REDONE wrote:Europeans have xenophobia too.
http://news.yahoo.com/teens-facebook-ph ... 13244.html

Teen’s Facebook Photo Leads to ‘Mass Exodus’ at School

No statements of intent, no history of violence, just brown with gun in a facebook picture.

If he's in the UK where did he get it? Did he take the picture in another country or is it a toy gun?

Love all the name-calling - so civil. "Xenophobe"? If you can call those who disagree with you that, how about we call you American-hating, anti-Semitic, Christian-hating pantywaists? Does that advance the serious discussion of the real issue? But it probably makes you feel superior in your "safe space" here.

So following the logic in the replies above, I take it that the "one drop" principle is still alive in Democrat-land. If any number of refugees are genuine women and children, then they all are. Politifact is not a hack megaphone for the Democrat party. (But its distortions are the genuine faux news.)

How deeply in denial can a person get? Y'all demonstrate that it's very deep indeed. The eagerness with which you believe every word from your government, now that a fellow left-wing extremist is in charge, shows either childish naivete or craven, partisan complicity. Which is it in your case?

Since you have such compassion for these "refugees" how many of you are taking some into your own homes?

And to show the Politifaux lie, here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... error.html

Don't forget the Tsarnaev brothers were "refugees", too.

KnightsFan wrote:I would definitely attribute the problems to Europe's homogenous nature. That and the fact that as a whole Europe has its own problem with racism. Different than the US' but still dangerous.

How is it different?

Who you calling pantywaist?

Xenophobe: 'A person who fears or hates foreigners, foreign customs, or the like.' I got that from my old Random House College Dictionary. It's kinda old, but the description seems to work here. Not so much name-calling, I would argue... more of a description. If it's so safe here, how'd you get in?

Left-wing extremist in charge. I don't think you follow many threads here, FiremanBob, else you'd have figured out that anyone who believes that are a fairly tiny minority in this forum. And if that's truly what you think, I think that places you pretty far right. Which is cool.

I think it's also been demonstrated - heck, in this very thread! - that security is indeed a concern. I know it's a concern of mine. For me, it comes down believing that walling off our entire country would have disproportionate negative effects in order to keep out the handful of crazy people. Some get through, and that's cause for concern and reason to check our processes and seals. So, yeah, I think we should allow refugees in and at the same time do our very best to make sure we don't let in any nuts. Seems our security services have been effective at keeping many out, and catching the ones who come in. I notice you don't address the domestic terrorist issue I brought up earlier, but I reckon you're not here for genuine debate anyhow. No matter.

And for the record, this author would absolutely take in a refugee family if our system worked that way.

Well, this has been fun.

Bacchus wrote:
And for the record, this author would absolutely take in a refugee family if our system worked that way.

Well, this has been fun.

Absolutely!

FiremanBob wrote:Love all the name-calling - so civil. "Xenophobe"? If you can call those who disagree with you that, how about we call you American-hating, anti-Semitic, Christian-hating pantywaists? Does that advance the serious discussion of the real issue? But it probably makes you feel superior in your "safe space" here.

So following the logic in the replies above, I take it that the "one drop" principle is still alive in Democrat-land. If any number of refugees are genuine women and children, then they all are. Politifact is not a hack megaphone for the Democrat party. (But its distortions are the genuine faux news.)

How deeply in denial can a person get? Y'all demonstrate that it's very deep indeed. The eagerness with which you believe every word from your government, now that a fellow left-wing extremist is in charge, shows either childish naivete or craven, partisan complicity. Which is it in your case?

Since you have such compassion for these "refugees" how many of you are taking some into your own homes?

And to show the Politifaux lie, here: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... error.html

Don't forget the Tsarnaev brothers were "refugees", too.

This is the first time you've actually responded in context. No word salad (not too much, anyway). No flight of ideas. Heck, you even responded to a direct question and provided a source (if you can call the "dailymail" a source, that is ).

You're growing up Bob

Now, if you can cut the whining by about half, you'll be halfway to being a halfway reasonable participant.

EDIT TO ADD: Though I am curious about your "one drop" statement. You know, where you said that we subscribe to the idea that if any of the refugees are women and children, then we figure they all are. Think you could be so kind as to hit that little old "quote" button under any posts where anyone suggested anything even close to that?

Tick tock, tick tock, tick tock, tick tock . . .

REDONE wrote:

Bacchus wrote:
And for the record, this author would absolutely take in a refugee family if our system worked that way.

