Russian-Ukrainian war

[ChildServices]

Human beings are human beings. Mammals are mammals. You say we are all the same, but what is it that actually makes any of us the same? Can you even tell me? I highly doubt you can actually offer anything satisfactory that would make me believe that Ahmed living in Syria and all of the people living around him are anything like me when you compare him to Jack and his family living down the street. You might say "well we share most of our DNA with them", but we also share most of our DNA with mice and I'm not in a hurry to let loose 30 of them in my house. You might say that "cultures are easily destroyed and changed", and as true as that might be, and as much as I believe in many cases that it should be, you'll freak out and scream "RACIST!!!!11" if I were to tell you that it might not be us who have to do much of the changing.

The uniformity of these variable and malleable things can mean all of the difference between a civilisation which functions and one that does not. What we have in reality are incompatible moral systems being wielded by different groups of people; and as a quick walk through nature would tell us, the only real "moral" action, when two irreconcilable organisms are forced to compete over the same resource, is a war (or a general conflict). If you force groups which are different to occupy those same resources-- regardless of how "meaningless" you want to try and tell me that the ethnic and cultural identities of people are (even minorities, how racist of you) --what it leads to is conflict. Conflicts aren't particularly enjoyable. I'd much rather that these things didn't happen and we instead just didn't bomb their countries or try to rule and subjugate them, and let them be. If they want us to help them make something better, we can help them, but only if our own house is kept in order.

You actually seem to be confused. That is literally what I say. "Rights" do not exist, nor is the concept of "rights" a positive one. You are owed only what you are personally capable of fighting for. A people is owed only what it is capable of protecting. I prefer societies built around a mythology of what every individual's duties and responsibilities are at every stage of its hierarchy to one built upon a mythology where everybody is owed something by rule of some unnatural set of commandments just for being granted a specific set of paperwork.
If you tell me what I believe is "proto-fascism", then it's proto-fascism. Despite that word's negative connotations, its only practical usefulness as an adjective is to silence somebody.

EDIT:

How would you solve these problems?

And what kind of rights are you talking about?

He wouldn't solve these problems at all. He'd tear down the fence and then wonder why everybody in the Netherlands is starving to death now that the population has tripled and the government hasn't got the money to reliably feed everybody and still pay out welfare cheques now that all of the money confiscated from corporations as "reparations for colonisation" has dried up. Later, he would blame the whole thing on racists.

 

[Beaushizzle]

Human beings are human beings. Mammals are mammals. You say we are all the same, but what is it that actually makes any of us the same? Can you even tell me? I highly doubt you can actually offer anything satisfactory that would make me believe that Ahmed living in Syria and all of the people living around him are anything like me when you compare him to Jack and his family living down the street. You might say "well we share most of our DNA with them", but we also share most of our DNA with mice and I'm not in a hurry to let loose 30 of them in my house. You might say that "cultures are easily destroyed and changed", and as true as that might be, and as much as I believe in many cases that it should be, you'll freak out and scream "RACIST!!!!11" if I were to tell you that it might not be us who have to do much of the changing.

The uniformity of these variable and malleable things can mean all of the difference between a civilisation which functions and one that does not. What we have in reality are incompatible moral systems being wielded by different groups of people; and as a quick walk through nature would tell us, the only real "moral" action, when two irreconcilable organisms are forced to compete over the same resource, is a war (or a general conflict). If you force groups which are different to occupy those same resources-- regardless of how "meaningless" you want to try and tell me that the ethnic and cultural identities of people are (even minorities, how racist of you) --what it leads to is conflict. Conflicts aren't particularly enjoyable. I'd much rather that these things didn't happen and we instead just didn't bomb their countries or try to rule and subjugate them, and let them be. If they want us to help them make something better, we can help them, but only if our own house is kept in order.

You actually seem to be confused. That is literally what I say. "Rights" do not exist, nor is the concept of "rights" a positive one. You are owed only what you are personally capable of fighting for. A people is owed only what it is capable of protecting. I prefer societies built around a mythology of what every individual's duties and responsibilities are at every stage of its hierarchy to one built upon a mythology where everybody is owed something by rule of some unnatural set of commandments just for being granted a specific set of paperwork.
If you tell me what I believe is "proto-fascism", then it's proto-fascism. Despite that word's negative connotations, its only practical usefulness as an adjective is to silence somebody.

