Islamophobic is a junk word; this is not an irrational fear, but one based on actual evidence. Muslim men from countries where Islam is the dominant culture do treat women on the whole in a pretty poor fashion, and though it ranges on a scale. The manifestations we saw in Cologne typify the end of the scale.
The term "Islamophobia" also applies to an hatred, not just fear.
If you don't like the label, don't give people the reason to mention it.
ss said:
I didn't say "let them all die". What I said was it is not my problem, it is not our problem to take on the population of a failed nation which will only cause us problems. You may call that sickening but what is the damn point of destroying two nations instead of just one. The young men who committed these crimes in Cologne could be back in Syria fighting to build a better nation, not destroying the fabric of our own nations. That's the way things go, nations rise and nations fall, but if you think it is our "duty" to just invite destruction to our own nations then that is an incredibly stupid position to hold.
Funny how you keep putting things in my posts that I didn't actually say. Quote me correctly or don't quote me at all. You're supposed to be a moderator, so fucking post properly.
"Let them all die" is what I read when you say "that's not our problem".
When you simply reject the idea of europe accepting asylum seekers, you are stating that you don't care if these people live or die. Maybe that implication isn't deliberate, but it is how i read it.
I'm fairly certain you must understand the link i'm drawing between "not our problem" and "let them all die" - but if you sincerely don't, then i must say "sorry".
I'm sure you must understand (and had had plenty of people explain to you politely on BL) that these people are running for their lives - and you emphatically say "I just do not care, I choose the safety and prosperity of our nations over theirs, and I make no apology for that" - you are implicitly stating that you don't care what happens to these people, so long as they don't come to your country.
Is that a fair assessment?
I apologise unreservedly for the hurt i caused you by mischaracterising you as "far right" ("or extreme far right").
I thought you were fairly open about your views, which i have always thought were best categorised as far right. Do you consider yourself "conservative"?
Anyway.
This is the game you play every time. Make an outrageous, inflammatory post - then watch the reaction it generates.
You take this criticism with indignation, rather than grace - and claim to be the victim of some sort of bullying because you have a "contrary opinion". You make personal digs at people (
such as Alasdair) but complain loudly when you feel that has been done to you.
It especially suits your MO if you can drag a mod into this bait-and-cry-foul.
You're not a victim here. You allege that you're being misquoted, and that people are judging your character - yet you continually post;
ss said:
Some of my remarks are sarcastic because I know it pisses off uptight progressive numpties. Having said that some of my perspective does have a sexist tangent to it, from the perspective you exist in perhaps.. but I stand by my position. I don't hold it because I hate women or whatever crap you want to attribute to it.. my views generally go against the grain, not by choice, but because the society we live in right now is so fucking backwards, upside down and inside out that my views appear to be outside acceptable conventions.
Bolded text #1 - admission of trolling - sorry, i mean posting "sarcastic" sexism because it "pisses off uptight progressive numpties".
Note also your casual categorising ("uptight progressive") and insults ("numpties").
Bolded text #2 - a claim that "the society we live in right now is so fucking backwards" - is the same society that we must protect from people fleeing war - and fleeing torture, executions, rape, sex slavery at the hands of ISIS?
ss said:
Yeh the refugee crisis sucks, but what is the point in trying to sink two nations as opposed to just one. Let the nations Syria has a cultural affinity with shoulder this burden, not our European nations of different cultural compatibility. I just do not care, I choose the safety and prosperity of our nations over theirs, and I make no apology for that.
ss said:
my views generally go against the grain, not by choice, but because the society we live in right now is so fucking backwards
It's so fucking backwards, yet we must not let people destroy it by...wanting to become a part of it.
You say "i make no apology" for saying "I just do not care, I choose the safety and prosperity of our nations over theirs, and I make no apology for that" and "what is the point in trying to sink two nations as opposed to just one".
This last quote - let us analyse that.
"what is the point of trying to sink two nations as opposed to just one[?]"
Well, the "point" of humanitarian intake of refugees in to save innocent people's lives.
If those people don't escape - they often die.
If those people cannot get safe passage to countries that provide opportunities for them to start a new life for their families, or where there is sanitation, clean water, medicine, food - they
die. People die.
