Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/25/14 02:22 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 12/25/14 01:40 PM, Warforger wrote: Brown had apparently punched him in the face. Either way he was running away when Wilson shot him....

This fact was disproven long before the grand jury decision was made.

Wait, that Brown had punched him in the face or that he was running away? I haven't been following the news in uni...

At 12/25/14 05:57 AM, lapis wrote:

At 12/23/14 11:51 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Well, the strange realization that a suburban Sydney accent somehow sounds like a mixture of Hotlanta and New York black vernacular is a reason to bring race into it. (it doesn't)

As mentioned earlier, she lived in the American South for several years, so that's a more likely origin of her accent than living in suburban Sydney.

Maaaaan, I can see why you'd think that, but if you check her interviews her accent still Straya af.

At 12/25/14 05:42 AM, lapis wrote: Similarly, I'd have no problems with the points raised by Banks if she had focused on non-street Americans rather than "Igloo Australia" just being "down to ride Black Dick" [...] I mean, regardless of any wider point about appropriation, the overarching principle should be that you don't call attention to someone's race in a negative way, and this was violated in both cases. Again, this isn't really aimed at you in particular, just at the media response to both issues.

No, I totally agree. I think the main reason people flipped their shit with Terry and not Banks is that people found it easier to believe Terry could be a scary racist than Banks. Banks is pretty clearly just a diva (and given lyrics like "can my hot fudge bitches get with your vanilla friends" it's pretty clear from her work she's not a serious racist), whereas Terry's kind of an everyday English football lad who isn't as clearly not-racist. BUT I don't think superficial differences should enter into this stuff, it is only lazy journalism, & that aside I totally agree that it's a double standard.

In general, I think at least three different types of racism can be identified, and that this incident falls into the third category:

I think you sum it up pretty nicely, man. A lot of the mistakes people make about racism, I feel come from confusing these three tiers. I also think you're right about militancy, and how it's only really a suitable weapon against the first. I'm not sure what we can do about the second, but I think any anger and political energy would be better aimed at mass media than individuals (ie: if an old lady doesn't think moderate Muslims regularly, publicly condemn extremist Islam we should blame the people who've failed to inform her that they do, because wtf is she supposed to believe?). Of course, press freedom is a huge concern, so again maybe softer public pressure and economic activism rather than political militancy would be the way to go.

The third tier is probably never going to go away, and whilst it's low and immature behaviour, I don't think it's a big deal. People who lose their shit about it already had a problem they wanted to talk about, & whilst it can provide a good opportunity to talk about real issues it's wrong to blame John Terry, Azealia Banks etc for your anger about this real issues. Imho.

At 12/23/14 11:46 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: B: Well these scientific studies I have here suggest that you are wrong

Neisser 1996.

So we're having this discussion again, guys? Really? Anyone change their mind since last time?

@SadisticMonkey despite whatever you read from AmRen, we're still a long way off from having anything like the detailed understanding of intelligence (& IQ) you'd need to have a proper scientific discussion about race and intelligence. If we did have the definitive, working understanding of intelligence they claim, we'd also understand a lot more about developmental disorders, certain brain injuries, personality disorders and our education systems would also be much more advanced. But this is a stupid discussion that I have no interest in having with racist white people on ng, so please feel free not to reply.

At 12/21/14 11:10 PM, Musician wrote: Dear LazyDrunk,

I've offended you, and for that I apologize. Despite your unnecessary hostility towards me, tonight I will pray to G*d that one day, for your own sake, you will be able to cease collecting your own toenails and urine long enough to form an original thought.

*shots fired*

At 12/23/14 04:47 AM, lapis wrote:

Also, just for the record - Iggy's right that Banks has a bad attitude. Banks makes freaking incredible music, & it is true that a lot of people have no idea how to respond to a sensual, qt black female rapper who makes house joints. And a lot of that is due to the "black" part.

But Banks also managed to cost Interscope several million dollars then jump ship to make her record. If no-one wants to sign her, it's not a racial thing.

At 12/23/14 03:42 AM, lapis wrote: Thanks, I didn't know most of that. Still, even though I'm sure there are many mitigating factors, the main issue with Iggy Azalea seems to be that she's a sell-out, and I still see no reason to criticise her for anything but that.

