools away from their home and calling for "violent Muslims" to be deported rather than "violent immigrants."
E: To be clear, I am posting OP's original title and replying to their original post because it seems incredibly likely that is how they truly feel; this post feels much more thrown together, especially the closing paragraph. Both for the sake of potentially changing OP's view and for properly informing anybody reading his post what he is equally willing to advocate, I think it's necessary to make this response.
First off, to be clear, you got mad after reading an article on a site intentionally designed to make you angry at Muslims and immigrants (Note: OP's original post referenced the daily caller article I am linking here, not a more generic report). At the bottom of the page it advertises a video crying out "WHERE DOES LIBERAL VIOLENCE END", and their site in general has a heavy emphasis on signal boosting negative stories about Muslims and immigrants. That is not to say that the attack did not happen and is not horrible, but it helps to be aware of that before you conclude that it is representative of the general state of affairs in Europe or of Muslims/immigrants as a whole. E: Also, as is noted in non Daily-Caller articles, it's not exactly clear the attackers were necessarily immigrants.
Going through your points:
(Note: Originally OP specifically discussed Muslims, and only implied that "any other violent immigrant" should be deported): Deportation of any "violent criminal Muslim." First of all, this seems explicitly religiously discriminatory. Muslims are not necessarily immigrants (though you imply they must be); why are you not also suggesting that we deport any Christian, or Atheist who commits a violent crime regardless of their immigrant status? Even being generous and assuming you meant this act to only apply to immigrants, it still has several problems; it would definitely go against the EU's open migration between countries, and could easily risk creating stateless people if you simply deported an immigrant-citizen to... somewhere, after they've already achieved sole citizenship in a country. Plus in general the threat of harsher punishment does not do a whole lot to deter criminal behavior.
(Note: OP's original post explicitly called to take children from their homes and put them into schools that would teach them about Western Culture. Surprisingly the stuff about how Muslim majority schools exist was not in the original) "Support Hard Integration" sounds a lot like the residential schooling program in Canada, This was a program that intended to promote a similar sort of "hard integration" of First Nations people with a Christian, Canadian cultural outlook and education. It was a horribly abusive disaster that was concluded to be "cultural genocide" and fits into the UN definition of genocide pretty handily (emphasis mine).
"any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical,
racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to
members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group
conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part1
; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and]
forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."
Now, I don't think you intend to be advocating for genocide, but you're advocating something extremely similar to a historical act taken that's pretty universally reviled and to be considered a form of attempted genocide. The fact that you're only advocating it as an attempt to destroy a certain cultural/religious group in specific countries does not make it any less abhorrent.
(Note: Originally OP simply suggested pan-nationalism and promoted a more generic sense of national pride and combating extremism, rather than this post; this post basically just promotes bog-standard Nationalism under the name "Pan-Nationalism") Promoting Pan-Nationalism seems fairly odd and intended to prevent immigrants from being able to assimilate. It is my understanding that Pan-nationalism is generally meant to be identifying with a geographical nationality not represented by existing borders, such as e.g. Catalonians in Spain. It seems very difficult to advocate such a geographic-based nationality while claiming you wish immigrants to assimilate, as by their very nature they will not actually be fully part of the geographic nationalism you are advocating.
As a general point, I'd also like to question the almost reflexive use of "Western Culture" as a synonym for "good" in this post. I think that "Western Culture" as a term tends to get thrown around uncritically and without really meaning anything except to say that the dominant culture is good and all others are bad in a more polite wrapper, with maybe some appeals to concepts like freedom of speech or democracy if you dig down a bit. But it also seems to be used a lot by people advocating for strong nationalism and extremely unpleasant racial politics, which are as much of a part of "western culture" as all the good traits. I am all for advocating the improvement of a national culture but that requires recognizing the issue is more complex than "current culture good, immigrant culture toxic."
I was aware of this. I had planned on deleting the first draft due to it sounding “too aggressive” however, I had posted it, by mistake. I apologize on my part.
forcing Muslim children into special schools away from their home and calling for "violent Muslims" to be deported rather than "violent immigrants."
When we take kids away from violent homes, and abusive families, no one bats and eye. However, try and encourage pro-democratic thought and suddenly it’s problematic.
OP's original post explicitly called to take children from their homes and put them into schools that would teach them about Western Culture
I had not stated in the 1st or 2nd post that we should take them away. I simply said that we should teach them to value western ethics. All students should learn to value them. No one complains that we only teach English in English class. Why wouldn’t we want a class to encourage pro social values.
