Why is honest debate obstructed (cologne NYE)
The fallout from the problems at Cologne has been one ridiculous exercise in damage mitigation. News outlets and even state officials are falling over themselves to try and hijack the narrative instead of presenting the facts. All general releases have admitted is 1000 men (estimated crowd size) appeared to have coordinated the molestation of 80 - 100 women.
Cologne police chief claimed that assuming them to be immigrants - despite all ground reports assessing them as Arab/North African ethnicity which allows such a supposition - is 'inadmissible' and 'improper'. Note not factually inaccurate but somehow wrong in the abstract. He contradicted the media which claimed 'many of the offenders were known to police' by stating 'we currently have no suspects'. They attempted to claim it was known troublemakers which was patently false. It was further ignored that an officer at the event gave an interview saying he personally arrested eight and found every one to have a migrant residency certificate in their personal artifacts.
Similarly a bouncer for a nearby building said women begged him for protection and - given the amount of complaints filed as well as further eyewitness accounts - this appears to be generally corroborated. He claims that they spat on and cursed at both police and members of the public using mob size to prevent effective rebuttal.
The point is that all this is easily accessible information and points strongly towards it being a migrant issue. Supposedly though the empirical evidence is limited official documents have demanded police officers downplay this issue to 'prevent far right movements gaining traction' which appears to be observable by the blatant falsity in the police report that is was a 'normal and relaxed atmosphere' and the lack of disclosure until third parties (ie victims) went public.
Despite all this the media is obfuscating the issue, downplaying any association to migration or areas of social incompatibility or re-framing the debate (the New Statesman claimed they were disadvantaged blacks despite this being entirely inaccurate for example) in order to avoid honest conversation. Reddit is deleting threads about the issue and all comments on all platforms are heavily moderated.
My question then is why is it so dangerous to everyone to be honest or allow a genuine conversation unfettered by cries of racism or misdirection?
Cologne police chief claimed that assuming them to be immigrants - despite all ground reports assessing them as Arab/North African ethnicity which allows such a supposition - is 'inadmissible' and 'improper'. Note not factually inaccurate but somehow wrong in the abstract. He contradicted the media which claimed 'many of the offenders were known to police' by stating 'we currently have no suspects'. They attempted to claim it was known troublemakers which was patently false. It was further ignored that an officer at the event gave an interview saying he personally arrested eight and found every one to have a migrant residency certificate in their personal artifacts.
Similarly a bouncer for a nearby building said women begged him for protection and - given the amount of complaints filed as well as further eyewitness accounts - this appears to be generally corroborated. He claims that they spat on and cursed at both police and members of the public using mob size to prevent effective rebuttal.
The point is that all this is easily accessible information and points strongly towards it being a migrant issue. Supposedly though the empirical evidence is limited official documents have demanded police officers downplay this issue to 'prevent far right movements gaining traction' which appears to be observable by the blatant falsity in the police report that is was a 'normal and relaxed atmosphere' and the lack of disclosure until third parties (ie victims) went public.
Despite all this the media is obfuscating the issue, downplaying any association to migration or areas of social incompatibility or re-framing the debate (the New Statesman claimed they were disadvantaged blacks despite this being entirely inaccurate for example) in order to avoid honest conversation. Reddit is deleting threads about the issue and all comments on all platforms are heavily moderated.
My question then is why is it so dangerous to everyone to be honest or allow a genuine conversation unfettered by cries of racism or misdirection?
Scroll to see replies
Because it eventually ends up being 'you see you see refugees are committing crime so we should ban ALL refugees' instead of ' thats a disgrace what those INDIVIDUAL people are doing, lets look at them INDIVIDUALLY instead of blaming a whole group were the majority dont want to cause anyone any harm'.
Original post by vegdonald
Because it eventually ends up being 'you see you see refugees are committing crime so we should ban ALL refugees' instead of ' thats a disgrace what those INDIVIDUAL people are doing, lets look at them INDIVIDUALLY instead of blaming a whole group were the majority dont want to cause anyone any harm'.
