Than what else are you saying than if not blame Muslims and Islam?
I've outline key steps to the solving the crisis in Europe; start off by acknowledging the issues with the ideology of Islam and the conflict caused by the incompatability in Islamic values and western values so a discussion can be had in order to come to a solution. Only after establishing the issue can you go about solving it.
As for the issue of multiculturalism let's put white nationalist undertones of people that say this to the side, when people say there's a problem with multiculturalism they are saying different people shouldn't mix and saying every other people besides us is harmful. In this specific case we are referring to immigration even tho those who spout issue with multiculturalism don't discriminate if your born there or not if your not them they don't want you. And these people selectively have an issue with multiculturalism of let me pick and choose what I like and conforms or manipulate to my culture anything else get out. But theythan either support or silent on having other countries conform. And a word by these same people used constantly is they must assimilate and again what that means is do what I like and am comfortable with. So the underlying message of antimulticulturalism is to adopt your beliefs and lifestyles no matter where in the world you are so in reality they want subservients.
I don't know who this "
they" you keep referring to. I'm not a part of this "they", so don't associate my beliefs with
theirs. Multi-"CULTURALISM" is not a matter of race. The problem isn't "
brown skin people are coming into the country, oh no", the problem is migrants from the middle east have contradicting value systems and are not only failing to integrate into western society, but are causing issues with the current natives. This is not "let me pick and choose to make people subservient” as you define it, this is pointing out beliefs that are incompatible and contradict the basic principles and values western society is built upon and that cannot be tolerated.
And before you ever try to strawman me with the “them”, I'm not an ethno-nationalist, I am a civic nationalist. I do not care for creating a racially homogenous state, nor do I believe it is a valid solution. I, being black and latino, would rather live in a community surrounded by middle-easterners who support the idea freedom and liberty than live in a community surrounded by Blacks and Latinos who don't. Being against multiculturalism doesn't make you an ethnonationlist or a member of the alt-right the same way being against communism doesn't make you an anarcho-capitalist or a member of the neo-libertarian movement.
Even tho we've already discussed the issue of crime and immigration in a previous thread let's for the sake of arguement just say immigrants bring an inherent harm to society. I'm not going care if your anti immigrant if your also actively anti intervention. And again I'm going to ask why is there the immigration of the first place let's talk Syria there's info that US supported agents created that instability and we're do you think isis came from the vacuum from Iraq that we created and yes Saudia Arabia supports these fighters ...an Allie of us it's no secret these groups and past terror groups have gotten funds and training from us.
I've established that Islamic terrorism at large and Islamic terrorism in Europe are two separate issues that share similar roots, but have varying symptoms and very different ways of going about solving them. This is starting to become a red-herring.
Can I understand and sympathize the issues proposed by those who are antimulticulturalist I'll answer it with this analogy, even tho I can understand on a base level the appeal of Donald Trump which there is some merit to be found but he's not the answer even tho he's addressing base issues a segment feels and what he and people like the alt right represent is a push back to these things.
I don't know how to respond to this because your analogy (which wasn’t a rhetorical device in the slightest) since it has no relation with me. I don't see what Trump or the alt-right have to do with me and there’s no reason to draw such a parallel.
So fiji how are you not doing what I said you are blaming Islam and muslims as the root cause and you faintly acknowledge interventions existing but shrug it off saying it's really not doing anything.
First off, don't attach Muslims to this. I have nothing against Muslims at large, my issue is with the ideology of Islam.
Secondly, I didn't "faintly acknowledge interventions and shrug it off and say it's not doing anything". The largest section of my previous comment addresses that issue, and I stated interventionism has nothing to with the crisis in Europe. And again, I've established that Islamic terrorism at large and Islamic terrorism in Europe are two separate issues that share similar roots, but have varying symptoms and very different ways of going about solving them. Unless you’re able to explain how pointing out U.S. meddling solves the crisis in Europe, this is a red-herring.
You asked for my solution well it will come down to two things either both sides legitimately strive for real resolution and work together or one side takes the initiative to do the right thing. And you may ask why should we make the initiative, the biggest reason for recruiting is our actions so what we do on this foreign countries have effects and if you believe it happen irregardless well our actions give those groups more power.
Aaaaand your solution is "initiative" and unity; "
we gotta come togeder n do sumtin!". You would have been better off saying your solution was posting more #PrayForManchester hashtags. At least then you would have been helping yourself feel better, because your non-solution does nothing for anyone.