Eh, I pretty much agree. I mean, even Banks said in the hot 97 interview that she wouldn't have a problem with Iggy if she wasn't being sold as hiphop. That sounds like pretty much the crux of the problem here, because Iggy doesn't even class herself as hiphop, she classes herself as pop-rap.

The whole Ukrainian analogy misses a couple points - 1stly, it's not the hiphop's for black people only, it's more that it's for street Americans. Anyone who isn't street American, whatever their colour, has a hard time earning respect in hiphop (see: Drake). Ofc, the American street dialogue being what it is, issues of culture are often spoken about like issues of race but it's worth pointing out that when white street American rappers have sold out, they haven't been treated like Iggy (see: Paul Wall & Riff Raff who still get a lot of love).

So it'd be less like Ukranian folk lovers saying "no blackies" and closer to them saying "no non-Ukrainian, urbanised folk" or whatever. Hopefully you get the idea.

Banks has responded inappropriately though - & it's worth viewing her tweets in the context of an emotional twitter argument between two young divas rather than in the context of an objective, serious political discussion. Which, of course, raises the question why newspapers would want to report on it ostensibly as part of an objective, serious discussion. I think, because it's actually easier and much more sensational. I mean, for god's sake, Banks is a twenty three year old party rapper from uptown NY, she's not exactly Common or Kendrick Lamar or Killer Mike.

You're making her act sound more nefarious than it really it.

Oh, I'm not saying she purposefully caricatures black rappers. She's clearly sincere, and far from a racist person.

But, she is still a non-threatening white, middle class Australian who raps by putting on her best TI impression. When that gets you famous in a game that is so saturated with authentic talent, a lot of heads start thinking that it's very easy to get famous when you're a cute white girl. Then, a lot of people worry about who is going to be speaking on their behalf in hiphop if that's the way the game's going to work in the future. Then, you get a lot of people getting quite reactionary about white, female MCs.

At 12/23/14 04:47 AM, lapis wrote: Here, this is currently on the frontpage of http://www.theguardian.com/uk twice

That's hilarious, man. Like, in quite a painful way. I remember reading in Private Eye a couple years back that the Guardian fired a shit tonne of staff, literally on Christmas Day. So, yeah. Only the tip of the hypocrisy ice berg, bud.

At 12/22/14 04:10 AM, lapis wrote:

Also also this is uniquely a black woman's issue. A lot of black female MCs feel completely overlooked because they don't play up to the hyper-masculine black rapper stereotype.

At 12/22/14 04:10 AM, lapis wrote:

Also Azaelia Banks has had unrelated problems with Iggy for a while... including the fact that Iggy Azalea (real name: Amethyst Kelly) literally jacked her name (Banks had been a thing for a while before Iggy started up). It's really less of a race issue than you might think, bro.

At 12/22/14 04:10 AM, lapis wrote: I can seriously not imagine someone reading this exchange and not feeling that Banks comes across as a petulant, imbecilic little racist.

The issue here is much more complicated than it just being about Iggy Azalea's whiteness (hence, why Action Bronson jumped into the conversation very quickly). A lot of hiphop heads are uneasy about Iggy, not just because she's white and she's rapping, but because she's an Australian blonde who makes money essentially imitating black men. Her vocal style, lyrical approach and even her accent are clear imitations of standard Dirty South rap - even the beat on her hit "Fancy" is a (poor) imitation of a particular successful black southern producer's style.

So, you have a non-threatening white Australian woman rapping like a bad black Dirty South MC on a fake DJ Mustard beat and she gets famous p much overnight (in modern hiphop terms). To a lot of people, this seems like a threat to hiphop's status as an artform through which people can better understand the black reality of America. Hiphop heads didn't care when Eminem made it big because his style and approach were clearly his own, and he furthered technical aspects of the craft. Hiphop heads didn't care when Macklemore made it big (even though most his fanbase was white) because he spoke about how hiphop was also about the above, whenever anyone asked.

There are tons and tons of white rappers who don't speak out about black issues as well, but still have respect within the culture because they were just doing them, not purposefully imitating, almost caricaturing black culture like Iggy does. The worry is that Iggy makes money off of a culture that she then fails to represent.