EDIT:

How would you solve these problems?

And what kind of rights are you talking about?

He wouldn't solve these problems at all. He'd tear down the fence and then wonder why everybody in the Netherlands is starving to death now that the population has tripled and the government hasn't got the money to reliably feed everybody and still pay out welfare cheques now that all of the money confiscated from corporations as "reparations for colonisation" has dried up. Later, he would blame the whole thing on racists.

You. I like you.

 

[Hassknecht]

Well, in Germany some far-left-folks already designed new Refugees Welcome signs, because the old ones depicted basically the nuclear family and was, like, super heteronormative.

Disgusting.
Here's the new, properly inclusive design:

Now that is really important work for helping refugees.

 

[Sander]

@ChildServices: Yes, what you are describing is pretty much fascism. Ugly, nationalist fascism. The kind that makes you compare other people to mice, and basically state outright that a Syrian is less of a human being than you. That would be the kind of racist bullshit that has repeatedly led to genocides.


Also, stop trying to speak for me, thanks.

How would you solve these problems?

And what kind of rights are you talking about?

What do you mean by "these problems", exactly?

As for rights, let's just start with Universal Declaration of Human Rights and work from there. Not that any one country is providing every one of its citizens with those rights, but some countries provide many more of those rights to their citizens than others. And none of them provide those rights to people who are not their citizens.

Now that is really important work for helping refugees.

Says the person mocking every attempt at inclusivity and humane treatment. Your glibness about people's efforts to be more inclusive serves to do what, exactly, other than feed your unearned sense of smug superiority?

 

[Beaushizzle]

Yes, what you are describing is pretty much fascism. Ugly, nationalist fascism. The kind that makes you compare other people to mice, and basically state outright that a Syrian is less of a human being than you. That would be the kind of racist bullshit that has repeatedly led to genocides.


Also, stop trying to speak for me, thanks.

How would you solve these problems?

And what kind of rights are you talking about?

What do you mean by "these problems", exactly?

As for rights, let's just start with Universal Declaration of Human Rights and work from there. Not that any one country is providing every one of its citizens with those rights, but some countries provide many more of those rights to their citizens than others. And none of them provide those rights to people who are not their citizens.

Now that is really important work for helping refugees.

Says the person mocking every attempt at inclusivity and humane treatment. Your glibness about people's efforts to be more inclusive serves to do what, exactly, other than feed your unearned sense of smug superiority?

Doesn't sound like fascism to me. Bring a Syrian family- the WHOLE family- into your home. Feed them. Clothe them. Give them money. Then post pics to prove it.
I don't care about your current financial situation or living space. Do it anyway.
I already know you won't. Because in the end it's them or me, and I'm going to look out for my family before anyone else. If I ever have plenty left over? Of course I'll give the extra to those in need. Until then, it's them or me. I choose me. Because I'm a racist.

 

[Sander]

No, you choose you because you are human. Because everyone is human, and people don't like to give up what they have for anyone, let alone those they don't know. I'd argue that's a basic failing of cultural empathy but that's neither here nor there and it doesn't make you racist, merely a human being concerned with his well-being.

What is racist, though, is doing so because you think Syrians are less than human. What is racist is not just saying "I don't want to give up what I have" but saying "and those people there don't deserve anything." And what is fascist is arguing that the nation needs to be protected from cultural corruption by outsiders with violent force, that outsiders should not be allowed, that might makes right and that the only morality is that of the victor through force. And that is what ChildServices is doing.

 

[Hassknecht]

Now that is really important work for helping refugees.

Says the person mocking every attempt at inclusivity and humane treatment. Your glibness about people's efforts to be more inclusive serves to do what, exactly, other than feed your unearned sense of smug superiority?

What the hell did you smoke? What the fuck do you know what I think about refugees? And where do I "mock every attempt at inclusivity and humane treatment"? I mock the notion that people who paid thousands of dollars for a dangerous trip to escape from their wartorn country to sleep in tent-cities all while winter is coming and idiots protesting and attacking them somehow care about what kind of person is shown on some fucking poster. Talk about smug superiority...
Seriously. In case you didn't notice, while I do like to poke fun at far-left-leaning people, I'm actually mostly on your side.