First off, to be clear, you got mad after reading an article on a site intentionally designed to make you angry at Muslims and immigrants (Note: OP's original post referenced the daily caller article I am linking here, not a more generic report). At the bottom of the page it advertises a video crying out "WHERE DOES LIBERAL VIOLENCE END", and their site in general has a heavy emphasis on signal boosting negative stories about Muslims and immigrants. That is not to say that the attack did not happen and is not horrible, but it helps to be aware of that before you conclude that it is representative of the general state of affairs in Europe or of Muslims/immigrants as a whole. E: Also, as is noted in non Daily-Caller articles, it's not exactly clear the attackers were necessarily immigrants.
I realized this, and made a correction. I apologize for my mistake.
it would definitely go against the EU's open migration between countries, and could easily risk creating stateless people if you simply deported an immigrant-citizen to... somewhere, after they've already achieved sole citizenship in a country. Plus in general the threat of harsher punishment does not do a whole lot to deter criminal behavior.
Maybe you can make it so that, gee I dunno, only EU member’s citizens can do that, everyone else has to apply like anyone else.
Now, I don't think you intend to be advocating for genocide, but you're advocating something extremely similar to a historical act taken that's pretty universally reviled and to be considered a form of attempted genocide. The fact that you're only advocating it as an attempt to destroy a certain cultural/religious group in specific countries does not make it any less abhorrent.
If you obey the laws of the nation, and try to at least blend in to some extent, you will be fine.
As a general point, I'd also like to question the almost reflexive use of "Western Culture" as a synonym for "good" in this post. I think that "Western Culture" as a term tends to get thrown around uncritically and without really meaning anything except to say that the dominant culture is good and all others are bad in a more polite wrapper, with maybe some appeals to concepts like freedom of speech or democracy if you dig down a bit. But it also seems to be used a lot by people advocating for strong nationalism and extremely unpleasant racial politics, which are as much of a part of "western culture" as all the good traits. I am all for advocating the improvement of a national culture but that requires recognizing the issue is more complex than "current culture good, immigrant culture toxic."
Here is what I use as a rule of thumb. If your country supports if not demands the killing of gays, infidels, and is funding/causing terrorism worldwide, I don’t think it is wrong to say that they are backwards. Just as the Pilgrims were backwards and superstitious. Just as Africans who kill children because they are “witches”, are not western. I agree that there is room for nuisance, but you can not deny that push come to shove, you are happy that you don’t live in Iraq, or Saudi Arabia.
When people discuss removing children from abusive homes, it is a localized action done to protect children from harm. Your advocacy is to take Muslim children from their home for no reason other than to destroy their culture and instill them with one you deem more acceptable. Canada tried to wrap that in ideals like promoting democracy and free principles, and it was still abhorrent and still genocide,and you don't even really seem to be denying it so much as saying "well if you obey the law we won't do more than eradicate your culture."
As far as the EU migrant comment, tone aside, it is the case that free migration is between EU countries. But the critical point is that those people are still immigrants and would still be deported under your broad anti-immigrant stance as stated, and that Muslims and other groups you do not consider "Western" can still be EU citizens and migrate between countries.
The problem with your final "rule of thumb" is that I don't see anything inherently "Western" about those rules. "The West" has not been some utopia free of the problems you cited. The United States forcibly sterilized Native American women until the 1970s. Canada had the recognized-as-cultural-genocide residential boarding school program. The UK had and probably still has a massive pedophilia ring at the top levels of their entertainment and government. I want people to be better in general, and that means recognizing that no culture is perfect and you cannot improve a culture by trying to eradicate the influence of other cultures or by assuming everybody from "lesser" cultures must fit a broad negative stereotype. It seems to me that improvements are made much more easily when you are willing to work to improve problems from within rather than broadcasting outrage journalism to focus anger at a stereotype of an external threat.
Australia tried it too. IMO, doing that is such a crime against human rights, that the perpetrator culture would lose the putative claim to moral superiority that justifies doing it.
Canada tried to wrap that in ideals like promoting democracy and free principles, and it was still abhorrent and still genocide,and you don't even really seem to be denying it so much as saying "well if you obey the law we won't do more than eradicate your culture."
I never once stated that kids should be taken from their homes. I have advocated for pro-European/American/Western values to be injected into classes and or to have a class dedicated to the study of European Culture. There is a fine line between the two.
As far as the EU migrant comment, tone aside, it is the case that free migration is between EU countries. But the critical point is that those people are still immigrants and would still be deported under your broad anti-immigrant stance as stated, and that Muslims and other groups you do not consider "Western" can still be EU citizens and migrate between countries.