Now, i suspect you'll claim you were saying nothing of the sort - but that is my reading of your post there. It's about the context.
Refugees that are not granted asylum very often end up dead or imprisoned. This is the reality of the world today, and you are well aware of that.
As for "what is the point in trying to sink two nations as opposed to just one[?]" - which two nations are you talking about?
Iraq? Syria? Germany? The UK?
Those are 4 of many possible options there, but as you are talking about your own self interest (see the bit before "i make no apologies about that") - let us assume you are talking about Syria and Britain.
Syria is not the only source of refugees in all of this. Britain is not the only country granting asylum.
But you want to reduce it down to two countries - ok, fine - but what is this "sink" bit? mean?
Are you suggesting we - the Western world - should turn our backs on all of the people fleeing war and violence in the Middle East and North Africa?
As i mentioned - turning our collective backs on these people results in all manner of terrible atrocities taking place, and people dying.
Are you suggesting Britain should defy international law, and deny people the right to claim asylum from within their borders? Or am i missing your point here? I must be, because i know that there are more than 2 countries affected by all of this.
ss said:
let the nations Syria has a cultural affinity with shoulder this burden, not our European nations of different cultural compatibility
"The nations Syria has a cultural affinity with"
Which nations are they? The ones that have taken hundreds of thousands - even millions of refugees in?
This has been explained to you over and over again - but the countries immediately surrounding Syria have either no "cultural affinity" with Syria(ns) (whatever that even means) or they've taken as many people as they can - or even more (such as Turkey - who have taken over 2 200 000 Syrian people - or Jordan, who have taken 1 400 000 ?).
How many Syrian refugees have Britain taken?
5102, according to
this.
Hardly seems fair to tell the others they need to pull their weight, does it?
Now, the point you continually come back to is that you don't want Western Europe - or the UK especially - to accept asylum claims from Syrian people. Sorry - i'm describing my interpretation of your sentiments, not your actual words -
ss said:
Is it though? Do you really accept that it is the responsibility of the ordinary men and women of the host nations to shoulder the toxic people who come from outside the nation?
in reply to this
There has to be an effort to contain this mess and that means accepting some refugees, and yes, possibly dealing with some issues such as these. So long as the inflow of immigrants is controlled and there is an effort to weed out the bad apples, this is a reasonable solution to the crisis.
Ok, so you reject the idea that we need to accept refugees on the basis of a string of appalling incidents that happened across Europe at new year celebrations.
I don't think there is anywhere near sufficient justification to completely close borders on the basis of incidents that we do not fully understand yet.
If you have some damning piece of evidence as to how this incident is directly linked to refugee intake (beyond the fact that some may have been involved) - please post it here, because i've not seen it yet.
What i see is a deliberate attempt to exploit this sitution and use it to push your anti-immigration views.
If i say that, am i "projecting onto" your posts what i "want to see?"
I couldn't be - because i
don't want to see such flippant remarks being made about serious issues and real people's lives.
I am at a loss to see why you can't see how this could be considered a hateful and slanderous generalisation:
ss said:
Young Islamic men who treat women like fucking dirt and have no qualms about aggressive sexual assertiveness
and, incidentally, could be considered in breach of this;
blua said:
post or upload any content that victimizes, harasses, degrades, or intimidates an individual or group of individuals on the basis of race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation or any other reason;
But if this was about the BLUA, i'd have reported it.
instead i thought i'd discuss it with you, because it is something relevant to discuss, i don't think it is too "personal" is it?
And not so much from a mod (i am not a mod in this subforum [and apologise to the long suffering ce&p mods for this silly carry-on]) - but as one member of bluelight to another.
It is interesting how you accuse people of abusing you, yet you seem to have resorted to profanity to get your point across.
That's fine - but if you are going to say things that you know are going to push buttons, and deliberately exploit cultural clashes to make the case against accepting refugees into your country, people might disagree with you.
They might even do it in ways you don't like - but the best way to counter this is to lead by example write in a dignified manner - then together we might be able to lift the tone a bit, and have a conversation that doesnt degenerate into mud-slinging nonsense.