Well, this has been fun.

Absolutely!

Our son's former bedroom could hold a family of three, which would be better accommodations than they have now... But unfortunately they'll have to eat my cooking. I fear a war crimes trial, actually...

CDFingers

CDFingers wrote:

REDONE wrote:

Bacchus wrote:
And for the record, this author would absolutely take in a refugee family if our system worked that way.

Well, this has been fun.

Absolutely!

Our son's former bedroom could hold a family of three, which would be better accommodations than they have now... But unfortunately they'll have to eat my cooking. I fear a war crimes trial, actually...

CDFingers

Are you saying your cooking is an act of aggression?

I took that to mean everything he cooks has bacon in it.

eelj wrote:

KnightsFan wrote:I would definitely attribute the problems to Europe's homogenous nature. That and the fact that as a whole Europe has its own problem with racism. Different than the US' but still dangerous.

How is it different?

Less talked about, less acknowledged, more insidious, racists don't realize that they are racist. It's more similar to racism in the northern US.

TrueTexan wrote:

CDFingers wrote:

REDONE wrote:

Bacchus wrote:
And for the record, this author would absolutely take in a refugee family if our system worked that way.

Well, this has been fun.

Absolutely!

Our son's former bedroom could hold a family of three, which would be better accommodations than they have now... But unfortunately they'll have to eat my cooking. I fear a war crimes trial, actually...

CDFingers

Are you saying your cooking is an act of aggression?

I'm saying my wife says my cooking is criminal. Unless you consider my cheesecake. My waistline only considers it expansive rather than criminal.

on edit:



CDFingers

Oh Bob. The Daily Mail? That's the equivalent of the NY Post, almost to the level of the Enquirer. From Rational Wiki:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Daily_Mail

The Daily Mail is to the U.K. what the New York Post is to the United States, and what the Drudge Report is to the Internet: to wit, gossipy tabloid "journalism" for those who cannot digest serious news, with a flippantly wingnut editorial stance. The Daily Mail is notable among British tabloids for rejecting the standard red-top banner in order to try to appear more upmarket and respectable, although it does sometimes go in for the full front-page picture or headline characteristic of the populist rags. It is also notorious for its frequent harassment of individuals, campaigns of hate directed at various minorities, and willfully deceiving and lying to its readers.

It gets better!

The Mail is usually considered the furthest right of all UK newspapers/tabloids; it competes for this spot with the Daily Express. Although some of the red-top tabloids might throw about more extreme rhetoric, their laddish attitude often means they're not taken too seriously - the Mail, however, is entirely Serious Business. Their primary editorial stances are:
Anti-immigration
Anti-welfare and poor people in general
Health sensationalism (particularly with respect to cancer)
Anti–government
Anti-LGBT
Anti-Europe
Anti-human rights because human rights only protect the obviously guilty and/or paedophiles or darkies.
Anti-politics because the Mail's views are not politics, but just common sense.
Anti-internet and other modern technology ('Facebook kills our children')
Anti-taxes (mainly for those who can afford to pay them)
Anti-intellectualism ('what do they know?) including academics, experts (including doctors); indeed anyone with an "-ology."
Anti-lawyers, especially those who defend the enemies of the Daily Mail State.
Anti-liberal (not realising that the opposite of liberalism - (with a small 'l') is not Conservatism but totalitarianism/fascism)
Pro-objectification of women
Declinism about UK life, the economy, etc.
Pro-complaining about anything and everything
Claiming that political changes were because of their campaigns

So trusting anything that tabloid says? Nah. Not without some other sources.

As to trusting the president? On some things yes, on other things definitely not. On the refugee issue? There's room to help and be true to our principles, founded as a country of immigrants. A process and vetting? Absolutely. Inserting racism and vitriol because of where someone is from? Absolutely not.

modernhamlet wrote:The thing that drives me nuts is that this response (rejection of refugees) serves the goals of the people who actually carried out the attacks.

That and the fact that the people that carried out these attacks are the same people from which these refugees are trying to escape in the first place.

It's just mind numbingly stupid...

Indeed. These far-right wing types and ISIS are two sides of the same coin. ISIS is banking on Muslims being alienated, persecuted, etc. so they can be more easily recruited to their cause. And even though these far-right types (who, by the way, have no principled opposition to Sharia; they simply want to establish something similar under a "Christian" label) are effectively aiding terrorists, they will never be treated as they should be treated for doing as such.