------------------------

If this all sounds like a storm in a teacup, it might be because it is. But it isn't about Iggy Azalea just being white. It's about people who love hiphop caring about its integrity, about how well the people who make money from hiphop represent the culture.

It's also just about respected underground artists trying to call out less-talented successful artists on anything they can. This is much more about rap than it is about race.

Why the living fuck is Anonymous taking her side, and why is the writer of the article trying to make her look better by paraphrasing her but quoting Iggy Azalea?

Yeah, I have no idea why Anonymous is getting involved in this. Truly bizarre.

I also imagine some journalists think their articles will get more hits if they do a hatchet job on a successful artist than if they try and fairly represent a complicated debate in a pretty weird music-scene.

At 12/20/14 05:31 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: I've got half a dozen or so people responding to my posts already, I don't need another moron who doesn't actually read the things he's responding to before he posts.

Meh, fair enough. I'm not American so this honestly isn't an issue I'm particularly invested in - and if you're not using official statistics then the fact the official statistics are biased towards reporting more black crime doesn't directly undermine your claims.

However,

At 12/20/14 05:26 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: the claims of the report I posted have not been refuted

The report claimed "Police and the justice system are not biased against minorities". Naronic has shown that they are, quite thoroughly, with a variety of sources. Hence, your study is making claims that are well known to be false. Hence, the people who wrote the study don't know their facts.

At 12/18/14 08:20 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: nothing to do with the points I'm making.

Also, if a key finding of a study you're citing is well known to be factually incorrect, it loses pretty much any authority.

Imagine me citing a paper on astrophysics that claimed the sun orbited the earth - even if it had nothing to do with the point I was making by citing the study (and the point Naronic debunked DOES have direct consequences for your argument) citing a shitty study by people who don't know their facts isn't necessarily any better than not citing any study. In fact, it shows that the only people who agree with you are fucking idiots.

At 12/18/14 08:20 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: It's crucial you understand that you're attacking things that have nothing to do with the points I'm making.

If you claim any statistics sourcing arrests/ convictions correctly represent the true number and nature of actual crimes committed, then you assume there is no bias in arrests/ convictions relative to actual crime.

Naronic has shown there is at least some bias in arrests/ convictions relative to actual crime.

This is relevant.

At 11/29/14 11:55 PM, yurgenburgen wrote: chav music.

MATE you're listening to the wrong shit & missing out on some sick tunes.

At 11/29/14 01:20 AM, Voltage wrote: You think it makes me look dumb? Did you know hip hop and rapping didn't technically originate from America, but were influenced by Jamaicans in the Bronx?

Yes. Yes I did. Did you know the British have been having rap battles since the 16th Century? Rhyming & poetry are in the Celtic blood, our approach to hiphop has always been distinct from the Americas - grime's been more about flow (and draws more directly from the Caribbean than the US) and our hiphop's drawn from our longstanding poetic tradition of pure lyricism.

For grime, look up early Wiley, Crazy Titch, Giggs & Griminal - you'll hear the rough garage edge of the British estate and the catchy rhythms of Jamaican/ West Indian MCs. For hiphop look up some of the guys I mentioned earlier, Stig of the Dump, Taskforce (especially Jehst), Chester P, Doctor Syntax etc. Buggsy is a sick fucking mix of the two influences.

But my point still stands, if you are from the UK and you are an avid fan of hip hop - you should trash the shit you are hearing from the indie labels there and give the U.S's stuff a shot. It's very similar logic to enjoying rock music, if you are listening to mostly American bands - you are just not hearing the right stuff.

Why is it an either/ or thing? Why can't you just enjoy the flavours of different cultures without having to get all didactic?

At 11/28/14 08:48 PM, Voltage wrote: If I wanted to listen to people that rap in Mos Def's shadow, sure, I have heard of them. But when I want to listen to Mos Def, I listen to the guy that probably inspired most modern hip hop being replicated in Europe right now

Wow that's ignorant. Does Jam Baxter sound like Mos Def? Does Rag n Bone Man sound like Mos Def? Does Leaf Dog sound like Mos Def?

I don't expect you to know everything about British hiphop, I'd just expect you not to act like you do if you don't. Cause it makes you look dumb, man.

