Bay 12 Games Forum

The Republicans taking it to court and dragging it out for weeks and months instead of voting it down in one day is my favourite.

Maybe they’re using the time to brainstorm their response?

Quote from: hector13 on October 30, 2020, 12:22:43 am

Quote from: scriver on October 29, 2020, 06:53:33 pm

Nobody likes being condescendingly lectured with self-obviousities either, hector.

Quote from: hector13 on October 29, 2020, 05:20:39 pm

Nobody likes a smartass, scriver.

If you already have 3 generations worth of immigration, how does stronger border control now prevent the spectre of radicalization from rearing it’s ugly head?

Refusing to not make more mistakes because mistakes have already been made and there's already radical rightwing terrorists here now so there's no point in not making the problem with rightwing terrorists grow larger over time is a very strange way of thinking and I don't think it would be responsible for any government to act according to it.

If we for the sake of the argument accept migration as the root cause then the reasonable course of action is to diminish that inflow so that countries can deradicalise the radicals who have already established themselves in the country without additional radicals constantly flowing in and making the groups even larger.

Why not both at the same time? While you’re deradicalising you learn the process of radicalization and find common themes in populations prone to extremism that can be targeted to reduce the incidence, similar to the research LW posted.

I literally said why in the post you quoted.

It presupposes radicalization in immigrants, which could be rooted out while doing what you said in your post, and doesn’t tar a third of the world as potential terrorists who need to be kept away at all cost.

Quote

Migration during this means you know who is susceptible to it, what signs to look out for, and can guide the migrants toward resources that will prevent it from happening.

Teaching critical thinking in schools (while being a good idea in general for everyone) will also provide folk with the tools necessary to question potentially radicalizing material, reducing incidence further. Heck, just classes on the signs of radicalisation would be useful, and isn’t limited to the Islamic world either.

Quote from: scriver on October 29, 2020, 06:53:33 pm

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

If you’d like me to expand on what I said, I think it’s not an immigration issue because not all immigrants are Muslim, which means you have to ask immigrants their religion, which is a protected status in Europe, so you probably wouldn’t get away with directly asking about it anyway.

Pointless rambing: At what point do you determine someone is a religious zealot enough to deny them entry to your country? Sure if you know someone is engaging in militancy and they show up at your border, send them away or better yet arrest them, but what about the average Muslim showing up to come in? You going to say that you’re so worried in 20 years or 40 years time when their kids or grandkids grow up they might be more likely to become a radical that they can’t come in? /Pointless rambling

It's a migration issue because it roots itself from migration. Pretending it isn't is just posturing; likely for the ideological sake of refusing to acknowledge that migration has bad sides and not just good.

I suspect you and I are thinking of different things when we say migration, because when I say migration I mean people moving from one sovereign territory to another, whereas you seem to be focused on the Muslim world, which is why I said the allegedly self-obvious things you got snarky over.

No, we don't, your "sneaking suspicion" is just your own sense of self-superiority.

The reason only Muslim migrants are relevant to the discussion of islamist terrorism is because radical islamists are generally Muslims.

If I felt superior I obviously wouldn’t need to engage you in this because I’d be right and you’d be wrong and understanding your position better wouldn’t change that, but that’s why I’m continuing this; I want to understand your position, despite the snarky snippets which I could really do without.

Let’s explore your idea then. You can start deradicalisation programs, but how do you identify those that need to go through them? How do you get them onto the program? What should happen to someone who doesn’t complete the program successfully? How does stopping Muslim migration while doing this help?

You said we should consider the long term effects, good and bad, of our decision making on our communities. What do you think are the long term effects of your idea, which I see as stopping specifically Muslim migration and profiling what’s left for deradicalisation, correct me if I’m wrong?

Quote

Quote from: scriver on October 29, 2020, 06:53:33 pm

As for the latter part, I don't see any problems at all with a lowered migration rate resulting in average Muslims not getting in if does mean a lowered rate of rightwing terrorists in the future. We as people in a community must consider the effects of our actions upon our communities even in the long term. It's not really that unlike our environmental situation right now, except your the boomer who is refusing to change because the consequences of not changing will lay upon future shoulders rather than their own.