The exasperation of these far-right types ultimately stems from people moving to the left, in addition to the growing clout of non-white people. They are on their way to the dustbin of history. I just hope like hell they don't take the right to bear arms with them (if I were an anti-gun politician, I would point at these far-right wing types and say that guns need to be banned so that minorities don't get shot by far-right people).

Speaking of relatively impartial news sources... A couple of well-informed opinions from the middle - one is in reference to EU and one to US:

Concerns about terrorism and the refugees are legitimate, but the fears being voiced are usually exaggerated and the concerns raised often the wrong ones.

If the refugees are treated as a short-term humanitarian problem rather than as a long-term integration challenge, then we are likely to see this problem worsen. Radicals will be among those who provide the religious, educational, and social support for the refugees – creating a problem where none existed. Indeed, the refugees need a comprehensive and long-term package that includes political rights, educational support, and economic assistance as well as immediate humanitarian aid, particularly if they are admitted in large numbers. If they cannot be integrated into local communities, then they risk perpetuating, or even exacerbating, the tensions between Muslim and non-Muslim communities in Europe. Despite their current gratitude for sanctuary in Europe, over time the refugees may be disenfranchised and become alienated. We’ve seen this movie before, where anger and disaffection fester, creating “suspect communities” that do not cooperate with law enforcement and security agencies and allow terrorists to recruit and operate with little interference.

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/markaz/p ... reat-byman

Simply shutting down the program won't stop jihadis from finding their way to the United States. It’s their innocent victims who'll suffer. This won’t make America, the land of the brave and free, any safer — just a whole lot more ashamed of itself when the fear abates and sanity returns.

https://reason.com/blog/2015/11/17/deny ... ic#comment

Statement from my Presiding Bishop on the Syrian refugees:

“Be not afraid!”
Often in the gospels, fear grips the people of God, and time and again, either the angels, or Our Lord himself, respond with the same words of comfort: “Be not afraid.”

In times like this fear is real. And I share that fear with you. Our instinct tells us to be afraid. The fight-or-flight mentality takes hold. At the present moment, many across our Church and our world are grasped by fear in response to the terrorist attacks that unfolded in Paris last Friday. These fears are not unfounded. We can and should support law enforcement officials who are working hard and at great risk to protect us from crime and keep us safe. And yet, especially when we feel legitimate fear, our faith reminds us “Be not afraid.” The larger truth is that our ultimate security comes from God in Christ.

In the Book of Leviticus, God says to the people of Israel that, “the foreigner who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the foreigner as yourself, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt.” Accordingly, we welcome the stranger. We love our neighbor. The Episcopal Church has long been committed to resettling refugees in our own communities fleeing violence and persecution. http://episcopaldigitalnetwork.com/ens/ ... ot-afraid/

bigstones wrote:Statement from my Presiding Bishop on the Syrian refugees:

“Be not afraid!”
Often in the gospels, fear grips the people of God, and time and again, either the angels, or Our Lord himself, respond with the same words of comfort: “Be not afraid.”

In times like this fear is real. And I share that fear with you. Our instinct tells us to be afraid. The fight-or-flight mentality takes hold. At the present moment, many across our Church and our world are grasped by fear in response to the terrorist attacks that unfolded in Paris last Friday. These fears are not unfounded. We can and should support law enforcement officials who are working hard and at great risk to protect us from crime and keep us safe. And yet, especially when we feel legitimate fear, our faith reminds us “Be not afraid.” The larger truth is that our ultimate security comes from God in Christ.

In the Book of Leviticus, God says to the people of Israel that, “the foreigner who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the foreigner as yourself, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt.” Accordingly, we welcome the stranger. We love our neighbor. The Episcopal Church has long been committed to resettling refugees in our own communities fleeing violence and persecution. http://episcopaldigitalnetwork.com/ens/ ... ot-afraid/

Good stuff. Thank you for posting this.

I guess Murrow got it wrong. Maybe we are descended from fearful men.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bacchus wrote:

bigstones wrote:Statement from my Presiding Bishop on the Syrian refugees:

“Be not afraid!”
Often in the gospels, fear grips the people of God, and time and again, either the angels, or Our Lord himself, respond with the same words of comfort: “Be not afraid.”

In times like this fear is real. And I share that fear with you. Our instinct tells us to be afraid. The fight-or-flight mentality takes hold. At the present moment, many across our Church and our world are grasped by fear in response to the terrorist attacks that unfolded in Paris last Friday. These fears are not unfounded. We can and should support law enforcement officials who are working hard and at great risk to protect us from crime and keep us safe. And yet, especially when we feel legitimate fear, our faith reminds us “Be not afraid.” The larger truth is that our ultimate security comes from God in Christ.

