|
Majorian posted:But there's a difference between Westernizing Islam on Muslims' own terms, and Westernizing Islam on someone like Sam Harris' terms, don't you think? Right now, the message that a lot of Western Europeans is, "You can't be 'one of us' (French, Belgian, Dutch, German, etc) unless you fundamentally change important, essential things about yourself and your culture." That's not a very good way to make an out-group feel like it has a stake in society, especially when you're telling them that they can't even do relatively harmless things like wear a hijab. (and yes, I understand that that's France's bucket of poo poo, not Belgium's) "There's a big difference between modernizing the Confederate States of America on Southerners' own terms, and modernizing the Confederate States on someone like Frederick Douglass's terms, don't you think? Right now, the message that a lot of Yankees is "You can't be 'one of us' (American) unless you fundamentally change important, essential things about yourself and your culture." That's not a very good way to make an out-group feel like it has a stake in society, especially when you're telling them that they can't even do relatively harmless things like wear a white hood." There are certain beliefs and practices that are so odious that socially excluding people who hold them unless and until they change is not only defensible, but an actual positive good. Many, if not most, of the beliefs of conservative Muslims fall into this category. If it's culturally imperialist to try and force people to give up practices like arranged marriage (a.k.a. parental assisted rape) and legally-enforced patriarchy, then "cultural imperialist" is a label I'll wear with pride.
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 11:40 |
|
|
Majorian posted:But there's a difference between Westernizing Islam on Muslims' own terms, and Westernizing Islam on someone like Sam Harris' terms, don't you think? Right now, the message that a lot of Western Europeans is, "You can't be 'one of us' (French, Belgian, Dutch, German, etc) unless you fundamentally change important, essential things about yourself and your culture." That's not a very good way to make an out-group feel like it has a stake in society, especially when you're telling them that they can't even do relatively harmless things like wear a hijab. (and yes, I understand that that's France's bucket of poo poo, not Belgium's) Well... that's how liberal western societies work. The liberal side forces the conservative side to give up things and almost always wins in the culture war. The alternative is to Islamize western values, but we aren't going to give up liberalism for that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
It's all nice to be relativistic about cultural values, until you come to the point that countless many people died and worked themselves to stubs over centuries to bring about a lasting progressive change in liberal Western societies in the form of objectively improved living conditions and liberties for the masses, and many more died defending this progress from reactionary forces. So giving up on integrating new people firmly on these domestic terms means just rolling back on these centuries of hard work. That being said, exporting liberal values makes no sense if there is no demand outside our borders, but that doesn't mean the same relativism should be applicable internally, in my humble opinion.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 22:08
|
|
|
double nine posted:Tunisia seems like it's improved a lot. One out of 4 ain't bad, right? Right? Unfortunately, getting rid of a corrupt dictator and not becoming a theocracy hasn't been enough for Tunisia to suddenly get jobs and money, so the country's future is still unstable. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/22/tunisia-unrest-government-imposes-night-curfew-unemployment-protests-attacks
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 22:11
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Unfortunately, getting rid of a corrupt dictator and not becoming a theocracy hasn't been enough for Tunisia to suddenly get jobs and money, so the country's future is still unstable. It almost seems like a corrupt military dictatorship that is reliant on aid from the West is the optimal form of governance for certain countries until they have reached a standard of living where democracy becomes a valid option.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 22:14
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Maybe not the best authority on cultural integration there... just because you cant engage with anything on an impartial intellectual level doesnt means other cant menino posted:Is there a point you'd like to make? quote:The central argument of the book is that the cultural groups that are "starkly outperforming" [4] the rest in America possess three distinct traits. These virtues are the presence of a superiority complex, the simultaneous existence of an inferiority complex, and a marked capacity for impulse control. as a social group second generation arab youth in europe can only count on one of the three imho and that is the problem they need nationalism for one the other is harder Crain posted:Yes, she is. do you know what a control group is
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