At 11/28/14 08:22 PM, Voltage wrote: The UK has a lot more talented acts and many performance artists that do not colloquially clash with the roots of the genre that birthed it -- this being said, leave the *NSFW* hip hop and rap to the Americans, especially because British hip hop/rap has less passion than the electronic/rock music their country is pushing

Someone hasn't heard of High Focus...

At 11/23/14 09:18 PM, 24901miles wrote: I.Q. Ugh. I am that sort of individual of a group which is vocal in disdain toward and for boiling minds down to digital symbology. Though I know my own. A mind is not so simply known by that snapshot of work. That rating is void and insulting. A mind is not as totally rural; all minds can grow into a city full of hardy thoughts and constant motion toward magnanimous conclusions. I talk to humans doctorally known as slow minds, quick minds with social awards for that trait, and I know no qualms with both sorts or sorts in gray.

This. I find that thought that human, psychic function can & will only vary in proportion (and not in form) ridiculous.

At 11/19/14 02:30 AM, thegarbear14 wrote: a global society where people peacefully co-exist, and nobody lives in slavery or poverty.

This is impossible in reality and people who believe in utopian society are kind of naive and maybe a little crazy.

Ahhhh without getting politicsy, there are countries where pretty much all poverty is optional, like Denmark and Sweden. If we can make it happen within a country, I'm pretty sure we can make it happen for all the world one day.

Probably a forest or an India green, then either a heliotrope, psychedelic lavender or this kinda fuschia.

Honestly, I would have thought that forums are more an extrovert thing - It's a website specifically made for us to tout our opinions and have social interactions. But, I think the truth is it serves as many different purposes as there are users.

At 11/23/14 01:58 PM, Korriken wrote: I guess there is if you want there to be. God knows how many times I've heard people quote Palin as saying, "I can see Russia from my house!"

Oh no, don't get me wrong - I'm not saying these are all rational beliefs. I'm not certain Bush lied, but I do believe he purposefully mislead America & I think the Koch brothers are just a little slimey for wanting to cut the minimum wage when they have no idea how hard it is to live on. But I do believe these are all way too simplistic to ever be at all accurate, & I also believe you're right when you say that so many people repeating that verbatim evidences the left-wing's own media influence.

Benghazi was legitimately just a bunch of conspiracy theories which have now been proven to be completely without factual basis.

As far as we know, anyway.

Well, you could say that about anything. Burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim, otherwise you could validly claim any number of ridiculous things.

I can see no motive for most of the conspiracy theories, but I can see the motive for trying to keep a lid on it, being as it happened so close to election time.

But there are any number of crazy claims that could justify believing. Like, if all of congress where actually all a Satanic cult of lizard people, the government would want to make sure you didn't know - But that doesn't change the initial implausibility of the claim. If it isn't likely to have happened, it isn't likely to have happened.

At 11/23/14 11:52 AM, Korriken wrote: Bush lied, people died! Palin is an idiot! Koch Brothers! Romney is a corporate raider!

Well, I wouldn't disagree that the Left has a machine too, but all the above are just instances of personal attacks with at least some factual backing (Bush wasn't right about WMDs, Palin managed to put her foot directly into her mouth very regularly, the Koch Brothers do have an agenda which they fund heavily & Romney was a businessman who did what businessmen do). Benghazi was legitimately just a bunch of conspiracy theories which have now been proven to be completely without factual basis.

I don't blame rightwingers for trusting the news people, but you have to admit that's pretty shoddy journalism.

To me, I didn't think too much on it until they came out and said it was a protest gone wrong. I immediately knew that explanation was horse shit. Then of course, the lack of cooperation in figuring out what happened didn't help anything either. Had They said, "We're still investigating" or "We don't know yet" I would have continued to not think much on it. Feeding me a bullshit explanation though tells me something is amiss.

I don't know. I just don't see any motive. All the conspiracy theories to me sound dependent on Obama risking a fall-out with the military, which I don't think is consistent with anything anyone's ever seen with Obama. Especially around election time, I don't think Obama would fuck with the military & risk jeopardizing his reputation as hard on foreign policy (which is also why none of the independents bought the Benghazi thing).

At 11/23/14 11:34 AM, Feoric wrote: I can, considering the people who thought it was (some probably still do).

