Exactly how are you defining “large numbers” and “mass immigration” when it comes to Muslim immigrants?
And exactly what do you consider the “danger” and “reasonable fear” concerning Muslim immigrants to be? I mean, you do know that the overwhelming majority of Muslim immigrants and refugees aren’t criminals or violent extremists, right?
Frightened people tend to lose sight of the fact that to a large extent, Islam is to terrorism as the US Postal Service is to workplace violence. That is, a lot of the phenomenon is accounted for simply by the size of the demographic. (In the case of terrorism, perceptions are also skewed by the widespread reluctance to use the word “terrorism” for violent extremist acts committed by non-Muslims.)
“Gabby Giffords’s husband, a war hero”? Are you trying to reference the retired astronaut Scott Kelly, Giffords’s ex-Navy brother-in-law?
If so, AFAICT what Kelly got disagreement about on Twitter was not Churchill’s actual remarks but his description of Churchill as “one of the greatest leaders in modern times”. Surely you don’t mean to suggest that people shouldn’t be allowed to publicly disagree with that description of Churchill.
In any case, “forced by the Twitter mob to apologize” is a peculiar way of saying “publicly disagreed with by many fellow Twitter users and voluntarily apologized”. Fellow users on Twitter can’t “force” any other tweeter to do anything.
Fine, he was attacked and hounded into apologizing. It’s fucking ridiculous. There was just a hagiographic Churchill movie out last year, and “Dunkirk” did some of that as well. Regardless of the merits of the Chomsky/Zinn perspective, it makes liberals look like extremist loons to the Middle American swing voters we need. Why the fuck would anyone think the month before an incredibly important election would be a good time to try to prosecute this kind of cultural revolutionary reeducation? Are these people Russian trolls, or are there significant numbers of liberals who are actually this idiotically shortsighted?
Also, if I had been a voter in the UK in the 1940s I’m sure I would have voted Labour. And indeed, he lost the election immediately after the war was over. But to attack someone for calling Churchill “one of the great leaders of modern times” is nuts. And for him to apologize looks weak, pathetic. It’s painful to watch. Churchill coined “Iron Curtain”, he orated “never before have so many owed so much to so few”, “the end of the beginning”, he met with FDR and Stalin at Yalta…it’s ahistorical to argue this, even leaving aside the political stupidity and the utter irrelevance to any contemporary issue.
If all I cared about was having my previous and repeated Cassandra predictions and warnings proven correct, I might even celebrate this wryly. But I am just furious about it, beside myself, because this election is so crucial.
Dr. Kelly will be glad to know that some racist douche on the internet is second-guessing his actions. How about, instead of telling a better man than you what he should have thought about that Twitter conversation, you shut the fuck up about his decisions.
I agree with Bill Maher that it was (this is what got him cancelled from network TV). In what universe is it cowardly to fly a plane into a building? Evil, sure. But cowardly?
Is it reasonable for someone in a small Scandinavian country, like Sweden or Denmark to worry what their country is going to be like when it’s 51% muslim? If you value women’s rights, and gay rights, and religious freedom, and other western secular values, is it bigoted if you worry about what the effects such a demographic shift will have in the long run?
I don’t think it’s brave, in their heads they “knew” they weren’t really dying and they were going straight to heaven. If they were athiests it would have been brave but then again if they were athiests they wouldn’t have done it in the first place. Its like when ppl say Jesus made the “ultimate sacrifice”. I’m always like “big deal! He knew he was coming back!”
Bingo. But the MSM just lumps anyone concerned about this into the “far right” or at least “conservative”. I just the other day saw an article from some mainstream source that labeled the IDW as a “conservative group”. There may be a few conservatives in that camp (a minority), but painting them all with that label so misses the point!
Jordan Peterson isn’t a Republican, but that’s because he’s a Canadian citizen. He does seem to be quite conservative though. He got an enormous amount of flak from his followers for saying that Kavanaugh shouldn’t be confirmed. Peterson probably doesn’t want to speak out more against Trump because he has a lot of Trump supporters amongst his fanbase and doesn’t want to lose those precious Patreon dollars.
I’m not making any assumptions. I’ve seen data that looks discouraging. For example, in a poll where 500 British Muslims were asked if homosexuality was morally acceptable, literally zero of them said that it was. Or more British Muslims joining ISISthan the British Armed Forces.
And what percentage of American evangelicals would give you the same answer?
If you go back just a generation or two, what percentage of Americans in general would have given you the same answer?
As far as people going off and fighting for the enemy, well, they’ve gone off to fight for the enemy. Which means that they are no longer a part of the community you are worried about.
People immigrate to new places because they are wanting to leave the things they didn’t like about their homes behind them. They want to assimilate into the new culture, and contribute to it, as well as take from it their own lessons in living better lives. They don’t see Norway, and want to turn it into Afghanistan, they see Norway, and want tot go there because it is not Afghanistan.
Now I will agree that the xenophobia that some of these migrants encounter when they get to the place the are immigrating to can slow or prevent their assimilation into the culture, and enough xenophobia may even cause some to become radicalized, and hate their new homeland enough to go back to a war torn impoverished nation to fight for it instead.
Some things about your first cite:
First, it says that 1001 non-muslim britons were interviewed, but didn’t give the stats on them, so it is hard to compare their mores to those of Britons in general.
Second, it also says that 35% of French Muslims do not consider homosexuality to be immoral, so I am not seeing where you can claim that this is a thing with Muslims, but rather, a thing about Britons.
Some things about your second cite:
First, it says that there are only 600 in the military, so double that is not a huge number that can be extrapolated to be useful for population demographics.
Second, it doesn’t know how many have joined ISIS, the only thing close to official numbers is “over 400”. It is “estimates” by people with motive to pad these estimates that put the number as high as 1500, with no evidence to that whatsoever.
So, yes, using the statistics that you have presented here is not a rational way of determining immigration policy, but is an irrational (but effective) way of spreading fear about the other.
You are assuming that they are bringing everything with them, what is your evidence for that assumption?
Mine is that they are not happy where they are. Unhappy enough that they will leave everything that they know and love behind in order to find something better. Why they would then bring the things with them that they didn’t like, that made them want to leave, doesn’t make any sense, and doesn’t follow the way that any other immigration has ever worked out.
“Gabby Giffords’s husband, a war hero”? Are you trying to reference the retired astronaut Scott Kelly, Giffords’s ex-Navy brother-in-law?