MysteriousStranger posted:Well... that's how liberal western societies work. The liberal side forces the conservative side to give up things and almost always wins in the culture war. The alternative is to Islamize western values, but we aren't going to give up liberalism for that. "Forces"? That's not a very inviting way to frame it.  Shouldn't the soft power of Western society be enticing enough to do most of the work? I'm not trying to be a smartass here, either, I really think that's a problematic way to frame the dynamic. No one's saying that the West should Islamize - far from it. Obviously there are some things that immigrants are going to have to give up when they move to a new country and culture. Most of the time they'll be only too willing to make those sacrifices. But when it comes down to something as mild as headscarves, maybe it's the forces of secularism that could stand to cut the other side a little slack?as halfway crooks posted:just because you cant engage with anything on an impartial intellectual level doesnt means other cant Yes, Amy Chua, definitely somebody whose work engages on an impartial intellectual level. steinrokkan posted:It's all nice to be relativistic about cultural values, until you come to the point that countless many people died and worked themselves to stubs over centuries to bring about a lasting progressive change in liberal Western societies in the form of objectively improved living conditions and liberties for the masses, and many more died defending this progress from reactionary forces. So giving up on integrating new people firmly on these domestic terms means just rolling back on these centuries of hard work. How is what anyone is saying tantamount to "rolling back centuries of hard work" though? This isn't a binary choice between secularism and Sharia. Allowing immigrants to come to Western secular values on their own terms is hardly saying that they need to be allowed to mistreat women and form terrorist groups without government interference. steinrokkan posted:You called me obtuse for thinking colonialism in the Middle East ended with WWII It seemed to me at time (and still seems to me) that you were bundling "colonialism" and "imperialism" together. If you weren't, my bad. Liberal_L33t posted:"There's a big difference between modernizing the Confederate States of America on Southerners' own terms, and modernizing the Confederate States on someone like Frederick Douglass's terms, don't you think? Right now, the message that a lot of Yankees is "You can't be 'one of us' (American) unless you fundamentally change important, essential things about yourself and your culture." That's not a very good way to make an out-group feel like it has a stake in society, especially when you're telling them that they can't even do relatively harmless things like wear a white hood." Yes, because wearing a hijab is the moral equivalent of owning human beings as property.  quote:There are certain beliefs and practices that are so odious that socially excluding people who hold them unless and until they change is not only defensible, but an actual positive good. Many, if not most, of the beliefs of conservative Muslims fall into this category. List some of them for me, would you?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Wait people think colonialism and imperialism ended in the Middle East?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
Majorian posted:How is what anyone is saying tantamount to "rolling back centuries of hard work" though? This isn't a binary choice between secularism and Sharia. Allowing immigrants to come to Western secular values on their own terms is hardly saying that they need to be allowed to mistreat women and form terrorist groups without government interference. What does "come to Western secular values on their own terms" even mean? If it just means they enjoy the same positive and negative freedom as any other citizen with no extra burdens or leeways, then it's really a pretty much pointless concept, isn't it? The only way I can interpret it as meaning anything is to be more tolerant towards immigrants' legal transgressions as they adjust to their new conditions? In which case when do you take off the training wheels?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
Laphroaig posted:Why did the Belgium security apparatus find Turkey's assessment incorrect? We don't know because that information is presumably classified, since they haven't even released the identity of the individual. It's possible that Belgian intelligence was lax in its assessment of the suspect; it's also possible that Belgium simply didn't have the evidence necessary to make a case against him under their own laws. Turkey's threshold for evidence of involvement in terrorism is lower than most Western countries'. Indeed, their anti-propaganda laws are pretty draconian, for a country that's a NATO member and is commonly considered at least partially European. So it's entirely possible that Turkey's case against the suspect was not very compelling, even if they turned out to be right. e: It's kind of amazing to me, btw, that you would assume Turkey has such an incredible handle on counterterrorism when it experienced an attack of comparable deadliness a week before Belgium.  steinrokkan posted:What does "come to Western secular values on their own terms" even mean? If it just means they enjoy the same positive and negative freedom as any other citizen with no extra burdens or leeways, then it's really a pretty much pointless concept, isn't it? The only way I can interpret it as meaning anything is to be more tolerant towards immigrants' legal transgressions as they adjust to their new conditions? In which case where do you take off the training wheels? Legal transgressions meaning what, exactly? Wearing headscarves? And bear in mind, it's not just the government that needs to give ground in allowing citizens to assimilate without making them feel forced. Society in general needs to treat them as welcome and wanted. Majorian fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Mar 23, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