 

[Beaushizzle]

No, you choose you because you are human. Because everyone is human, and people don't like to give up what they have for anyone, let alone those they don't know. I'd argue that's a basic failing of cultural empathy but that's neither here nor there and it doesn't make you racist, merely a human being concerned with his well-being.

What is racist, though, is doing so because you think Syrians are less than human. What is racist is not just saying "I don't want to give up what I have" but saying "and those people there don't deserve anything." And what is fascist is arguing that the nation needs to be protected from cultural corruption by outsiders with violent force, that outsiders should not be allowed, that might makes right and that the only morality is that of the victor through force. And that is what ChildServices is doing.

I've not seen a single poster in this thread say that Syrians are sub-human. What I HAVE seen are posters pointing out that resources and space are limited, so you can't let every refugee into every country because the sudden boom in population will quickly destabilize the already limited resources. It's not fascism or racism. It's practicality and survival.
If someone tries to take what me and mine require for survival by force, you can bet your ass that I will fight to the death to protect it. If you ask, I will give. If you take, I will fight.

 

[Sander]

What the hell did you smoke? What the fuck do you know what I think about refugees? And where do I "mock every attempt at inclusivity and humane treatment"? I mock the notion that people who paid thousands of dollars for a dangerous trip to escape from their wartorn country to sleep in tent-cities all while winter is coming and idiots protesting and attacking them somehow care about what kind of person is shown on some fucking poster. Talk about smug superiority...
Seriously. In case you didn't notice, while I do like to poke fun at far-left-leaning people, I'm actually mostly on your side.

Oh, I know you're mostly on my side. But all I ever really see you do in threads like these is mock those to your left with glib shit like the above. As if the people changing the logo don't realize that providing for refugees is a lot more important than a logo. But that one thing is more important doesn't mean that the other one is completely lacking in importance, and symbolism and consistency in message matter. Changing a logo is easy, and not unimportant if the old logo was unintentionally reinforcing cultural standards you oppose.

Moreover, how is this change in logo harming anything? Why is it a problem? Why do you think it deserves to be mocked? I'd argue that one of the (admittedly minor) problems activists face is the constant mockery by people ostensibly on their side for trivial bullshit. Because rather than praising the work those activists are doing, you're cutting them down. Well bully for you -- why, and what purpose did that really serve? What exactly do you think the problem is, here?

I've not seen a single poster in this thread say that Syrians are sub-human. What I HAVE seen are posters pointing out that resources and space are limited, so you can't let every refugee into every country because the sudden boom in population will quickly destabilize the already limited resources. It's not fascism or racism. It's practically and survival.

I think you need to go back and re-read what ChildServices is actually saying:
"what is it that actually makes any of us the same? Can you even tell me? I highly doubt you can actually offer anything satisfactory that would make me believe that Ahmed living in Syria and all of the people living around him are anything like me when you compare him to Jack and his family living down the street. You might say "well we share most of our DNA with them", but we also share most of our DNA with mice and I'm not in a hurry to let loose 30 of them in my house."

I will add that resources and space aren't actually all that limited, and that the European Union could easily afford to take up a whole lot more refugees. I would further add that adding far less than one percent of the population to Europe for a limited period of time (remember: these refugees by and large want to return to their country as soon as it's safe) is not a particularly problematic burden for any advanced country, especially given the high standards of living enjoyed by Europeans as it is.

Couching all of this in terms of resources makes it sound more palatable, but the reality is that it is by and large empty, baseless rhetoric not based on actual accounting and solely on a knee-jerk reaction to a perceived threat. The two biggest blow to the Western economy was a result not of refugees or immigrants, but of a financial crisis caused entirely by Western bankers and institutions? And that the foolhardy path of austerity that caused a drop in living standards, especially for the poor, was a choice made by Western politicians not as a reaction to immigrants nor as a reaction to refugees, but as a choice to buttress financial institutions?

Refugees are not a financial threat to the West. Those who would tell you they are, are using your understandable fears of economic regression to buttress their fascist, xenophobic politics. We've seen that before -- in the wake of the last worldwide economic crisis, some 80 years ago.