And people at the top find this advantageous and people with your mentality are indifferent and tbh I don't mean you specifically but in general I think the number 1 reason for mentality like yours is tribalistic of wanting to be apart of a group and accepted.
You keep referencing this conspiratorial Anti-Islamic Cabal at "the top". If you were looking at the power scheme from a truly holistic perspective, you'd know that "the top", which consists of the corporate media, big corporations, globalist, and neocons and neolibs benefit from mass immigration, multiculturalism, radical leftism, radical conservatism, and interventionism. This is not a left vs right issue as extremes from both sides contribute to the problem, this is globalism vs freedom. Your version of the top consisting of Anti-Islamic ethno-nationalist or whatever bigoted belief you believe they hold, is a figment of the left, and if you followed your line of logic, being, “Anti-Islamist are at the top”, you’d see how wrong of a position it is. Anti-Islamist don't run the media, anti-Islamist don’t control social media, anti-Islamist don't control the language or dialogue, anti-Islamist don't control public perception, etc. If Anti-Islamist are at the top, they’re doing a shitty job and controlling things from the shadows.
And what is my mentality? Every time you respond to me, you frame me as if I'm an anti-Muslim, alt-right, Trump supporting, tribalistic white nationalist, when I'm the antithesis of most of those things. You always strawman my position or reference a position that I don't even hold and respond to that rather than responding to my actual positions. Feels bad man.
You are not acknowledging the issue, what you are doing is finding a punching bag, a scapegoat or whatever you want to call it. Something or someone you can blame for the misfortune that has befallen us. It's a tendency that humans have had throughout their history as it's just much easier to have something specific, whether it be a person, idea or concept, that can be used as a reference point and piss on it rather than accepting the reality that the situation is too complex. People don't want to feel powerless, so they create a "villain" which gives them the false sense of security they can fight it.
Well, I’ve learned something special today; mods are not above committing fallacies like poisoning the well.
“Make sure when you’re finished using Cerebro to carry out your psycho analysis of the inner workings of my psyche to return it to professor X”. There’s no logical to way tie my comments to your assertions, so unless your able to read my mind, it’d be best for you stick to refuting my points with evidence and reasoning, not placing your false interpretations of my motivations behind my position.
Your villain is "multiculturalism", however that is not the issue. The issue is how many people can't deal with it and even that is only a small part of the whole problem and that people don't want to acknowledge that and rather stick to an imaginary villain is another part of that same problem.
“
The issue is not multiculturalism; the problem is people can’t deal with multiculturalism”
“
The problem is not that blasphemy against the ideology of Islam is justification for death against blasphemers, the problem is people can’t deal with being blasphemers”.
“
The problem is not women are targets of sexual assault and victims of domestic violence as reinforced and prescribed by Islam, the problem is women can’t deal with wearing a burqa in public and don’t know how to fall in line when being spoken to a man.”
“
The problem isn’t that most Muslims support and would willing protect radical jihadist because, as the Quran implies should they side with a non-Muslim they will end up in hell, the problem is law enforcement haven’t done a proper job at dealing with radicals.”
“
The problem is not that Sharia Law is incompatible with western society or that the very existence of Sharia Law in the west is a contradiction of the basic principles which the west was founded upon, the problem is that people can’t deal flogging, or with women being ½ an individual under the court of Sharia law, or that certain sins are punishable by death”.
“
The problem is not that apostates are shunned and targeted for leaving the religion of Islam, the problem is people can’t deal with the gravity of committing a sin as great as apostacy”.
What on Allah’s green earth do you mean by “people can deal with multiculturalism’? Are you saying people are incapable of coping with the effects of the culture of Islam? Are you saying people are intolerant of the culture of Islam? Or are you rephrasing the obvious by stating that multiculturalism is an issue people cannot handle? We already know the victims of the Manchester bombings couldn’t “deal” with the effects of the culture of Islam, and we already know Charlie Hebdo couldn’t “deal” with the effects either.
I’ll give you a chance to explain yourself, because there’s no positive way of interpreting your statement as you’ve stated it. I also want to point out the irony in claiming people won’t acknowledge “the issue” as you fail to define “the issue”. Saying it’s “not the only issue” adds nothing to anything.
