Comments by "Duskpede" (@duskpede5146) on "KaiserBauch"
channel.
-
26
-
21
-
20
-
18
-
8
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@L333gok i could nitpick this thoroughly and explain my self more clearly but i also think we just kinda agree on like everything. i'm obviously taking a more hard line approach but really we both seem to be saying that immigration is possible to do well and isn't some inherent evil but we're just getting bogged down in an auxiliary discussion about culture.
but to start nitpicking
the rape thing is from. poverty -> crime -> rape. but i am just kinda assuming that and don't know the root cause of why people rape well enough to defend that. i'm not saying i'm wrong i'm just saying i will drop it at the first sign i am wrong
its not really a far comparison to compare the work it takes for an american farmer to do his job vs a farmer in a developing nation who does not have access to the same state of the art industrialised farming equipment. they aren't choosing not to make a surplus too sell for no reason, they likely are only making enough to feed themselves because thats ALL they can make with the resources at hand.
they still have a work ethic and know how to do a job. so i don't think thats a fair argument for why they struggle to get employed when so many other salient factors are apparent.
i'm also saying, in this example, that culture has little impact on the economic opportunities because the example you gave is just not a reasonable factor, as shown above.
i do need to explain this better. i'm really struggling to defend myself properly about "culture" because "culture" is such a vague concept that means like 20 different things, it could mean traditions, ideals, economic conditions, personality, or just a code word for ethnicity without saying ethnicity. so its hard to make a definitive statement about it because the person i'm talking to can just pivot to another definition. cause all of these range from "this is unequivocally stupid and not real" to "yeah its real but also not all that significant".
so i guess the best solution is, what do you mean by culture?
i think the standard definition of western values is societal ideology but for whatever reason in my head i was thinking "personality traits associated with western nations".
that being said, almost every single nation on earth claims its a democracy and liberty is just kinda an easy sale. they may officially be labelled as flawed but the average person isn't gonna have a strong opinion on them (people in the west also float authoritarian ideals in conversation all the time, people aren't ideologues and rarely read political theory). plus when someone is taken from a bad regime and placed into a regime that is working pretty well, like going from syria to sweden. they tend to warm up to the new regime pretty quickly.
i never said all traditions are harmless, i just wanted to keep my narrative clear without tacking on 20 caveats. in my opinion traditions do not hold inherent value unto themselves, so a harmful tradition like child brides or circumcisions can be removed without problem. but this also means european traditions are not automatically better than syrian traditions, so the immigrants don't need to abandon them for no reason.
i still think you're overstating the importance of "culture" in all of this. seems to me the real division is between secularism and religious zealots, of any religion. if you ever study theology you kinda realise that the bones of almost all religions are very similar, and really the difference is how strictly that religion is followed. islam is more common in poorer and less stable regions, which in all cases correlated with more religion, hence why islam seems to be more extreme. you see the same trend with christians in eastern europe /the american south and buddists in myanmar.
but thats all still splitting hairs
with settlers in northern ireland, they were explicitly there to overturn the political hierarchy there, they often used british force to maintain and expand their rule and they had no interest in integrating themselves with the locals. unlike the migrants.
you gotta admit that europe is still doing a lot better than the rest of the world. and they certainly didn't collapse like it was supposed to due to immigration.
housing is a problem in literally every developed city in the world. even in japan with no immigrants, rates are high and apartments small.
i'm not here to defend capitalism, there's problems. but immigration is not one of them. it can be done right in a way that benefits everyone. and race mixing is fine. (i think you agree with that but a lot of other people in this thread do not, and thats who i'm trying to pick on)
1
-
1