 

[Atomkilla]

(remember: these refugees by and large want to return to their country as soon as it's safe)

Where did you get that?

 

[LordAshur]

What do you mean by "these problems", exactly?

As for rights, let's just start with Universal Declaration of Human Rights and work from there. Not that any one country is providing every one of its citizens with those rights, but some countries provide many more of those rights to their citizens than others. And none of them provide those rights to people who are not their citizens.

The humanitarian crises you seem to think we should be more involved in. You clearly disagree with distancing ourselves from parts of the world which do not concern us, what's your solution?

Isn't the state a country is in dictated, unless in case of an invasion or huge natural disaster or whatever, by the people who inhabit it?

snip

Aaah, western leftists. Worrying about whether or not signs welcoming people from cultures where the death penalty is not unheard of as punishment for homosexuality are overly heteronormative.

(remember: these refugees by and large want to return to their country as soon as it's safe)

Where did you get that?

I think it's pretty safe to call bullshit on that one.

 

[Beaushizzle]

I think ChildServices is not saying compare human to sub-human. He's comparing cultural values. He's comparing Granny Smith apples to red delicious. Both are apples. Both are basically the same. But there ARE differences, and those differences might cause conflict if they are merged. The hybrid could be bitter and disgusting.

I think that's what he's saying.
Note: his views are not necessarily my own. I am simply clarifying. Rage at him for the comparison, not me. He's making it. I'm simplifying it. Don't try to break down my example into pedantic pseudo-science, please.

 

[Sander]

(remember: these refugees by and large want to return to their country as soon as it's safe)

Where did you get that?

Interviews with refugees. Speaking of Syrian refugees, obviously -- they're fleeing war. They would not be fleeing their homes if they could stay there without being bombed to death.

There's also the historical record of migration, both economic migration (which in my opinion is just as valid) and those fleeing war. We consistently see that a lot of migrants return home after a period of time, as long as borders stay open -- because people move somewhere to make money for a short period and then get back to their families, or because they get home-sick, or because life wasn't as different as they imagined it would be.

To which I should add: the general European policy of locking up refugees, not allowing them to contribute to a local economy for years on end is ass-backwards.

I think ChildServices is not saying compare human to sub-human. He's comparing cultural values. He's comparing Granny Smith apples to red delicious. Both are apples. Both are basically the same. But there ARE differences, and those differences might cause conflict if they are merged. The hybrid could be bitter and disgusting.

He literally said that Syrians are so different from the people around him that they might as well be mice. He does not view Syrians as human on the same level that he views those around him. He's argued that humanity is a social construct and should thus mean nothing to him. He's argued that Social Darwinism is a moral imperative, that might makes right. This is not 'well their cultural values are different and that may lead to some conflict.' Seriously, go back and read what he actually wrote instead of what you think he should have written.

Incidentally, the idea that accepting refugees would lead to a whole lot of cultural conflict is stance that belies a whole lot of ignorance about how migration has historically worked, and the culture of Syrian refugees to begin with -- Syria is as Westernized as the Middle East gets, and most migration does not lead to conflict except those conflicts fomented by fascist politics, the kind ChildServices is actually prescribing. If he were actually concerned about conflict, he would not be advocating xenophobic, fascist politics.

The humanitarian crises you seem to think we should be more involved in. You clearly disagree with distancing ourselves from parts of the world which do not concern us, what's your solution?

I think our primary focus should always be humanitarian aid and not military intervention, and that the latter should only happen with a multilateral, international coalition with clear consensus from the international community, and aimed at preventing humanitarian crises. I'd agree with you that meddling militarily in the affairs of the Middle East, or really any region on Earth, is both likely to backfire, and ethically hard to justify.

 

[Beaushizzle]

I'll let CS clarify the mice statement.

 

[DarkCorp]

1. There is currently little desire for immediate re-unification. There are also significant hurdles such as how this would even happens, most likely governance, political system, etc.

3. As Crni pointed out, any kind of fight that would happenat the time, in a DIRECT confrontation, would be nuclear. That is because both sides knew a direct, conventional war would be costly and horrific. Europe would be toast along with America and the U.S.S.R. The economic, infrastructure and political damage would have been terrible.