I don't get why Western society should change their laws to accommodate people that came her of their own free will or were born to parents who decided to come here and practiced a much more tolerant/peaceful/western form of Islam. Adapt or get the gently caress out.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:I don't get why Western society should change their laws to accommodate people that came her of their own free will or were born to parents who decided to come here and practiced a much more tolerant/peaceful/western form of Islam. Adapt or get the gently caress out. Haven't you read any of the pieces I've posted? European civil society doesn't always give them a chance to adapt.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
What if they don't want to 'come to Western Secular values on their own terms'? Are you going to keep assuming they don't have agency, or admit that their own decisions have consequences?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yes, Amy Chua, definitely somebody whose work engages on an impartial intellectual level. unlike yourself the papers she cites actually support her arguments instead of hilariously undermining them
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
rudatron posted:What if they don't want to 'come to Western Secular values on their own terms'? Are you going to keep assuming they don't have agency, or admit that their own decisions have consequences? If society has done its job right and helped the broader community integrate, that community will either try to stop the individual in question themselves, or will warn the authorities. Bear in mind, there are plenty of people who aren't born to immigrant families who don't want to obey the strictures of Western society. We tend to call those people criminals, and we deal with them accordingly. There will always be a few bad eggs in every group. The trick is A, to minimize them, and B, to react to them in an appropriate fashion when they do go bad. as halfway crooks posted:unlike yourself the papers she cites actually support her arguments instead of hilariously undermining them lol, you've never read Amy Chua.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Haven't you read any of the pieces I've posted? European civil society doesn't always give them a chance to adapt. Well, if it comes down to a shouting match between two camps yelling "No, YOU adapt first!" at each other, maybe the natural conclusion is that relations will inevitably deteriorate, and that the project of accommodation has failed? I don't see how you can sell the project of welcoming more immigrants with open arms and letting them settle down on their own pace to people whose relation with the existing diaspora has already been worsening, leading to more and more grave incidents on both sides. If the good will of the people is required for this to work, then, well, the project is dead since you can't change the popular will by a decree.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 22:54
|
|
|
On the extremely specific topic of arranged marriage, the solution, as usual, has a lot more to do with intergenerational Any of you folks appalled by it have any data on the prevalence of it among Muslim immigrant population, btw? Ideally with a comparison to other religious denominations (I know a moderately hilarious amount about Sri Lankan Buddhist arranged marriages inside SL  ) but I like data in general.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 22:55
|
|
Majorian posted:Haven't you read any of the pieces I've posted? European civil society doesn't always give them a chance to adapt. The study you posted talks about perceived slights. I'm sorry, but I think it's unrealistic to expect a society to prevent any kind of perceived slight against a certain group, e.g. when it comes to personal advancement in the labor market, as self-perception and reality often differ to a certain degree and it might be an easy excuse for a Muslim man, who got skipped for promotion in favor of a woman, to believe that it was because of his religion and not because the woman was simply performing better. Additionally they might feel discriminated against because society doesn't respect all their religious believes and doesn't cater to every tenant of their religion, but society doesn't cater to every tenant of Christianity or Judaism as well, so Muslims will have to deal with the fact that the law is above Allah.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
No no no, you're not listening - what if the community as a whole is choosing not to integrate? Because that's the problem we're having. Stop shifting blame onto society as a whole, stop pretending the only thing stopping the integration is the rest of society not holding their loving hands, they have agency.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