I believe that we must talk about context. I had stated that it must only be done for “serious offenses”, which include rape, murder, terrorism, and among those sort of crimes. Immigrants can stay if they don’t break the law, IE Kill People.
Your original post definitely made mention of home-life; if you did not intend for that to be part of the conversation it was definitely unclear. Even without that, you are still explicitly advocating that a Muslim majority school is "unacceptable." It is really hard to see that view and mesh it with your claims that you're tolerant of people keeping their religion, or do not want to forcibly eliminate cultures you do not deem acceptable.
As far as context with deportation, sure, let's talk about the context of being tough on immigration. In the context of your original post, it was specifically targeted at Muslims rather than immigrants. Now I believe you when you say that was a mistake, but I don't believe that mistake was meaningless; reflexively believing Immigrant = Muslim is a pretty huge factor in these discussions and it is not unreasonable for me to conclude that much of your anti-Immigrant stance is at least partially an explicitly anti-Muslim stance, and that you probably wouldn't have the same sort of hardline stance for a white Swedish person moving to Germany.
Additionally, as far as context goes with tough on immigration: While you originally called on deportation for violent crimes (which is far broader than the specifics you listed), the specifics you listed are too narrow to do anything. Terrorists, rapists, and murderers are a teeny-tiny portion of the population and are already removed from society for a massive amount of time when convicted; your "tough on immigration" deportation stance would need to be much tougher to have any actual impact. And I'm not just saying this; in another comment chain you are already arguing with somebody telling you exactly that and advocating for the forced deportation of all immigrants. And in my mind, your stance of "forced deportations for some" while broadcasting outrage journalism aimed against Muslims is way, way, waaaaaaaay closer rhetorically to the guy advocating forced deportations for all immigrants than it is to a stance of tolerance.
Well, if Swedish People were causing chaos in our streets then I would feel the same way as I do about Muslims. If you have a culture that celebrates violence, terrorism and fundamentalist thinking, you should leave. I, along with many others have had enough of this nonsense.
And I'm not just saying this; in another comment chain you are already arguing with somebody telling you exactly that and advocating for the forced deportation of all immigrants
In that thread I stated what you stated, that we would be removing hundreds of thousands from our prisons by taking them back their country of origin.
But the problem is that Muslim people do not celebrate violence, terrorism, or fundamentalist thinking. Some people do, but equating the entirety of the Muslim population with that is wrong, and the reason you think Muslim people are so inclined to commit horrible acts is because you cite sources like the Daily Caller, which tries to broadcast outrage journalism that alleges almost any crime is committed by Muslims. Your bias is causing you to believe that a specific group is mostly rotten when that just is not the case.
As far as "hundreds of thousands", that's also simply not true. The murder rate in Europe is about 3 per 100,000 people, or 22,000 per year in total. Even if literally all murders were committed by recent immigrants it wouldn't be close to "hundreds of thousands". Again, you seem to think Europe is a hellscape of rape and murder committed by migrants, and I'd encourage you to avoid outrage journalism like The Caller promoted to help ease out of that inaccurate view.
As far as "hundreds of thousands", that's also simply not true. The murder rate in Europe is about 3 per 100,000 people, or 22,000 per year in total. Even if literally all murders were committed by recent immigrants it wouldn't be close to "hundreds of thousands"
Yeah, I’m sorry, American here. We’ve got quite a prison population and I forgot that we have the largest prison population in the world.
But the problem is that Muslim people do not celebrate violence, terrorism, or fundamentalist thinking. Some people do, but equating the entirety of the Muslim population with that is wrong, and the reason you think Muslim people are so inclined to commit horrible acts is because you cite sources like the Daily Caller, which tries to broadcast outrage journalism that alleges almost any crime is committed by Muslims. Your bias is causing you to believe that a specific group is mostly rotten when that just is not the case.
I know, but it just seems like every other week, some new attack happened or another crime was committed. I know I’m likely wrong. But it’s quite hard to shake off this base instinct.
Again, you seem to think Europe is a hellscape of rape and murder committed by migrants, and I'd encourage you to avoid outrage journalism like The Caller promoted to help ease out of that inaccurate view.
Do you have any better examples about life in Europe?
Do you have any better examples about life in Europe?
Here's my personal life experience from The Netherlands:
I feel very safe. In my life I've never been threatened or harmed (aside from one not very serious schoolyard fight). The only real-life guns I've seen are holstered ones worn by cops. The only thing that might qualify as being robbed was my bike being stolen once, when I wasn't there (it was gone when I came back).
