So we are clear: I only agree with Bill Maher in the circumstances listed.
It is more of a case by case basis Black face=offensive Mariachi costume? I don't see it
I agree with @Dee particularly on the farther you are to the group being imitated, it becomes less "imitation" and more "mocking".
For example, if I dressed as an Orthodox Jew I could see it as being mocking. However if a Reform Jew, while still being different from an Orthodox Jew, dressed that way it would be more harmless.
The Mariachi costume by itself is fine; it becomes offensive when you add a bottle of tequila and an exaggerated accent, because the message sent is "Here is what I think of your culture".
The Browns were named after Paul Brown. And sure, let's change the Fighting Irish, just so I never have to listen to "See? This doesn't bother us. So what's wrong with Chief Wahoo??" again.
It takes only one person to complain or be offended in order for the pendulum of social shaming to swing.
Hmm, one person? Can you think of any examples to demonstrate that?
The Chicago Blackhawks are also named after one person (sorta in a round about way) like the Browns. His portrait is (was) their logo.
As @Mathsorcerer said, people can be ignorant to the history of a word, phrase or imagery, and attempt to make it politically correct.
How about the Minnesota Vikings? Hell their logo is an inaccurate caricature of Scandinavian sailors. Should people of Swedish descent start a petition to have their name and logo changed?
I would not have said that Mathsorcerer was a troll any more than I would say that someone who flames someone else is a "flamer", or that someone who posts R-rated material a "pornographer".
It is the combination of my charming personality and teflon coating that lets me dodge such accusations.
What if I add nanoparticles of titanium dioxide coated with perfluorooctyltriethoxysilane to create a superhydrophobic surface that is completely water-repellent and thus virtually stain-proof? (No, I am not making that up--there is a such a coating that can be applied to various substances, including clothing.)
For example, if I dressed as an Orthodox Jew I could see it as being mocking. However if a Reform Jew, while still being different from an Orthodox Jew, dressed that way it would be more harmless.
I promise not to tell the homies over in Mea Shearim that you said that.
How about the Minnesota Vikings? Hell their logo is an inaccurate caricature of Scandinavian sailors. Should people of Swedish descent start a petition to have their name and logo changed?
I stand corrected: Even if we got rid of the Fighting Irish, I'd still have to hear it.
Can someone shed some (unbiased) light on what happened at Mizzou this week with that journalism professor? Everything I've read has been about the confrontation between her and the reporter (the reporter was being supremely unprofessional in my opinion), but I haven't read anything about why the protest is being held in the first place or why they didn't want a reporter present at their campsite.
I still haven't watched the whole video with the sound on, but the reporter being unprofessional is not a take I've encountered anywhere, @Dee. What makes you say that?
Here's my attempt at brief and neutral, but this stuff has veered out of the realm of me "getting it."
A bunch of racist things happened at or near Mizzou recently (e.g., dudes in pickups shouting racial slurs), and the organization "Concerned Student 1950" felt that the (already embattled) president of the university (Wolfe) wasn't serious about addressing the racism. They gave a list of demands that included stuff like a new diversity education curriculum, a formal apology, and hiring more Black faculty. They said Wolfe was unresponsive to their demands, so one of them went on a hunger strike. Then the faculty threatened a walkout, half the football team went on strike, and Wolfe (and the chancellor, Loftin) promptly resigned.
The center of the protests was a campsite on campus, which CS1950 folks felt was a "Black space" that they had created, and attention turned to protecting this "safe space" from invasive presences, which mostly meant the media. They believed that media had no business being there and wanted to distort their narrative. There may also have been some cross-pollination with the Yale incident in making people feel like "pro-free speech" and "anti-racist" are two opposing sides.
I'm sure this misses a lot. It seems like part of the issue with the media may have been people directing their residual protest adrenaline against a convenient target, but like I said, I don't get it.
Can someone shed some (unbiased) light on what happened at Mizzou this week with that journalism professor? Everything I've read has been about the confrontation between her and the reporter (the reporter was being supremely unprofessional in my opinion), but I haven't read anything about why the protest is being held in the first place or why they didn't want a reporter present at their campsite.
why they didn't want media present: - nobody outside the group was to be allowed into the occupied area: a "no media" sign was put up to ward off journalists who were particularly undesirable because their physical presence symbolizes the media establishment whose work is generally seen as hurtful to the group and nothing symbolizing hurtfulness is to be let into the so-called safe space because then it's healing function will be impaired (i didn't make this up)
why the protest is being held: - the protesters had several demands; when the president resigned, there were still remaining issues; also, it was an act of collective consolidation to basically celebrate the fact that they've won a major victory (the mood was celebratory which you can see in various photos and footage)
edit: this is a pretty good article with photos http://www.vox.com/2015/11/9/9701376/missouri-protests-media ^records some guy saying on twitter: "with ability to publish themselves via social, a lot of organizers/activists believe pretty firmly that they don't need to cater to MSM"
edit: also, i've recorded some commentary on the event
Can someone shed some (unbiased) light on what happened at Mizzou this week with that journalism professor? Everything I've read has been about the confrontation between her and the reporter (the reporter was being supremely unprofessional in my opinion), but I haven't read anything about why the protest is being held in the first place or why they didn't want a reporter present at their campsite.