Majorian posted:"Forces"? That's not a very inviting way to frame it. On the one hand, I've said before in these threads than an outright legal ban on the headscarf isn't the best way to go about it. But there absolutely should be social, public, and professional pressure against wearing it because it is a symbol of traditionalism and patriarchy, which are Bad Things. Majorian posted:How is what anyone is saying tantamount to "rolling back centuries of hard work" though? This isn't a binary choice between secularism and Sharia. Allowing immigrants to come to Western secular values on their own terms is hardly saying that they need to be allowed to mistreat women and form terrorist groups without government interference. 'Allowing immigrants to come to Western secular values on their own terms' is, in fact, saying that they need to be allowed to mistreat women, because traditional Islamic practices (especially, but not limited to, sharia courts and the trojan horse of "religious arbitration") inherently and unavoidably mistreat women (and children, non-heterosexuals, etc etc etc.) Majorian posted:Yes, because wearing a hijab is the moral equivalent of owning human beings as property. A face-covering garment mandated by patriarchal tradition and enforced by community sanction absolutely is the moral equivalent of a slave collar. Majorian posted:List some of them for me, would you? Arranged marriage. Child marriage. Unequal divorce laws. Spousal rape. Domestic violence against women. These are all things that parts of the Qur'an and Hadith can very easily be used to justify. Most of all, the very idea that it is the right and responsibility of a local community to enforce sexual morality among its members, which is unfortunately a very deeply ingrained idea in most of the cultures these immigrants come from. If any of these beliefs and practices are so deeply ingrained in a culture as to be inextricable from it, then self-professed members of that culture have no place in western society, except in the most bare-bones, legalistic sense of their status as refugees. Certainly people who believe in these things should never be socially accepted by members of a modern culture.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 22:59
|
|
|
steinrokkan posted:Well, if it comes down to a shouting match between two camps yelling "No, YOU adapt first!" at each other No one is suggesting that it should come down to that, though. Again, look at the piece that I've cited twice now: quote:Local Muslims, who form 25 to 30 percent of the area’s population, talk in particular of limited educational and economic opportunities, as well as employment discrimination. From a pragmatic standpoint, that's one major thing that Belgian society (and other European societies) could change to minimize terrorist recruitment and activity. From a values standpoint, one would think that's something that an egalitarian society would want to change as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:00
|
|
|
I read all the posts by Euros patting themselves on the back about how great they are and how it must be people's own fault if they don't feel welcomed and I think I'm a terrorist now.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Majorian posted:lol, you've never read Amy Chua.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:On the extremely specific topic of arranged marriage, the solution, as usual, has a lot more to do with intergenerational Well, yeah. All forms of rape are extremely logistically difficult to illegalize. That doesn't mean they aren't worth fighting to prevent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
rudatron posted:No no no, you're not listening - what if the community as a whole is choosing not to integrate? Because that's the problem we're having. Stop shifting blame onto society as a whole, stop pretending the only thing stopping the integration is the rest of society not holding their loving hands, they have agency. Really, if integration is so delicate a process that it requires the entire society to tip-toe around the immigrants as to not disturb their metamorphosis, then it's a miracle so many immigration waves have been successful at integrating into their host nations despite also not enjoying the feel-good environment they should have required!
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I read all the posts by Euros patting themselves on the back about how great they are and how it must be people's own fault if they don't feel welcomed and I think I'm a terrorist now. "Now"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Majorian posted:From a pragmatic standpoint, that's one major thing that Belgian society (and other European societies) could change to minimize terrorist recruitment and activity. From a values standpoint, one would think that's something that an egalitarian society would want to change as well. Since it's a matter of perception, I don't think you can change it significantly without breaking the liberal principles of Belgian values, actually.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:03
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:"Now"? Well, maybe I was brainwashed by being in close proximity to a devout Muslimoid while she was sewing up my arm, or when I had lunch last week.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I read all the posts by Euros patting themselves on the back about how great they are and how it must be people's own fault if they don't feel welcomed and I think I'm a terrorist now. How exactly are you going to convince somebody who hates you to like you all of a sudden? By trying to force him to change his behavior for your benefit?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