Well, obviously I can believe people did believe it, I just don't understand why at all. There was no evidence for it at all, and the whole thing was brought up in the middle of a presidential campaign which everyone knew would be over before any thorough investigation concluded.

I mean, is that not really really blatant politician shit?

At 11/23/14 11:09 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Put what 35 /36 million Canadians do in comparison to 350 Million Americans, over a Billion Chinese & a Billion Indian citizens .... & you won't be able to detect it on a parts per million scale, we're way down there on a parts per Billion scale

~;D

But it's not just about actual, direct impact. It's that the more countries fail to meet their climate goals, the easier it becomes for the next country to do the same.

I don't think anyone's accusing Canada of being the main contributor to global climate change, but this isn't good yo. Really not good.

I genuinely can't believe anyone ever thought this was a thing. Proof that the American right has a powerful propaganda machine. I mean, was it not really really obvious that Romney was just trying to make it look like there was a scandal for the presidentials?

At 11/21/14 02:26 PM, Shauna wrote: Edited for your approval.

I don't drink soda, it tastes like shit.

I approve, based Shauna.

At 11/21/14 02:12 PM, Shauna wrote: I just drank 1.5 liters in 60 seconds.

I think we'll both live as I do this every day 2-3 times a day.\

You may get gas or chest pain from the gas building up though. Belch it, brother

please tell me you brushed your teeth straight after, homie

At 11/21/14 12:05 PM, lapis wrote: You cannot change people's background, but you can try to change attitudes, so that future generations don't have the same problems. [...]

That's a very good point. I don't think the issues you list are much more of an issue in the Muslim community than in the wider white community though to be honest. I think the issue's more that Muslims right now have an over-abundance of shitty role models who are trying to get them to come join them in fucking up the West. I also think that a substantial minority in every ethnic and religious group are very basic, negative people and that Muslims who feel that way then act out in a way we don't recognise as stemming from that because it's different to how the same type of people in our ethnic/ religious group act out. I also don't think monotheism helps things at all - there's a long list of individual shitty things about Islam (as there are with most religions), but the whole "my god hates your god die infidel" thing strikes me as more broadly Abrahamic personally, and it doesn't make the situation any better.

Of course, this is all tangential and I don't think white people sitting around trying to critique Muslim society from the outside's going to solve any of the problems (if that doesn't sound too tumblr). I do think we have to admit there are issues though, like you said, and the government has to support the many groups within the Muslim community who want to fight radicalism and bolster peaceful, respectful co-existence on the grounds that the sensible people on the inside will have a more involved knowledge of the problems than we will. But we definitely shouldn't do nothing, or only try and make integration easier. Our response to these problems should have as many fronts as the problem itself, I think.

At 11/21/14 10:31 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: We're talking about the muslims who become terrorists, which you claim is because they are not being integrated. The fact that many muslims are being integrated refutes your own argument, because if (allegedly) most muslims can be integrated then the ones who aren't are probably not itnerested in it.

You're trying to understand radicalisation using the wrong schema. It's a process independent of integration, but it's a lot harder for someone to become radicalised when they're very strongly connected to mainstream society. For example, a young Muslim teenager with several white friends, a pro-British family and lives in an integrated community will find it harder to adapt to a Jihadist lifestyle than one who only knows other Muslim teens, has a family who also have a very poor view of the West and lives in a ghetto.

It's not about what individual people did or didn't believe, it's about group trends and building an environment that makes radicalisation harder.

sad when I know more about your country than you do

http://www.theguardian.com/society/live/2014/aug/26/rotherham-abuse-report-finds-1400-children-were-victims-live-coverage

Wow, I didn't know that the grooming gangs in Rotherham had abused north of a thousand children. That's really fucked up, but beyond them obviously having less qualms about molesting people who don't look like them/ belong to the umma I really don't see Islam being a big influence in this. I do agree with everyone saying it was fucked up that the police didn't do anything for political reasons though.

The reasons there are racially divided neighborhoods is because muslims have made livign around them unbearable and the white people move away.

Hahaha, how? It's not like they were out partying every night, playing loud music, starting fights. If you don't think racism played a huge part in the conflicts that played out in the 70s, I just can't take you seriously.