I still haven't watched the whole video with the sound on, but the reporter being unprofessional is not a take I've encountered anywhere, @Dee. What makes you say that?.
It was primarily a gut reaction watching the video, but, here's the exchange:
Journalist: "I'm in the media, can I talk to you?" Professor: "No, you need to get out." Journalist: "No I don't." Professor: "You need to get out. You need to get out." Journalist: "No, I actually don't." Journalist: "Okay. Hey who wants to help me get this reporter out of here? I need some muscle over here!"
If you start your exchange by being snide ("I'm in the media, can I talk to you?" and "No I actually don't"), that suggests that your reason for reporting on this particular event is not journalism: it's opportunism.
The professor behaved badly, that much is clear in the video, and she has apologized. But the guy holding the video camera, the guy who's now claiming she assaulted him--to me, it looks like he went onto that site looking to cause trouble and get it on tape. I don't know why, and really the reasons don't matter. A journalist should be professional, especially when dealing with a sensitive situation like that one obviously was.
EDIT: Just re-watched the video and transcribed the actual exchange.
When someone tells you that you "need to get out", and you don't need to get out, why wouldn't you say: "No i don't". Also, he asked her if she wants to make a statement and that can't possibly be a problem (maybe you will give me a perspective on why "I'm in the media" is problematic). It's just the intonation, not what he said (one would have to watch the video and hear his voice to feel the possible snideness).
So i agree his tone wasn't the best, but it's *really* not important - why should she (Click) be sensitive to his tone? She did answer "no", which is perfectly normal and probably expected, but not necessarily; the only abnormal thing is the part with physical violence and the threat of it.
One, tone is important. If you walk up to someone and say "You're the best-looking person I've seen all day", your tone is what determines whether that statement is a compliment or an insult.
If you go up to someone and say "I'm in the media, can I talk to you", if your tone makes it sound like you're making fun of the person, that person is going to assume you're there to antagonize them. It puts them on the defensive, which as a journalist is the last thing you should be trying to do.
Second, the physical violence we see in the video is directed at the guy's camera, not the guy himself. You can see both her hands, and the only one moving out of screen is the one that's physically pushing the camera away. This isn't really assault; at best, it's destruction of property, except that his camera was probably not damaged by what she did.
What you're seeing is a a guy going up to a woman, the guy putting a camera in her face and acting rude to her, and then the woman pushing the camera away because she doesn't want to be filmed. The woman may be overreacting, but the guy taking video is presenting himself in a very confrontational manner. To me, that places him at fault.
re:one Tone generally is important, but not in this case, or more precisely it isn't very relevant. Whether his tone is unpleasant can decide if she will talk to him or not - but it can't decide that she will do what she did. That's something totally on her. Was she somewhat rightfully provoked by his tone? Was he insulting, berating her etc? Why would she be so "triggered" by his question?
To his "can I talk to you", she thought something along the lines of: "Oh there we go, there's a troll; like i would ever talk to him, when there's a sign that says NO MEDIA; i'm going to show the insolent fool who's the elder here and that he's messing with a higher power", when in reality, she's simply not in a position to see him and treat him like that.
Her attitude has a strain of delusion: The "no media" sign doesn't bind him, and arguably, he *should not* abide by it because everyone wants important public events to be covered She's not an authority figure for him outside of the teaching environment and especially when he's a performing an important and specially protected social role (journalism) She's not a big figure for the students that protest - her function may be important but it's purely technical, not substantial; she's not a true exponent of this higher power, of this rage and frustration with inequality that young people may vent in various ways so she has to behave well, there are simply no excuses for her
re:"second..." i disagree, but i'd rather not go into details, it would take too long (already has)
re:one Tone generally is important, but not in this case, or more precisely it isn't very relevant. Whether his tone is unpleasant can decide if she will talk to him or not - but it can't decide that she will do what she did. That's something totally on her. Was she somewhat rightfully provoked by his tone? Was he insulting, berating her etc? Why would she be so "triggered" by his question?