Your way is shifting the problem onto someone else, too. This is how you end up with immigrants being treated like cargo on a ship in the Med for weeks on end.

Taking responsibility for a problem is not shifting the problem onto others. And no, the current policies is how we ended up with migrants being treated like cargo on the Med.

Matteo Salvini wasn’t exactly an open doors guy, scriver, and he’s the reason why there are (or were, at least) ships of migrants sitting around in the Med.

Do you think the newly turned away migrants are going to go back home because you said no at the border, wherever that border may be? There’s a reason they packed up their shit and left, so if you say no, they’re going somewhere else. That’s not taking responsibility, that’s making it someone else’s problem.

That not all religious people become extremists does not mean religion does not play a role for the ones who do.

Urge to snark rising.

I’m sure they’ll be a graveyard smash.

Congrats, though.

Nobody likes a smartass, scriver.

If you already have 3 generations worth of immigration, how does stronger border control now prevent the spectre of radicalization from rearing it’s ugly head?

If you’d like me to expand on what I said, I think it’s not an immigration issue because not all immigrants are Muslim, which means you have to ask immigrants their religion, which is a protected status in Europe, so you probably wouldn’t get away with directly asking about it anyway.

Pointless rambing: At what point do you determine someone is a religious zealot enough to deny them entry to your country? Sure if you know someone is engaging in militancy and they show up at your border, send them away or better yet arrest them, but what about the average Muslim showing up to come in? You going to say that you’re so worried in 20 years or 40 years time when their kids or grandkids grow up they might be more likely to become a radical that they can’t come in? /Pointless rambling

Or do you just want to make more snarky comments and not engage me in discussion and I’d be better served coming up with my own snarky comments like “well you’ve got three generations of Muslims so when do you plan on developing your 4th dimensional border control m8?” :p

It most certainly is a migration problem. Whether the consequences become evident one or two generations down the line they still stem from migration. Willingly refusing to see issues in a long-term perspective just make you, well, short sighted.

My optometrist has been wrong all these years!

Radical Islam isn’t an immigration issue ‘cause you can’t stop an idea at the border, nor can you pull it out of someone’s head space. Further, not all Muslims are susceptible to violent radicalization, just as all violent radicals aren’t Muslim (for some reason auto-correct wants that to be in all caps).

Quote from: hector13 on October 28, 2020, 09:19:41 pm

You will cease this negative self talk immediately!

But hector... Negative self talk is the one thing I'm truly talented at!

Well then.

I guess you’d better get talented at putting wood in your mouth so you can’t talk negative to yourself.m

I think that sentence works figuratively and literally, too, so you have no excuses now; get to it.

Today I got rudely awoken by my Mom... I had only had a few hours of sleep... my intended rest was ruined... so I mustered all my strength to haul my lazy ass out of bed.

I feel the need to point this part out.

You ain’t lazy if you had only a few hours sleep and were awoken early by someone else demanding you do something they were capable of doing on their own.

You will cease this negative self talk immediately!

The game sounds interesting though. Every cloud, and all that.

Read all the pages.

Was made angry and sad and incredulous and happy, not in equal measure.

I struggle to see how Zan can defend Trump on anything - from his legitimization of a tin-pot dictator waving around his nukes, to his demonizing the media as the enemy of the people - apparently because some people called him fascist and what he’s doing doesn’t meet the textbook definition of fascist. It’s already been said that the what-aboutism regarding previous presidents does not excuse the incumbent’s behaviour, but it bears repeating: just because someone else did it at some point in the past, does not mean it should be excused when he (or anyone else!) does it.

If there’s one thing that demonstrates Trump’s complete lack of suitability as a leader - and boy howdy there are a lot of things I could have chosen from - it’s covid. There are tapes of him saying he understands the seriousness of it before it became a yuge big deal.

Despite this, 8 months, 8.6m cases, 224,000+ deaths, and his own covid diagnosis later, he, his administration, and his party STILL do not treat it seriously by showing the public that wearing a mask and social distancing are sensible things to do, because (presumably) they fear losing office more than they care about dealing with the crisis.