"integrated communities" are where muslims gang rape children. Nice one, dickhead.

Because Rotherham's an integrated community...

Then muslims shouldn't fucking live there. The muslims are being a bunch of cry babies and are being treated far better than westerners are in their homelands.

It's truly bizarre that the west is so oppressive to muslims and yet they'll do everything they can to move there....

That's not the argument at all. I'm not saying the West is a bad place - it's a great place (comparatively) and I'm incredibly proud of our liberal democratic beliefs and policies. But if we make the decision that we want immigrants, then we should handle immigration properly and do what we can to integrate them.

If you don't want immigrants in the country, that's a legitimate political stance, but it's entirely unrelated to how you treat existing British citizens.

Funny how no other groups become fucking TERRORISTS over teh exact same treatment.

Again, I'm not saying that the lack of integration is making people terrorists - I'm saying that it's failing to stop them becoming terrorists. People in IS do not claim to be primarily responding to the treatment of Western Muslims, it's about a much wider geopolitical situation and issues with Muslim identity within that. Beyond trying to create stability in the Muslim world, and establishing better relationships with Muslim countries though, that's out of our control.

yeah and they didn't become TERRORISTS

Again, I'm not claiming a lack of integration makes people become terrorists. That's irrelevant.

Well just a minute ago you were claiming that a lack of integration was the result of racist areas, but now it's something that can be tested before they arrive!

like I said, there's nothing to lose from stopping all muslims and everything to gain.

You wouldn't need so many doctors were it not for all the extra immigrants, and I'm fairly certain India needs the doctors more than you do.

I wouldn't ever claim anything is only ever the result of one other thing in the real world. It's usually about complex, nuanced interactions between lots of different factors. Of course some people are more likely to integrate than others.

& Britain benefits from having so many Pakistani/ Bangladeshi doctors and intellectuals here. It's none of my business whether they're needed more anywhere else - if they want to live here, and we want them to live here, so what.

Nope, it's the best indicator. No other groups have such an integration problem and none of them go around decapitating soldiers.

Polish people integrate in Britain just as poorly as Muslims. But anyway...

There are at most 500 British Muslim fighters in IS. There are almost 3 million Muslims in Britain. Being Muslim is, statistically, a really, really shitty predictor. If a Bangladeshi doctor has a 0.00017% chance of going off to become a terrorist and a 99.99983% chance of working as a doctor with the NHS and saving many British lives, it doesn't make any sense to turn him away. If someone has a history of writing extremists tracts, has Al-Qaeda ties, is linked with x extremist mosque etc etc obviously that's a different story.

It's not smart policy to just blanket ban Muslims from entering the country.

At 11/21/14 09:07 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Except Muslims are not interested in integration. They're upset because Europe isn't Muslim enough for them, which is why I'm saying that Europeans would have to completely change their countries for muslims to be "integrated", and even then they would still hate the indigenous, non-muslim population.

Well, that's demonstrably false. While there are radical Muslims everywhere, there are many, many more integrated Muslims. I know that being North-American you may just not have any substantial firsthand experience of this, but in the UK and more specifically in Harrow and Watford (where I've lived) there are massive integrated communities of Muslims. So, while some Muslims probably aren't interested in integration, being Muslim is a pretty poor predictor of not being interested in integration.

What does being "open" even mean, and how on earth is muslims acting like shitheads the result of a lack of "openness"?

Whties are 'racist pricks" in response to muslims being assholes and forcing their culture on everyone else. Tell me, did muslims rape thousands of children in england because they didn't feel "integrated" enough? How can child rapists even be integrated in the first place???

Sorry, I missed the part where Muslims raped "thousands" of children, can you give me some statistics?

Of course not all whites who don't trust Islam are just racist pricks, but the situation in places like Bradford is entirely due to the racism and xenophobia both of the whites who refused to live peacefully with the Muslims and the Muslims who refused to live peacefully with the whites, and anyone who tells you one side has been worse than the other is chatting shit.