So you believe your mother (Or any woman) would be just as safe and likely to be assaulted walking 1 mile in Newcastle as 1 mile in Johannesburg?
People are individuals.. there are no predictors to behavior.. am i understanding this correctly?
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by vegdonald
Because it eventually ends up being 'you see you see refugees are committing crime so we should ban ALL refugees' instead of ' thats a disgrace what those INDIVIDUAL people are doing, lets look at them INDIVIDUALLY instead of blaming a whole group were the majority dont want to cause anyone any harm'.
No one is suggesting to ban all refugees. If op did then its his opinion alone. Just taking in lesser and slower and screen them more vigorously. Prioritising female refugee will reduces cases like nye cologne happening too.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by vegdonald
Because it eventually ends up being 'you see you see refugees are committing crime so we should ban ALL refugees' instead of ' thats a disgrace what those INDIVIDUAL people are doing, lets look at them INDIVIDUALLY instead of blaming a whole group were the majority dont want to cause anyone any harm'.
Other than extreme groups and the odd commentator, few in Germany are suggesting that refugees should be banned from entering the country.
Regardless, even if people are suggesting that, having an honest conversation where all parties have the right to say what they want should be allowed. It's better to have it out in the open than it being silenced. Despotism should have ended decades ago.
Because Merkel and the European Union are afraid of the political fallout and disintegration:
a) That the Schengen Agreement is unravelling as countries all over the EU close borders;
b) That Europe is an easy target and economic migrants as well as all manner of common and even dangerous organised criminals have used the legitimate refugee crisis as an alibi to establish themselves across the Union;
c) That Europe is still emerging from the last global recession with new economic and infrastructure stability threats from both the uncontrolled influx of refugees and migrants as well as localised extreme pressure on established communities;
d) That the Pacific Rim region is unstable where the world is entering new threats both economic and militarily;
e) That a minority of immigrants are causing mayhem and manipulating the system put in place to protect the average citizen from over-zealous officialdom;
f) That our values of fairness and equality are seen as an opportunity by the minority to demand excessive 'rights' which affect the majority negatively;
g) That the door to the Trojan Horse is open and there is a ticking time-bomb counting down;
h) That the authorities still believe they can pull the wool over the face of an ever more aware Joe Public.
a) That the Schengen Agreement is unravelling as countries all over the EU close borders;
b) That Europe is an easy target and economic migrants as well as all manner of common and even dangerous organised criminals have used the legitimate refugee crisis as an alibi to establish themselves across the Union;
c) That Europe is still emerging from the last global recession with new economic and infrastructure stability threats from both the uncontrolled influx of refugees and migrants as well as localised extreme pressure on established communities;
d) That the Pacific Rim region is unstable where the world is entering new threats both economic and militarily;
e) That a minority of immigrants are causing mayhem and manipulating the system put in place to protect the average citizen from over-zealous officialdom;
f) That our values of fairness and equality are seen as an opportunity by the minority to demand excessive 'rights' which affect the majority negatively;
g) That the door to the Trojan Horse is open and there is a ticking time-bomb counting down;
h) That the authorities still believe they can pull the wool over the face of an ever more aware Joe Public.
Original post by vegdonald
Because it eventually ends up being 'you see you see refugees are committing crime so we should ban ALL refugees' instead of ' thats a disgrace what those INDIVIDUAL people are doing, lets look at them INDIVIDUALLY instead of blaming a whole group were the majority dont want to cause anyone any harm'.
'Not all x group are like that.'
Which of course is the precise equivalent to 'not all x group aren't like that.'
So, the question: how many women need to be raped by x group for it to be bad enough? How many women are an acceptable loss for the cultural ideologues?
Who are we responsible for? Our own? Or everyone else? Or is 'everyone the same, i.e., we're all human'? That's a great philosophy and highly original - it's commendable. However, what if they don't believe 'everyone is just human'? What if their religion tells them non-believers are of less value?
More to the point, in the context of manufacturing imagined groups left, right and centre, when did progressives suddenly become individualists? I thought individualism was evil?
