Do any of you see an issue of Islamism in the UK?
Printable View
Do any of you see an issue of Islamism in the UK?
Just wanna know what you make of it is all.
It's up there with worrying about getting hit by lightning.
Lots of issues with things like integration amongst communities of which we could address on their own merits but unfortunately this doesn't happen. Even worse it gets lumped in with things like terrorism and becomes incredibly counter-productive.
Labour are definitely winning where I live, I'd vote for the guy anyway as he's the best option even if you disagree with labour nationally. No other party is remotely interesting to vote for & me voting for them won't be the difference between them getting their money back or not (i.e. the importance of choice) so I'll probably either not vote or spoil my ballot.
Nassim Taleb has likened this to thin tailed whereas terrorism is fat tailed.
Good point. A reason I see for why they're likened is that one begets the other, as well as one is culturally transformative.Quote:
Lots of issues with things like integration amongst communities of which we could address on their own merits but unfortunately this doesn't happen. Even worse it gets lumped in with things like terrorism and becomes incredibly counter-productive.
The issue is a lot of our muslim communities aren't a new or recent thing. They have been around for generations and have never really been an issue in the sense that they are being touted as now. Now most of our immigration is from the EU and not muslim and doesn't create issues anywhere near on the level that terrorism gets talked about.
Solving those issues are real, relevant and help to kill the whole extremist ideology that exists which is funnily enough a minor benefit in comparison.
Explain terminology please.
Terrorism being the image of an asian person is a fairly new thing for one.
A lot of intitial waves of immigration are hopeful, thankful, various words for good. This somewhat helps them put up with the shit they get and in a lot of cases isn't as bad as things that were happening in their original country. Then when they have children those kids grow up with all the same shit, more pressure to integrate and a whole new host of struggles which can very easily push them out of the mainstream. Add in the fact that it's now very easy for information to travel and groups to accept these people and make them feel like they have a place.
Remember terrorism back in the day in the UK was Ireland.
Maybe looking at the first 2 or 3 generations of immigration and their issues is a decent place to start. As I said before though terrorism is such a minor threat and issue compared to what it's made out to be and the benefits of all this type of research in terms of integration, productivity, community would be the reason to do it.
It's all bollocks. "Islamic" Terrorism is not religious, it's political. The goons blowing themselves up think it's religious, but those ordering the attacks, it's politics.
The recent three attacks in the UK, all leading up to an election, were Saudi state-sponsored attacks, designed to stregnthen public opinion for Theresa May and the Conservatives, who are selling, and will continue to sell, arms to the Saudis, which they either drop on Yemen, or sell on to ISIS. Labour will pull the pulg on these arms deals.
When ISIS claim an attack, you can interpret that as Saudi Arabi.
That Saudi Arabia are accusing Qatar of sponsoring terrorism and funding ISIS would be hilarious if it wasn't so fucking serious.
And yeah, savy nails it, I think most British people are as terrified by terrorism as they are lightning.
It's no secret that a large amount of isis funding comes from the UAE but the say "Saudi Arabia" does this or that is hopelessly blunt. It's like saying England plays football or Germany makes cars. SA by the nature of its wealth has a lot of unfathomably stupid people in very powerful positions but that doesn't mean it's a mad villains stronghold. I do not know much at all about sand country but the royal saudi family directly funding isis doesn't sound very credible to me.
You might not worry much about lightning, but you're not going to go kiting in a thunderstorm either. Both are avoidable. What grinds my gears about this debate is that nobody on the left is willing to acknowledge that if you boot out all the muslims the chance of a terror attack approaches zero. Just that fact alone is so offensive you can't even say it. Once you are able to acknowledge that you can say: ok, we're obviously not deporting anyone based on faith or denying asylum from people that are being prosecuted, but now that we know where it's coming from we can talk about steps to solve the issue which could be anything from closing or generally disallowing religious schools of all kinds to making sure immigrant distribution is well thought out to avoid ghettos and aid immigration andworking closely with the mosques to make sure nothing funky is going on.
I don't believe the bolded statement to be true in any way close to what you're implying.
Getting rid of religious schools isn't happening any time soon.
The distribution of immigration isn't something that people have any choice in & I don't see how you would control it without some really mad level of government control which would be catastrophic.