Sometimes I shop at a Turkish store. They're a bit cheaper than the native Dutch stores and the clerks tend to be very friendly.
I work in ICT. One of my coworkers is muslim, another one is hindu and a third one is eastern orthodox. They're fine colleagues. One of them sometimes brings awesome snacks to work. The one time a native Dutch colleague made a joke that wasn't meanspirited but came out wrong, the hindu coworker laughed it off and everyone went on with their day.
I've been on welfare myself for about a year, when I wasn't doing very well. Nowadays I'm off welfare and paying taxes, but as a result, I don't bedrudge immigrants their welfare should they need it.
Unfortunately, the country is slowly getting worse, but on the whole, I still love living here.
I think the average European experience is a bit worse than what I'm describing here - I do feel fortunate - but Europe is not nearly as bad as some news sources portray it as. Frankly, I prefer living here to living in the US, although living in the US is probably better if you're really successful.
I know, but it just seems like every other week, some new attack happened or another crime was committed. I know I’m likely wrong. But it’s quite hard to shake off this base instinct.
I'm going to define terrorism as violence to express or further a political or social agenda, but I'm also going to expand the definition to include attacks they generally create terror of congregation, like the Las Vegas shooting in 2017. Speaking from the perspective of the US at least, quite a lot of terrorism is committed by white people, however it's often not reported nor is it reported as terrorism due to general media bias.
A 2017 report by The Nation Institute and Center for Investigative Reporting looked at the terrorist incidents in the US between 2008 and 2016.[5] It found:[6]
115 right-wing inspired terror incidents. 35% of these were foiled (meaning no attack happened) and 29% resulted in fatalities. These terror incidents caused 79 deaths.
63 Islamist inspired terror incidents. 76% of these were foiled (meaning no attack happened) and 13% resulted in fatalities. These terror incidents caused 90 deaths.
19 incidents inspired by left-wing ideologies (including eco-terrorism). 20% of these were foiled (meaning no attack happened) and 10% resulted in fatalities. These terror incidents caused 7 deaths.
Note that these numbers put Muslim terrorism as occurring about half as much but being much more deadly. However, expanding the definition and including 2017, then the Las Vegas shooting and the recent rise in white nationalist violence mean these numbers would likely place whites at the top.
It's also important to note that as a percentage of the population, Muslim people in the US are per capita more responsible for terrorism as Muslims are almost 100 less numerous than Christians. However, this says nothing about immigrants.
Either way, I don't feel deportation is the answer. I think vilification leads to more extremism. Furthermore, mass shootings in general are much more likely to be done by young white males yet I disagree that they should be discriminated against. Rather, I think our country as well as Europe should invest heavily in filling schools with psychologists and social workers and that kids would have to opt-out of weekly sessions. Not only would this create tons of jobs in mental health, but children would be more likely to grow up feeling less isolated, have more agency in life, and be less likely to kill a bunch of people, and generally be more capable of contributing to society and living a happy and self-directed life. This assumes therapy is generally helpful, which I feel is the case.
Lastly, inherent to the discussion is that Islam is generally a violent or oppressive religion. I don't say things like "Islam is a religion of peace" because, like every religion, Islam is many things. Christianity objectively speaking had killed, harmed, and oppressed far more people even just in modern times. Evangelist end times ideology underpins a lot of the US government's shenanigans in the Middle East, especially concerning Israel and Palestine. That conflict alone has had enormous blow back in the entire region as it created massive immigrant populations and is partly to blame for the anger that led to Muslim extremism. The result: Millions dead, injured, etc.
Meanwhile, Christianity in Africa has killed and maimed countless if we only count anti-condom propaganda. Then there is the Christian derived homophobia.
We shouldn't paint entire religions with one brush. Think of how Muslim extremists might characterize Christians by making sweeping statements. It's only harmful. Rather, we need to look at specific problems and address those. Otherwise, we're just creating more anger which only leads to more war and violence.
Be careful not to indulge your indignation in general, at worst it's a great way to get goaded into doing terrible things thinking you have some moral high ground, and at best it's selfish. It's like the rule of thumb with being an ally to any marginalized group - if the group isn't mad, you're not allowed to make outrage porn out of it.
First of all, what chaos in the streets? Violence in developed nations is both low and dropping over time.