4. Hmm let me see. We have U.S., UK, France, Israel, N. Korea, Pakistan, India, China and Russia. Thats 9. How many countries are there globally? Now each one of those countries gets nukes too? And what about issues of containment. The more nukes around, the much greater chance some would fall into terrorist hands with blame being thrown into a sea of nations. Also, the much greater chance someone would go crazy and use them. It need not be ICBMs, there are also such things as tactical nukes. Again, just because big countries can handle nukes doesn't mean small ones can. Feel free to disagree here. I already expect you too no matter what I say.

6. Ok, YOUR logic. Uh, Saddam Hussein has lookalikes. Lots of people have look alikes.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/12/w...shake-falsehoods-about-ties-to-isis.html?_r=0

But its Western Media so to you, it might not count, whatever.

7. So, we have bases on foreign soil. How does this change the fact that Putin has 'supply depots'/bases on foreign soil. My whole point was that Putin wants Russia to be a world class power able to exert Russian force globally. I also said, given time and leeway, Putin would do more. You clearly don't believe it, fine. People are free to ignore shit if they want.

 

[ChildServices]

I never said a Syrian is a lesser Human. What I said is that he's a different one, as Beaushizzle confirmed. You've missed the point so damn hard it's not even funny. Of course, I suspected you'd turn off the brain, turn on the emotions and just scream "RACIST!" for the next 10 pages before thread-lock just like you did last time so I'm not surprised.

I actually wish to prevent genocides (unlike you, who actively promotes one). Following my beliefs of keeping different groups off of eachother's real-estate so that they have no incentive to kill eachother in the first place would only result in less of those. It's really naive to think anybody's actually going to go "home" after realising that the West is willing to pay for every single one of their expenses and subsidize the growth of their families. It's also naive to think that many of these people are even Syrians. Discarded Pakistani and Iraqi documents? The fact that even the UN has said that the overwhelming majority of these refugees are fighting aged males? Seems like people fleeing a warzone where the primary combatants would most likely possess penises would have a slightly more gynocentric composition to it.

Actually, while we're comparing humans to mice... We are all the same, aren't we? If you're willing to go so far as to say that all of humanity constitutes one group in practice, then why not all mammals? Why not anything that can be described as "living" in any capacity? Really, at that point why are we different to animals?
I mean I don't personally believe we are different to animals, but not for any of the superficial reasons that you believe a "human race" exists. Humanity as an organism exists within an ecosystem and is a part of nature, as I stated earlier on. To pretend that our own packs and hives are not subject to the same pressures as that of any other animal's is naive at best and outright suicidal at worst for whatever entity you are a part of.

And you can demonise the idea that "might makes right" all that you want, but that doesn't make it any less of a fundamental natural truth about the entirety of existence. Nothing is achieved without the application of force. Absolutely nothing.
What if the bourgeoisie of your own mythology decides that it doesn't actually want to give up the wealth that it has and all of those who support them and are paid for and provided for by them decide that they don't want to give that up either? Will you continue to call those people fascists on a forum that you're only capable of speaking with such authority on because you are an admin and can ban people for talking too far out of step, or will you and a few thousand of your mates arm yourselves with guns and go and force them to do what is right? There's only one option that will convince them to not be evil exploitative capitalist racists and it's the "thousands of guys with guns" option.
But to go (significantly) more hypothetical than that; Say you've already got your communist utopia. How will you stop it from sliding back into what it was before (which it inevitably will if simply left to its own devices, since humanity is hierarchic by its very nature and this cannot be changed)? Will you establish a militia to enforce the ideals of Marx? Will your militia not become the new top tier of the hierarchy if you do that? How do you trust that this will not simply become Robespierre's Terror? "Your own judgment?" You are not Mr. House.I hate to quote cheesy science fiction, but violence is actually the supreme authority from which every other authority derives. Even yours in the future, if or when. You can mock that idea because it scares you, but frankly that doesn't make it untrue.

Also mass influxes of refugees don't cause social tension? Well shit, I guess that means the Goths were all just peaceful members of the "differently civilised" fleeing the onslaught of the Huns and that the collapse of the limes was a positive development.

 

[Beaushizzle]

Let's settle down and keep it civil. I vote for an 8 hour no-post period on this thread.