What I mean by a lack of openness on the part of the white locals has been a widespread refusal to accept Muslims in their community (largely up until about the 1990s, although there are still problems). If they had been willing to be good friends and neighbours with the Muslims who largely just wanted to get on with their lives then we might not still have all white and all brown neighbourhoods in places like Bradford. If you look at areas where the white locals were willing to look past their new neighbours' skin and religion (like Watford and Harrow) then you'll see integrated communities. Look at areas where they didn't (mostly populated by white people who weren't well educated and never really left their area) and you don't.

So, evidently Muslims can and do integrate where there is the opportunity to. However, in places like Bradford there is still a lot of widespread racism towards Pakistantis/ Bangladeshis (not just Muslims) and people like the EDL/ BNP who don't have much presence elsewhere have a lot of local support. Clearly it's going to be very hard for Muslims who want to integrate in these places to integrate whilst their white counterparts are calling for repatriation programs.

If I was to give a concise definition of openness I'd call it a willingness to look past other people's irrelevant differences and to instigate/ reciprocate integration.

And why is it that non-muslim immigrants like chinese people have virtually no problems integrating?

Well, East Asian immigrants never came in large enough numbers from the same places to really form ghettos (except for very few areas of London, where they also didn't integrate).

Oh, to clarify, are you going to claim African Christians did or didn't integrate? Is this more a racist or an Islamaphobic thing for you?

We can stop more of them from coming here. there's nothing to lose and everything to gain from doing so.

From coming... where? Are you British?

It makes no sense to me, to try to stop people who won't integrate becoming citizens by testing for religion when you can just test them for whether they'll integrate. As it is, non-EU unskilled immigration in Britain is actually non existent right now (they entirely scrapped the unskilled tier for visas) so I don't see there being any problem with current immigration law here. However, if you really only wanted the most Anglophile of all the immigrants and didn't care about losing out on extra Indian doctors, you could just make the citizenship test harder, or even throw in a personality test if you care that much. It's not even about trying not to be discriminatory, it's just that being Muslim is a really poor predictor of how willing to integrate someone is.

At 11/21/14 04:30 AM, lapis wrote:

At 11/20/14 07:31 PM, AxTekk wrote: No, social injustice makes people more polarised.

What kind of social justice do you mean? In Italy, the number of jihad fighters per million Muslims is, with 50 estimated fighters, 60.78 million inhabitants and a 1.9% Muslims, equal to (50 / 60.78) / 0.019 = 43, which is comfortably below Sweden (840), Denmark (500) or Norway (333). So are you saying that Italy has greater social justice than the Scandinavian countries? That's not something you hear often. [...]

Well, I actually think that near-enough every Western country has a very high degree of internal social justice regarding all Muslims, so I wouldn't expect to see that much of a difference between them. Of course, countries where this isn't the case like Saudi Arabia, Russia, Iraq... Less so. The main forms of injustice that polarise Muslims in the West are generally international problems (Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel/ Palestine etc). Only reason I bring it up in this context is to properly represent the argument @Sadistic Monkey was misrepresenting.

I think the main factor concerning how likely Muslims are to become polarised between Western countries (other than the individual cultural backgrounds) is the degree of social integration. I'm not going to claim to be able to explain every country's position on the list, but as far as I know it's very hard to integrate into Scandinavian countries for pretty much anyone, because they tend to just be very antisocial, maybe because it's always so goddamn cold. It also seems right that France is way up there from that perspective. Of course, it's probably actually a lot more complicated than just that, but you get my point that it's a factor.

I think that background culture is very consequential too, don't get me wrong, but there isn't really anything we can do about it. If we had thought radical Islam might be a threat in the 70s I guess we could have engineered the citizenship tests a little differently, but we didn't and now we're here.

At 11/21/14 12:23 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: What should be done:

a) European countries should abandon their culture and bend over backwards to appease a bunch of hostile, backward ungrateful invaders so they don't become terrorists (even though they will still probably become terrorists anyway)

No-one in Europe's abandoned their culture for the sake of Muslims. No-one ever. Europeans who have abandoned their culture have done so because they didn't like it, or couldn't be bothered to maintain xyz. That's not what I'm suggesting, and really you know that. What I'm talking about is getting the Muslims and whites in places like Bradford to not be racist pricks towards each other, because integration doesn't require people to be the same, only open. Which everyone could benefit from being.

OR

b) prevent these people from ever entering the western world in the first place

Wow, 40 years too late on that one mate.