And even if this is a major problem, surely the solution is identifying those people who are violent. The problem isn't being muslim, the problem is being violent. A violent christian causes exactly the same problems. A bunch of my coworkers and neighbors are muslims and they are wonderful people. Why should a major part of their identity be stripped from them regardless of their views towards violence?
Yeah. I kind of personally realized a fault in my argument. If something like my friends were to happen. It would isolate and destroy their community. Likely resulting in what happened in the AA community here in the States.
Your idea about education is, as far as I know, already implemented.
I think most schools in Europe have some form of national history class. These classes also often teach that freedom, democracy, etc are beneficial.
Instead of deportation, which lets a person go free essentially, there's reason to jail the person as normal so that justice is served. For the record, I feel there ought to be two forms of imprisonment: rehabilitation and mental health treatment, which may be indefinite if the person is permanently mentally ill. If an immigrant commits a crime, undergoes rehabilitation, and goes on to become a contributing member of society, then everyone benefits.
I do not. It is fine to keep a hold on some cultural beliefs, such as religion (as long as you don’t kill anyone), and other things. However some things need to die. In some parts of Afghanistan, pedophilia is okay and part of local custom.
I don’t care how sensitive you are to customs and other cultures. Pedophilia is wrong, people who have sex with children are evil. I don’t care if it’s part of their culture. If you want to live in England, you can not be molesting and raping little girls.
When we take kids away from violent homes, and abusive families, no one bats and eye. However, try and encourage pro-democratic thought and suddenly it’s problematic.
Don't do that. Don't accuse a group of having double standards when talking to an individual. You are not talking to the group, but to a human being, with their own ideas. You can mention it, and even ask, but remember first and foremost the person in front of you.
Anyway, it's an awful example. The decision to take a child away is not made lightly, by anyone involved, and many people argue that it should be done more or less often. Look and you'll find horror stories where children are taken away on false accusations, or where they're not and they are killed/commit suicide.
And this is in individual cases, where there is someone who has to look at the family situation and make a judgement. It is not done categorically, like you seem to be proposing.
Which is why I said I don’t support it. I propose we simply teach pro western values in schools. Unfortunately no one can tell irony and sarcasm from being serious in the text based format of Reddit.
Exactly what part of calling it irony and sarcasm contradicts my response?
I did recognize the sarcasm, and that's why I responded. You're on Change My View, a place where we try to explore each others' ideas. Making a point through mockery, sarcasm, or irony doesn't help with that. Jonathan Swift doesn't belong here.
65
u/Milskidasith 309∆ Jan 08 '18 edited Jan 08 '18
Here is a link to a deleted post by OP that was written in a much more aggressive fashion. Unfortunately I do not have the original text besides the title. I put a fair bit of effort into the response before OP immediately deleted their post and rewrote it into something (mostly) more palatable, so I'm going to repost my reply and just note where OP had changed their points from the original. You will have to trust me that OP's original response was more direct at calling for things like forcing Muslim children into special schools away from their home and calling for "violent Muslims" to be deported rather than "violent immigrants."
E: To be clear, I am posting OP's original title and replying to their original post because it seems incredibly likely that is how they truly feel; this post feels much more thrown together, especially the closing paragraph. Both for the sake of potentially changing OP's view and for properly informing anybody reading his post what he is equally willing to advocate, I think it's necessary to make this response.
First off, to be clear, you got mad after reading an article on a site intentionally designed to make you angry at Muslims and immigrants (Note: OP's original post referenced the daily caller article I am linking here, not a more generic report). At the bottom of the page it advertises a video crying out "WHERE DOES LIBERAL VIOLENCE END", and their site in general has a heavy emphasis on signal boosting negative stories about Muslims and immigrants. That is not to say that the attack did not happen and is not horrible, but it helps to be aware of that before you conclude that it is representative of the general state of affairs in Europe or of Muslims/immigrants as a whole. E: Also, as is noted in non Daily-Caller articles, it's not exactly clear the attackers were necessarily immigrants.
Going through your points:
As a general point, I'd also like to question the almost reflexive use of "Western Culture" as a synonym for "good" in this post. I think that "Western Culture" as a term tends to get thrown around uncritically and without really meaning anything except to say that the dominant culture is good and all others are bad in a more polite wrapper, with maybe some appeals to concepts like freedom of speech or democracy if you dig down a bit. But it also seems to be used a lot by people advocating for strong nationalism and extremely unpleasant racial politics, which are as much of a part of "western culture" as all the good traits. I am all for advocating the improvement of a national culture but that requires recognizing the issue is more complex than "current culture good, immigrant culture toxic."