In the Book of Leviticus, God says to the people of Israel that, “the foreigner who resides with you shall be to you as the citizen among you; you shall love the foreigner as yourself, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt.” Accordingly, we welcome the stranger. We love our neighbor. The Episcopal Church has long been committed to resettling refugees in our own communities fleeing violence and persecution. http://episcopaldigitalnetwork.com/ens/ ... ot-afraid/

Good stuff. Thank you for posting this.

Yeah: Plus One to the Max.

CDFingers

FiremanBob wrote:If you can call those who disagree with you that, how about we call you American-hating, anti-Semitic, Christian-hating pantywaists?

who is this "we" you speak of?

He has a mouse in his pocket...

CDFingers

Xenophobia is the fear of that which is perceived to be foreign or strange.[1][2] Xenophobia can manifest itself in many ways involving the relations and perceptions of an ingroup towards an outgroup, including a fear of losing identity, suspicion of its activities, aggression, and desire to eliminate its presence to secure a presumed purity.

If the shoe fits, it's not name calling. It's proper use of the English language.

Another religious leader gets it right.

The Dalai Lama speaks the truth.

Don’t pray for Paris — work for peace, he told Deutsche Welle, a German broadcasting company.

“We cannot solve this problem only through prayers,” the spiritual leader said. “I am a Buddhist and I believe in praying. But humans have created this problem, and now we are asking God to solve it. It is illogical. God would say, solve it yourself because you created it in the first place.”

“We need a systematic approach to foster humanistic values, of oneness and harmony,” he said. “If we start doing it now, there is hope that this century will be different from the previous one. It is in everybody’s interest. So let us work for peace within our families and society, and not expect help from God, Buddha or the governments.”

"Furthermore, the problems that we are facing today are the result of superficial differences over religious faiths and nationalities,” he told DW. “We are one people.”

http://www.alternet.org/world/dalai-lam ... t-solve-it

I think he hit the nail on the head. But, I don't think his ideas will go over well with the evangelical right wing Christian group or GOP sorry being redundant.

TrueTexan wrote:

CDFingers wrote:

REDONE wrote:

Bacchus wrote:
And for the record, this author would absolutely take in a refugee family if our system worked that way.

Well, this has been fun.

Absolutely!

Our son's former bedroom could hold a family of three, which would be better accommodations than they have now... But unfortunately they'll have to eat my cooking. I fear a war crimes trial, actually...

CDFingers

Are you saying your cooking is an act of aggression?

i think he might be referring to the poison gas attacks after dinner.

Lurker wrote:

TrueTexan wrote:

CDFingers wrote:
Our son's former bedroom could hold a family of three, which would be better accommodations than they have now... But unfortunately they'll have to eat my cooking. I fear a war crimes trial, actually...

CDFingers

Are you saying your cooking is an act of aggression?

i think he might be referring to the poison gas attacks after dinner.

That's chemical warfare. Isn't that illegal in California if you can have more than ten attacks after eating dinner?

I don't know enough about this subject to have an opinion on it either way (yet), but I would strongly caution against simplistic generalizations.

If the examination of human conflict through history has taught us anything, it's that nothing is ever so simple and reducible. Trying to apply a broad brush like "xenophobic" or "racist" has never been historically correct. In reality, such things always turn out to be single strands within a nuanced and complex tapestry.

Doing this not only strikes me as naive, it willfully ignores the very lessons we should be looking for to improve the world going forward. Those blind to the conflux of factors are doomed to repeat what they can never see coming.

Generalizations serve only as an easy way to dismiss a behavior without trying to account for the underlying humanity within it. It lets us judge others without turning that same mirror on ourselves. I think the common word now is "othering"?


As a hypothetical: Say Quebec's desire to separate from Canada actually escalated into a civil war (the "Maple Wars Eh") and ~17 million Canadians try to flee into the USA as refugees. We have land mass, yes, but people need things like food, shelter, medical care, clean water and their Monopoly money is now worthless given the turbulence in their nation. Who is going to pay and provide for them? Especially when our own economy still struggles, it's a logistics nightmare. How many should we let in and how do we balance that against what we could feasibly handle? At what point do logistical concerns and xenophobia start to coalesce?

Just food for thought.