Original post by Betelgeuse-
So you believe your mother (Or any woman) would be just as safe and likely to be assaulted walking 1 mile in Newcastle as 1 mile in Johannesburg?
People are individuals.. there are no predictors to behavior.. am i understanding this correctly?
People are individuals.. there are no predictors to behavior.. am i understanding this correctly?
Well, apparently, as it's a Friday, they're denouncing social engineering. We'll ignore the fact they've spent decades utilising it to explain all societal outcomes ('da patriarchy!', 'systemic racism', 'white privilege!', etc.)
Confused souls. One moment they're all about the individual, the next moment it's all about the collective. One moment their morality is absolute, the next it is relative ('racism is wrong!', 'racism against black people is wrong', 'we need equality', 'we need equality for women'); welcome to believing everything and standing for nothing.
Original post by PerpetualOutrage
Well, apparently, as it's a Friday, they're denouncing social engineering. We'll ignore the fact they've spent decades utilising it to explain all societal outcomes ('da patriarchy!', 'systemic racism', 'white privilege!', etc.)
Confused souls. One moment they're all about the individual, the next moment it's all about the collective. One moment their morality is absolute, the next it is relative ('racism is wrong!', 'racism against black people is wrong', 'we need equality', 'we need equality for women'
; welcome to believing everything and standing for nothing.
Confused souls. One moment they're all about the individual, the next moment it's all about the collective. One moment their morality is absolute, the next it is relative ('racism is wrong!', 'racism against black people is wrong', 'we need equality', 'we need equality for women'
; welcome to believing everything and standing for nothing.+ a million
Original post by vegdonald
Because it eventually ends up being 'you see you see refugees are committing crime so we should ban ALL refugees' instead of ' thats a disgrace what those INDIVIDUAL people are doing, lets look at them INDIVIDUALLY instead of blaming a whole group were the majority dont want to cause anyone any harm'.
If you were given a pizza with 12 slices and then were told one of the slices is poisonous, how many slices would you eat?
If your answer is 0, why should we be expected to eat the damn thing then?
Original post by Jebedee
If you were given a pizza with 12 slices and then were told one of the slices is poisonous, how many slices would you eat?
If your answer is 0, why should we be expected to eat the damn thing then?
If your answer is 0, why should we be expected to eat the damn thing then?
This.
Even if most refugees don't rape, we don't need to let them in, it doesn't benefit us and we owe them jack ****.
Are people this blinded by the possible dangers of mass immigration that they did not see this coming? No, not individual immigrants as I appreciate not all immigrants are disturbed perverts but the fact that by letting so many people in unchecked is bound to allow something like this to happen?
Original post by Jebedee
If you were given a pizza with 12 slices and then were told one of the slices is poisonous, how many slices would you eat?
If your answer is 0, why should we be expected to eat the damn thing then?
If your answer is 0, why should we be expected to eat the damn thing then?
May you explain how the probability of being assaulted by a refugee is around 1/12?
Original post by SHallowvale
May you explain how the probability of being assaulted by a refugee is around 1/12?
It isn't, the number serves no purpose in this analogy. It was only to acknowledge that rapists make up a minority of total immigrants before any lefties start screaming it at me and to point out that it doesn't actually matter that they are the minority.
Original post by HucktheForde
No one is suggesting to ban all refugees. If op did then its his opinion alone. Just taking in lesser and slower and screen them more vigorously. Prioritising female refugee will reduces cases like nye cologne happening too.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Odd how critical thought can be framed as irrational hatred. To clarify I agree with helping those fleeing for legitimate reasons, with the proviso the end goal is home resettlement where still applicable. Obviously I dont expect third generation immigrants to be sent back but I do believe safe resettlement is the end goal.
I disagree with current policy as it allows economic and opportunistic migration which is why if you check the statistics the majority of immigration from outside of war zones is young men. We need to support those in need not blindly pay for political agendas and we need to establish that rules must be followed by any immigrants. I could not go to the UK from America and try to open carry citing American law. Base level compatibility is compulsory for a functioning society.