The whole thing about working with mosques and what not has been pushed for years and basically just creates weird little groups where people are pushed way above their stations as some sort of community out reach.
Pretty much this. It sounds like Oskar is saying that we can solve the problem of terrorism by simply changing the way we interact with Muslims and muslim countries.
That's nuts. The problem IS Islam.
Google "pew research" and "is it ok to bomb innocent civillians". You will see that terrorism, violence, religious war, and faith-motivated killing is a pervasive belief among an alarming percentage of the worldwide muslim population.
Here in western society, we've been duped into thinking that the 'western' version of a muslim, is representative of the 'average' muslim worldwide. That's simply incorrect. The westernized, peace-loving, non-violent muslims are very much in the minority. They just seem like the majority because they make up the majority of muslims that we know.
It also doesn't help that every time a Muslim does something bad in the name of Islam, the Muslim community immediately starts defending itself. They put the shame on YOU for even thinking that the offender in question represents even a slice of the greater muslim community. That's a deflecting tactic that should be frightening to anyone who doesn't want to get blown up.
On the topic of integration, for example of non-westernized Muslims becoming westernized, probably the way to get that is not having welfare such that they don't work. Work is what assimilates. Tons of different peoples have assimilated into countries not of their origin; what those who haven't seem to have in common is their host countries sponsor their dis-assimilation via welfare.
Though the book is bad news, people seem complex enough that they can worship a book without actually following the book. Even a religion oriented around a Jew-slaughtering child rapist can yield people who disagree with that behavior as long as they have skin in the game regarding assimilating into a culture that doesn't support that behavior.
In America, just about all immigrants from Europe and Asia have assimilated and are assimilating into the American nation. Jews, Irish, Italians, Greeks, Filipinos, Chinese, etc.. Welfare culture was not popular for most of the immigration of our country, though that is now changing and there are emerging some problems of assimilation due to welfare, though that's only regarding immigrants in a small way.
The issue is much bigger in Europe, where the welfare states are far more vast. Sweden, France, a few others, have very high numbers of immigrants without work, living in ghettos, and on welfare.
Interesting to note: I agree with economist Bryan Caplan about how we should have open borders. However, as he points out, in order to do so, we would need (1) to keep people out who should be in prison, and (2) not provide them enough welfare such that they don't work/assimilate. The interesting to note part is that I estimate this would result in even more stringent immigration standards. More people would immigrate even more for sure, but some would be different people and all (most all) would assimilate.
Exit poll being right would make my month. Hilarious, absolute shit show.
Tory + DUP coalition? Nasty nasty. This will ened in tears.
It's funny, MSM were all over Jez during the election for his sympathies for the IRA.
Yet here we're about to have the Tories propped up by a party that was created as the political wing to loyalist terrorism. Loyalists (those in Northern Ireland who wish to remain in the UK) have killed over 1000 people. They shot someone during this very election campaign.
The media didn't even mention loyalist terrorism during the election, it was just IRA this and Islam that.
This is a disaster for the Tories, and unless this government collapses quickly, a disaster for the rest of us too.
After the disastrous campaign that May ran I'm surprised she didn't lose her bloody seat to Lord Buckethead
Buckethead?
The guitarist?
He's been knighted?
...
Respect.
UKIP woulda got 500 seats if Uncle Nige was still in town.
Brussels could use a couple well-placed moabs
This is a different Lord Buckethead (I assume). Some of his progressive ideals can be read about here:
https://www.joe.co.uk/politics/lord-...ght-now-128838
Sorry. I thought you meant this guy:
http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/...20090222034213
So Wuf (rip) a bit topic in parliament is how there is a cap on public sector workers pay rises at 1% and no matter what it can't go above this. Now like yourself I'm against the public sector somewhat but do you not think that this is the biggest load of bollocks possible* people should get pay rises based on what they deserve not some bullshit cap implemented by the government.
*There is obviously an argument that forcing this naratives changes things for the better, but it definitely isn't currently, and that isn't my point.
According to most who know me, all I do is fuck off.
So...
check.