rudatron posted:No no no, you're not listening - what if the community as a whole is choosing not to integrate? Because that's the problem we're having. It's absolutely not, though. I keep posting data showing that Belgian society, and European societies in general, are having serious trouble holding up their end of the integration bargain. Unemployment is high among Muslim immigrants, educational opportunities are substandard, and they face employment discrimination. These are failures of society writ large. You can't put all the blame on a minority group for not integrating when you aren't letting them. Liberal_L33t posted:On the one hand, I've said before in these threads than an outright legal ban on the headscarf isn't the best way to go about it. But there absolutely should be social, public, and professional pressure against wearing it because it is a symbol of traditionalism and patriarchy, which are Bad Things. Even if I grant you that premise, which I don't necessarily, some types of social, public, and professional pressure are more effective than others. If you go about it ham-handedly, you end up causing more alienation and spurring them to cling to their traditions out of spite. quote:'Allowing immigrants to come to Western secular values on their own terms' is, in fact, saying that they need to be allowed to mistreat women, because traditional Islamic practices (especially, but not limited to, sharia courts and the trojan horse of "religious arbitration") inherently and unavoidably mistreat women (and children, non-heterosexuals, etc etc etc.) That's a pretty broad brush you're painting the extremely wide gamut of "traditional Islamic practices" with. Are you under the impression that all Muslims view things like FGM, arranged marriage, wearing the burka, etc, are integral parts of "traditional Islamic practices"? quote:A face-covering garment mandated by patriarchal tradition and enforced by community sanction absolutely is the moral equivalent of a slave collar. That's not what a hijab is! A hijab doesn't cover the face at all. LOL, it's like you've never heard the term "tiger moms" before.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:06
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:On the one hand, I've said before in these threads than an outright legal ban on the headscarf isn't the best way to go about it. But there absolutely should be social, public, and professional pressure against wearing it because it is a symbol of traditionalism and patriarchy, which are Bad Things.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:07
|
|
|
Majorian posted:LOL, it's like you've never heard the term "tiger moms" before. ?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
Interesting little fact: one reason for the prevalence of arbitration as a preferred divorce mechanism in us Islamic communities is that the regular court system is unequal in the man's favor, by considering the Marriage Security Deposit (can't recall the term, but it's a Bizarre Dowry that ensures the woman can support herself even if her husband turns out to be a moron) as part of their shared assets.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
Is the discrimination in educational and job opportunities specific to Muslims, or to anybody who, as they presumably do, has pre-existing disadvantages stemming from being lower class, from an undesirable neighbourhood, and under-qualified? I mean that article you keep quoting doesn't really provide data except for "poor people are not satisfied".
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Frosted Flake posted:I'm not really sure. Iraqis, Syrians and Lebanese are doing pretty well. They're active members of the community, a big part of the economy, and send their kids to get higher learning. The Somalis have not had that happen. Maybe it has to do with social niche? Somalis are considered 'Black' by most Canadians but are virulently racist against Ango and Franco-Africans, Caribbeans and Black Canadians. Since they're not part of 'White' Canada and seem to hate 'Black' Canada, it sets them apart. I've heard that Somalis are doing pretty well in Minnesota, so I don't know what to make of that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:10
|
|
steinrokkan posted:How exactly are you going to convince somebody who hates you to like you all of a sudden? By trying to force him to change his behavior for your benefit? I dunno what exactly you're hinting at with inimitable ineptitude, but I suggest that if you really treat every Muslim as though they hate you, and you are a representative sample of public opinion (I recognize that the general freakishness of goons makes this unlikely), it seems to me like being a Muslim in your country must be a hell of enduring unending hostility.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:The study you posted talks about perceived slights. A 40-50% unemployment rate among people of ME/North African descent in Belgium is not a perceived slight; it's a fact. Are you under the impression that employment discrimination against Muslims in Europe is a "perceived slight"?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:Well, yeah. All forms of rape are extremely logistically difficult to illegalize. That doesn't mean they aren't worth fighting to prevent. I am not sure I agree with your presumed position on all forms of arranged marriage, but that is a solid argument.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
INH5 posted:I've heard that Somalis are doing pretty well in Minnesota, so I don't know what to make of that. Yes, well, Minnesota is an enlightened utopia, as both of the people who have visited can testify.
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 11:40 |
|
|
Effectronica posted:I dunno what exactly you're hinting at with inimitable ineptitude, but I suggest that if you really treat every Muslim as though they hate you, and you are a representative sample of public opinion (I recognize that the general freakishness of goons makes this unlikely), it seems to me like being a Muslim in your country must be a hell of enduring unending hostility. You are saying that the euros are narcissistic racists, how can the Muslims make them like them so they feel welcome?
|
|
#
?
Mar 23, 2016 23:13
|
|