None of this is related however as my point is the people should be informed and allowed to choose their path on the actual facts. To obfuscate is to fuel extremism. A serious discussion should be had or else the people will rebel against the establishment as is shown by a moron like trump getting support because he is the only option for people who oppose the status quo.
Edit - with the exception of children who deserve priority, women should be no more favoured than men. Priority should be decided by likelihood to experience violence or oppression.
Posted from TSR Mobile
(edited 8 years ago)
Probably because they know it's going to be immediately hijacked by people who are incapable of sensible debate and are simply looking for excuses and justifications to be xenophobic. Is this a serious problem? Of course it is and a serious discussion is needed. But people like me are put in an awful position where on the one hand, I agree there does need to be greater border control and there are uncomfortable social issues that do need to be addressed but on the other hand, most people arguing for these things are doing it for ignorant, selfish and xenophobic reasons. These people are making a rational debate absolutely impossible so it's no surprise that the mainstream media has been unwilling to be more open about this.
Original post by SHallowvale
May you explain how the probability of being assaulted by a refugee is around 1/12?
Strong understanding of analogies
Original post by GonvilleBromhead
My question then is why is it so dangerous to everyone to be honest or allow a genuine conversation unfettered by cries of racism or misdirection?
My question then is why is it so dangerous to everyone to be honest or allow a genuine conversation unfettered by cries of racism or misdirection?
Increasingly governments need to be exceptionally careful; by outright lying and denying that there is a problem with certain immigrant and "refugee" groups, they risk blowback from the native and integrated immigrant populations.
It is beyond patronising how certain sections of the left and the media, and in Germany the government, want to censor information and deny the factual basis of this and other crime waves that are occurring because "it is for your own good" and they need to protect us from becoming bigots.
I hasten to add, I'm not talking about multiracialism. That I support (to a reasonable degree). I have no problem with someone coming to this country and adopting the native culture, and becoming one of us. What I don't want to see are ethnic enclaves peopled by groups with low rates of workforce participation and who hold many views that are anathema to our society.
Original post by Plagioclase
Probably because they know it's going to be immediately hijacked by people who are incapable of sensible debate and are simply looking for excuses and justifications to be xenophobic. Is this a serious problem? Of course it is and a serious discussion is needed. But people like me are put in an awful position where on the one hand, I agree there does need to be greater border control and there are uncomfortable social issues that do need to be addressed but on the other hand, most people arguing for these things are doing it for ignorant, selfish and xenophobic reasons. These people are making a rational debate absolutely impossible so it's no surprise that the mainstream media has been unwilling to be more open about this.
I would say it goes both ways. In some ways parts of the left have made a sensible debate impossible by shrieking "racist" at anyone who expresses even the faintest concern about the current situation.
Original post by woIfie
I would say it goes both ways. In some ways parts of the left have made a sensible debate impossible by shrieking "racist" at anyone who expresses even the faintest concern about the current situation.
In my experience, 90% - a conservative estimate - of the time when people complain about being called racist or islamophobic, they genuinely are being racist, islamophobic or just vile. Lots of people on the right mock people on the left for claiming that many groups are "oppressed" but that's precisely what these people are doing, playing the victim and acting as if their views are being unfairly oppressed by political correctness when their views are in actual fact genuinely distasteful or ignorant.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Health concerns
- Fragrance/cologne for a 14 y old
- Spirometry.. how can you have lower airway obstruction without lower?
- Lonely for NYE
- How much of your home country have you seen?
- An Inspector Calls: Eric Essay
- GCSE 2022 English Literature questions
- How do I pick the right guy?
- If I put someone in the "ignore list" on TSR would they be able to see my posts?
- Rearranging Uni Room
- Parking
- Do you sometimes cough up blood in the morning?
- Who is your least favourite singer?
- Required iGCSE Art grade for Medicine entry
- Places you always want to go back to
- Who is your favourite singer?
- What should I wear to theory test?
- i’m acc ******** my pants
- He only wants to commit to me after he found out about my money?
- Cambridge TMUA preparation
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