 

[Sander]

When you use "they're different" to then argue that they don't deserve the same rights and prosperity as you while simultaneously comparing them to mice and talking about letting "30 of them" loose in your house, you are absolutely dehumanizing an entire group of people in an effort to justify your immorality.

Basically none of what you said just now has anything to do with historical or modern-day facts. Yes, refugees return home when they can, even those that get to the West (which, incidentally, doesn't do all that much for refugees but hound them for years on end) -- we know, because that happened after Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan and basically every war. We know, because migrants frequently do return home. The net effect of migration is historically not that large, because people move around -- a lot. If you want some good academic research (you know, facts) on the subject, look up Leo Lucassen's work.

And no, migration does not lead to a lot of social tension. Historically, what leads to social tension is a dominant group deciding that some outgroup needs to be purged because they're corrupting the nation -- often an outgroup that's been living there for centuries. Ukraine, Armenia, Rwanda, Yugoslavia, Germany, Cambodia etc. Which is exactly the kind of political reaction you're prescribing.

Bringing up the Goths is hilarious -- that wasn't a case of refugees seeking shelter, but an aggressive people waging war time after time. Not to mention that we don't actually live during the time of the Roman empire, and we have a shitload of recent migrations to look at. Like those in the early to mid 1990s, when the stream of refugees into Europe was larger than it is now (692,000 in 1992), most of whom left to return to their home countries after a period of time without causing any significant social tensions.

And you can demonise the idea that "might makes right" all that you want, but that doesn't make it any less of a fundamental natural truth about the entirety of existence.

Look up the difference between "is" and "ought."

I should add that I'm about this close to banning you for hate speech. We do have rules about this stuff, you know.

 

[Atomkilla]

Interviews with refugees. Speaking of Syrian refugees, obviously -- they're fleeing war. They would not be fleeing their homes if they could stay there without being bombed to death.

There's also the historical record of migration, both economic migration (which in my opinion is just as valid) and those fleeing war. We consistently see that a lot of migrants return home after a period of time, as long as borders stay open -- because people move somewhere to make money for a short period and then get back to their families, or because they get home-sick, or because life wasn't as different as they imagined it would be.

To which I should add: the general European policy of locking up refugees, not allowing them to contribute to a local economy for years on end is ass-backwards..

And you sincerely believe that interviews with handful of refugees compromises and represents the general stance of all of them?
That's, in a lack of a better term, ridiculous.

If Europe does accept all of these people and provides them with proper housing, they won't go back. Some will, yes, but most will stay - especially people who plan on having families or already have young children with them. If they are provided with a proper place to call home and ensure some sort of income, they won't go back. They may say now that they would go back, but that's not going to happen. Between a foreign but relatively safe nation and a wartorn nation, most people would choose to stay.
If the situation were a bit different and there were actual chances of a positive outcome for Syria, there might be a chance of them returning - but between rebel factions, ISIS, Assad's regime forces and foreign influence, that country is and will stay fucked up beyond any recognition for a very long time. No sane person looking out for their and their children's future would ever return to that, once they find the comfort and relative safety in the European society.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against taking in refugees. I'm all for helping these people. But harboring illusions of them going back is just that - illusions. Most of these people are coming to stay.

Call it anecdotal evidence - but I know - or knew - a solid number of people who left Yugoslavia during and after the nineties - going to Germany, Belgium, Sweden etc. Most of the countries which were born out of Yugoslavia's breakup are currently considered safe for living - in any case, definitely a lot safer than Syria will be in the next decade, by the looks of it. It goes without saying that, out of all those people, a very small number returned. And more and more people are still leaving annually, even though it has been more than a decade than the last Yugoslavian war.
In other words, if Europe fully opens it gates to Syrians, a torrent of refugees won't be stopped. Even if the war ends, the pouring in won't stop, for years to come.

 

[Beaushizzle]

Going off topic slightly:
"Might is right." I suppose a large part of this statement is how we define the word "right".
For me, right is providing for and protecting my family, and when I have provided for mine, offering what I don't need to others.
For others, right could mean doing anything necessary to do the same, even at the expense of others.
This is an individual level, but I feel like it could apply to larger groups.