Look, I'm not saying she shouldn't apologize or that she should have acted differently. All I'm saying is that based on the video in question, the guy with the camera was being unprofessional. Part of that is understandable--he's only 19, he's not a professional yet--but if he's saying he's in the media, he's bound by the same expectations I hold for any journalist. Going up to someone and being rude to them is unprofessional, and sticking a camera in their face is a good way to piss them off if they're already telling you to leave.
To his "can I talk to you", she thought something along the lines of: "Oh there we go, there's a troll; like i would ever talk to him, when there's a sign that says NO MEDIA; i'm going to show the insolent fool who's the elder here and that he's messing with a higher power", when in reality, she's simply not in a position to see him and treat him like that.
It's funny, that's exactly what I thought when I heard his "Can I talk to you". And it was enforced by his "No I don't", and then his "No actually I don't".
Again, the professor should have behaved differently. But the guy with the camera also shouldn't have started the conversation by being a dick.
@Dee: I just finally watched the minutes leading up to that moment (youtube.com/watch?v=xRlRAyulN4o). Have you seen that part? I agree that the cameraman takes a bit of a petulant tone, but I can't imagine acting all the way professional in that context. Even with a lot of emotional and actual distance, watching the student photographer get bullied and accused that way is so viscerally upsetting. For the people on "my side" to be acting that cruel and dishonest... It's just awful. Maybe don't watch it.
Edit: But yes, he was unprofessional. I'm not trying to argue that point -- in fact, I was confusing the photographer and the cameraman before when I asked you about it. Just saying I reacted to that video really strongly.
Has ISIS not made it clear enough that they are not just Syria's problem anymore? I know we have some reasons to avoid putting boots on the ground but this is a discrete organization taking territory and cities. I'm starting to think America and Europe need put their great helms back on.
One, tone is important. If you walk up to someone and say "You're the best-looking person I've seen all day", your tone is what determines whether that statement is a compliment or an insult.
If you go up to someone and say "I'm in the media, can I talk to you", if your tone makes it sound like you're making fun of the person, that person is going to assume you're there to antagonize them. It puts them on the defensive, which as a journalist is the last thing you should be trying to do.
I'd argue that she set the tone before that, and that sending students to form a "human shield" also set the tone (a very negative one). When you watch the full video your opinion may change. Regardless, even if his tone wasn't appropriate, I don't think he should be physically manhandled. Calling for "muscle" to remove someone recording is kind of scary.
I think the part that makes it controversial is that she is a journalism professor.
Second, the physical violence we see in the video is directed at the guy's camera, not the guy himself. You can see both her hands, and the only one moving out of screen is the one that's physically pushing the camera away. This isn't really assault; at best, it's destruction of property, except that his camera was probably not damaged by what she did.
That actually does satisfy the elements for a tort of assault and battery, as closely associated objects are considered part of the body. But that's just lawyer-talk, the only thing I really worried about is that she literally said "can I get some muscle over here" to have someone physically removed from a public space. That was the more worrying part to me.
Has ISIS not made it clear enough that they are not just Syria's problem anymore? I know we have some reasons to avoid putting boots on the ground but this is a discrete organization taking territory and cities. I'm starting to think America and Europe need put their great helms back on.
I'm still hesitant to go to war in the Middle East again but I'd be more open if we had support from other countries. I think if there are to be boots on the ground it is important that Arab boots accompany US and European boots. The response to more American soldiers in Arab nations could be worse and counterproductive if they are not joined by Arab nations.
If Arab nations have skin in the game the fear of blowback would be slightly assuaged. Turkey would be a great ally (and this is coming from an ethnic Greek!). Even with their current government being more Islamic than normal they still fear ISIS more than anyone. Turkish boots on the ground would be nice, and the Turkish people are known for having making great boots
So yeah, lets do something but lets not let it be only the US and France, who have never had much success in the Middle East.
I'm more worried about the chilling effect this might have on the refugee crisis. Reducing the number of people Western nations allow in seems more sensible now, but I'm worried that those who are leaving Syria to escape the same people who attacked Paris will not find anywhere to go. If Europe closes the door completely out of fear of another moment like this those refugees might not be welcome anywhere, which could create a real humanitarian crisis.
Unfortunately the attacks in Paris are only the tip of the iceberg. Europe is busy tearing itself apart as we speak and can't even agree as to whether we have a refugee crisis, or an immigrant crisis. The bigger picture is that yes, it is a humanitarian crisis - which many argue was caused by putting boots on the ground in the first place (cue much finger pointing and ranting about oil interests). However, that 'bigger picture' is one that was viewed from afar, and now that we have to face it close up it has become lost in the detail. Individual European countries are now concerned about their own interests, rather than the EU as a whole. It's all very well for Angela Merkel to issue a diktat to Europe to open it's doors, but what can a country do when it's already suffering from a severe housing shortage and economic cutbacks (i.e. full and broke)? Add terror attacks to that which are, rightly or wrongly, attributed to 'foreigners' (or even worse, religious fundamentalist foreigners), and it's easy to see why the 'ordinary man in the street' wants to pull up the drawbridge.