From my experience, I'd say labor economics is the most neat and applicable economics class offered in colleges (outside of principles of micro 101). Something I learned from that class applicable here: my professor is in charge of all labor oriented things for the university. He explained to us how they distribute wage increases. A common idea is for them to be percentage based, but what this actually does is benefit those with the highest wage already the most, benefit the least those with the lowest pay already, costs the college a ton of money it doesn't have, and increases the perception of inequality and harms morale. An example showing these is how, if a 1% across the board wage increase strategy is utilized, a tenured professor who has been there 25 years making 150k would get a pay raise of 1.5k while an adjunct with only 5 years making 50k would get only 500 increase.
What they choose to do instead is fixed sum wage increases. Example, the tenured professor gets 750 increase and the adjunct does too, coming to a 0.5% increase for the tenured and a 1.5% increase for the adjunct, resulting in greater perception of equality, greater morale, and a cheaper price tag for the college.
This is just one consideration for how to set wages. The scenario you've described your parliament is considering is retarded and considers next to nothing regarding how labor markets actually work. There are a bunch of other ways to tackle the problem, like with what you mentioned about how no differentiation of pay disincentivizes excellence. This scenario will just cost more in tax money than otherwise and make for nice cushy jobs where you can be good or bad at them and it doesn't matter all the while stymieing progress from competitors.
Y'all lookin' forward to the junior senator from Michigan, Kiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiid Rock?
Ive sort of already come to grips with the idea of celebrities becoming politicians. But this one really irks me.
At least with folks like Jesse Ventura and Al Franken, people knew what they were getting. With Kid Rock, I think he's proven that he just changes his mind based on what's cool in order to try and stay relevant. His music, style, and audience over the last 10 years is drastically different than what it was in the late 90s/early 00's.
I realize it's not uncommon for artists to evolve as they mature. But this guy just seems like he's jumping from bandwagon to bandwagon just to secure his next paycheck.
That's not really a guy I want making decisions for other people
You've basically summed up what every politician does.
I'm open to him because he passes the skin in the game test. Career politicians do not.
Our laws are made up by people who are not affected by them, who specialize only in talking, and who have little experience with how the real world works. Even if I don't know anything about Kid Rock, I know he's the opposite of those three things. In my estimation, being the opposite of those three things is paramount to healthy governing.
Under budget, ahead of schedule.
To the right, politics is slimy and business success is virtuous. To the left, business is slimy and the path of politics is virtuous. To the right, you speak such that you don't back down from hard truths. To the left, you speak such that you don't offend anybody. In my best judgment, Trump's authenticity to his base is that he's not political, is the quintessence of personal business success, and doesn't back down from hard truths and doesn't care if it offends anybody. Opponents of Trump don't view those attributes as demonstrating to them authenticity.
Trump doesn't seem authentic to me (at least not at first), but he exudes it to those who think in conservative language.
From the outside, he looks like a circus act. From the inside, he exemplifies a strong leader.
Trump is as authentic as Trump University
I think is has more to do with Hillary's unpopularity rather than Trump's popularity. Can't say I like either, but I know which one I'd have voted for if push came to shove.
Been following the juice on the Clinton Foundation? Some dude was due to testify that 0.6% of funds donated through the CF intended for Haiti actually got to Haitian civilians. 9.6% went to the Haitian government, while the rest - over $5b - went to non-Haitian organisations.
Naturally, a week before the hearing, he gets himself a gunshot wound to the head.
People knew about how fucking corrupt these people were before the election. That's why she lost.
Fine, then I'll just take issue with the idea that Kid Rock is somehow the opposite of these things, giving him skin in the game.
Rich famous celebrities possibly have even less of a tether to reality. How exactly does the real world as experienced by the vast majority of us map onto Kid Rock's experiences?
He may be a down to earth dude who is exactly what we need in politics, but if that's the case, you certainly haven't shown your work.
If there were an election being contested by Kid Rock and Satan, it'd be a landslide in favour of Satan.
Satan - "A vote for me is a vote for painful death and eternal fire"
Kid Rock - "Vote for me and I'll sing a song"
No brainer.
Tether to reality depends on why somebody is rich and famous. Kid Rock is rich and famous because he worked. He built a skill, business, brand that people wanted to buy. Are entertainers the best example of skin in the game? No, they may not even be in the top ten. But they're still significantly better an example of it than career politicians who have little experience with anything other than receiving donations and making laws that don't affect them.
Jesus fellas. The guy got famous somehow!!