And this can be proven quite easily as tell me what is multiculturalism? It's easy to read theoretical definitions, but when you apply it to society it becomes almost impossible to apprehend as where do you draw the lines? Religion? Language? Ethnicity? Nationality? Some of the most prosperous empires in history were so successful because of their multicultural nature. America by its very core became a superpower because of that same multicultural background. When you subjectively are going to draw lines to what you think is acceptable, you are not acknowledging the issue, you are creating it.
In context of the crisis in Europe, the problem of multiculturalism exists on an ideological level. When I say multiculturalism, I don’t mean the celebration of ethnic diversity and the appreciation of different customs, traditions, music, food, etc., that is a false mock-up of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism, as promoted in today’s political-sphere, is a philosophy based on moral relativism which is the belief that all cultures are morally valid and no one culture is superior than another. This creates problems when customs, traditions, and values that do not merit promotion, or conflict with preexisting customs, traditions, and values. Because of this philosophy, any desires from the host culture for assimilation into their culture as perceived a desire fueled out of unbridled chauvinism and intolerance, and to avoid appearing as intolerant or “racist”, people unknowingly choose to focus on multiculturalism on the false front of being celebration of inoffensive customs and values we can enjoy, ignoring the economic, cultural, and sociopolitical issues that come from multiculturalism.
One of the fundamental core issues of multiculturalism is the fact that it’s a value purely held by of the west, meaning it’s a value that is never reciprocated on a global front. Should I as an American migrate to Japan, I am expected to learn the ways of the culture to the extent where I can peacefully exist within Japanese society; that would include learning the language, the economic and political customs, and observing the basic social customs, and practices. Should I as an American migrate to Afghanistan, I am not only expected to learn the ways of the culture to the extent where I can peacefully exist within Afghan culture, but I am also expected to forfeit certain customs and values, as some customs, and values are not tolerated and are punishable by death. But should any migrant from any country come to live in the west, they aren’t expected to learn the languages or adhere to any of the social customs, or basic values that allow things like the philosophy of multiculturalism to exist. This creates socioeconomic issues caused by inability to operate in society, and cultural issues such as racial and residential segregation which leads to ghettos, poor education, and racial friction; on an ideological standpoint, it creates a double standard where we must tolerate other cultures even if those cultures come in the form of intolerance, but should not expect to be tolerated. “Chauvinism is only applicable to the west”.
And to answer your question of where the line is drawn, it’s drawn where the arriving culture comes in conflict with the existing culture, making them incompatible. I believe migrants of any culture should integrate to the society of the preexisting culture, but should be able to hold on to their previous cultures and values to the extent where it does not create conflict, therefore. In the context of the crisis in Europe, Islam not only crosses this line on many fronts, but attempts to push the line on what is considered culturally acceptable.
Yes Islam is involved here, but it's not the only thing that's involved here and generalizing it is not going to be any help. To go along with your disease analogy, if you diagnose wrong the consequences could be catastrophic. It's also troublesome that you think that the first step is "blaming" as that that's the least important and the most irrelevant aspect of the entire thing and by doing so you just confirmed again what I said: people rather point fingers, which doesn't solve anything, rather than facing the reality of the situation.
But people don’t want to face the reality of the situation, people want to defend Islam and remove any association it has with the acts of terrorism, or the rise of ghettos and rape gangs in the name of protecting a minority group. People don’t want to allow moderate Muslims and Islamic reformist to take lead in making Islam compatible with the west because doing so would forfeit to the idea that Islam has core issues. How can you face the reality of the situation when people haven’t even come to a consensus on what the reality of the situation is? You can’t. And telling people they’re not facing the reality of the issue while not making any true attempts at defining the reality of the issue does nothing for anyone. I don’t hold the position that the sole issue is Islam, I’ve already acknowledged horrible foreign policy being a contributing factor, so you don’t need to tell me it’s not the issue.
You hold on so tightly to the negative connotation behind the word “blame” when blame simply conveys the idea of assigning responsibility for a fault, so I’ll will stick to using the definition of blame because using euphemisms is the only way to avoid having my position misconstrued. I want to assign responsibility of the crisis in Europe to the culture of Islam, and I want to assign responsibility to the E.U. for their virtue signaling and their counterproductive foreign policy that put Europe into this mess. Multiculturalism isn’t the “villain”, it is a political tool.