Maybe you guys just weren't old enough in the late 90s to appreciate it. Or maybe you're just stuck up music snobs.
I just said it was solid. I'm not using any superlatives to describe it. It's just a fun listen. Good for working out, mowing the lawn, or being the ass hole blasting music in his car while he drives real slow past the beach.
There's a lot of famous talentless twats.
I think I was too old by the late 90's. I was smoking weed and listening to Sublime, not playing with toy cars and pointing at planes.Quote:
Maybe you guys just weren't old enough in the late 90s to appreciate it. Or maybe you're just stuck up music snobs.
The latter. I'm definitely a music snob.
I think you guys are arriving at the crux of the problem with current politics.
Kid Rock for governor? Seriously? What are his qualifications to hold office? Other than being loud, obnoxious and rich? He will be so out of touch with his constituents it won't even be funny.
For the people to vote, those elected REPRESENTATIVES should REPRESENT the will of their constituents, ergo, that which the people voted for. Not for their own interests (which I assume Kid Rock is in on, because hey, it worked for Trump) or their corporate overlords (Ajit Pai comes to mind, also Corey Booker, Paul Ryan, Joe Manchin and the list goes on).
Government is a joke nowadays. Have money, have a seat at the table, run the town and do with it as you like, and that's it. Forgetting who lives in the town and who gets affected by the things that you do. Also, corporations became people in the meantime and now have more rights than actual people. Another recent example is Chris Christie's shenanigans, and when he was confronted about it he said quite flatly "you don't like it? run for governor".
I would much more likely vote for an actual common man than for some sort of celebrity. A proper politician who has demonstrated to walk the walk, not just talk the talk as well. Hey Trump, you said something about "draining the swamp", right?
The DNC and donors have already chosen who will represent the Democrats in 2020. She has all the best qualifications: no accomplishments, corrupt, black, woman.
What don't you like about her?
Things that are happening:
(1) Barium meals galore. The deluge of leaks were fake. The illegal leakers have been found out by now. Comey is one of them. Flynn, and Trump Jr., are possibly honey pots. The non-illegal leaks were plants to create misdirect or play kabuki theater while Trump rolled out policies.
(2) Obamacare is further unraveling and the inept GOP legislators are being led to exhaustion. After complete failure, Trump will take the reins. He'll get no intra-party opposition at that point, and repeal will pass. Rand Paul may have been brought in on the plan early on.
(3) ISIS is crumbling. The Gulf Cooperation Council (and Iraq) is doing the fighting, all under the radar. They're using extremely advanced weaponry the US didn't develop. They're killing terrorists in public places with no casualties with directional air blasts. They've got HUDs and high-tech flamethrowers. They're cleaning out fully booby-trapped towns without any hitch. Nanodrones whipping across the skies. The GCC adores Trump. The Mullahs in Iran are next. Israel and GCC are even opening up to each other. Peace in the Middle East is truly around the corner.
(4) Trump is lending credibility to the special counsel by attacking them. DoJ is investigating some very high up people. Charges brought probably won't go as high as Clinton and Obama, but they could get Lynch and Comey and totally tarnish Clinton and Obama in the public eye forever. Illegal unmasking, illegal leaks. There's a lot there.
It's glorious to watch all this unfold.
Def an abysmal pick when you also have Tulsy Gabbard, Nina Turner, The Ol' Bern, Keith Ellison, Elizaeth Warren etc. Even TwoFaced Shkreli-in-training Cory Booker is a better pick.
Alienating the progressives, which are a huge part of the base, will simply mean even more third party voting. They will simply refuse to vote for Kamala out of principle. But the corporate dems are simply doubling down on this strategy. Doesn't matter that they got caught cheating last time; their response to that is to now switch to ephemeral messaging services instead of playing fair
They simply cannot win by parading another corporate dem. And if they actually go through with this, this time they will kiss dat pop vote goodbye as well.
These dem assholes simply like losing, or love the dollar enough to throw the country. That I have seen and confirmed, it's twice and counting
They spend too much time watching tv shows where all these elaborate plans people have where everyone acts exactly as they should all pan out and the main character looks like a smart dude. In reality for anything bar the most trivial situations in life you basically have to wing it at every step, which you can do very well but it's not in any way the same.