Next Sunday, here on Argentina we'll be voting (for the 3rd time, yes, you're heard that right, normally it's only two, but the third's a tie-breaker) for president.
I just hope the current national socialist populists (they're a bit communist, too, and have an extreme fondness of fascism) don't win yet AGAIN. (It doesn't matter who of the opposing parties wins (as wubble said, I just vote the one I dislike the least. My view on politics is highly critical and my enthusiasm is negative), since most of them got together under the name of "Let's Change", and they don't re-inaugurate highways older than my father nor unfinished hospitals that were started over 50 years ago).
It's not their "everything for everyone" politics I dislike the most, but their little care for personal merit. They want to remove the basic common year that people like them placed as the first year of university (for public ones only) for similar purposes (letting everyone go basically).
Add terror attacks to that which are, rightly or wrongly, attributed to 'foreigners' (or even worse, religious fundamentalist foreigners), and it's easy to see why the 'ordinary man in the street' wants to pull up the drawbridge.
Well, I mean, it is a simple fact that they were committed by religious fundamentalist foreigners. There is zero doubt about that, except by the few who find such a description to be so offensive that we must deny reality.
The issue is how to view the refugee crisis in light of that undeniable fact. The vast majority of refugees are not violent radical Muslims, and are indeed escaping from the product of that very group, but it is not that hard to see why European governments would be suspicious.
I've heard proposals to take women, children, the elderly and only married men with children. Singling out single young Muslim males probably would reduce the risk of inviting potential terrorists to enter WEstern nations, but it is hardly a humane solution.
I think the worst outcome would be leaving hundreds of thousands of refugees out in the cold. I also find it weird how the most developed Asian nations don't seem to have any interest at all in sharing the humanitarian burden of welcoming refugees.
Comments
As @Mathsorcerer said, people can be ignorant to the history of a word, phrase or imagery, and attempt to make it politically correct.
How about the Minnesota Vikings? Hell their logo is an inaccurate caricature of Scandinavian sailors. Should people of Swedish descent start a petition to have their name and logo changed?
Here's my attempt at brief and neutral, but this stuff has veered out of the realm of me "getting it."
A bunch of racist things happened at or near Mizzou recently (e.g., dudes in pickups shouting racial slurs), and the organization "Concerned Student 1950" felt that the (already embattled) president of the university (Wolfe) wasn't serious about addressing the racism. They gave a list of demands that included stuff like a new diversity education curriculum, a formal apology, and hiring more Black faculty. They said Wolfe was unresponsive to their demands, so one of them went on a hunger strike. Then the faculty threatened a walkout, half the football team went on strike, and Wolfe (and the chancellor, Loftin) promptly resigned.
The center of the protests was a campsite on campus, which CS1950 folks felt was a "Black space" that they had created, and attention turned to protecting this "safe space" from invasive presences, which mostly meant the media. They believed that media had no business being there and wanted to distort their narrative. There may also have been some cross-pollination with the Yale incident in making people feel like "pro-free speech" and "anti-racist" are two opposing sides.
I'm sure this misses a lot. It seems like part of the issue with the media may have been people directing their residual protest adrenaline against a convenient target, but like I said, I don't get it.
- nobody outside the group was to be allowed into the occupied area: a "no media" sign was put up to ward off journalists who were particularly undesirable because their physical presence symbolizes the media establishment whose work is generally seen as hurtful to the group and nothing symbolizing hurtfulness is to be let into the so-called safe space because then it's healing function will be impaired (i didn't make this up)
why the protest is being held:
- the protesters had several demands; when the president resigned, there were still remaining issues; also, it was an act of collective consolidation to basically celebrate the fact that they've won a major victory (the mood was celebratory which you can see in various photos and footage)
edit: this is a pretty good article with photos http://www.vox.com/2015/11/9/9701376/missouri-protests-media
^records some guy saying on twitter: "with ability to publish themselves via social, a lot of organizers/activists believe pretty firmly that they don't need to cater to MSM"
edit: also, i've recorded some commentary on the event
!!! CHAIT Can We Start Taking Political Correctness Seriously Now? http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/11/can-we-take-political-correctness-seriously-now.html
^ anti chait /very poor/ http://www.alternet.org/media/safe-spaces-arent-about-you-popular-anti-pc-response-mizzou-totally-misses-point
!!! chronicle of higher ed /not directly but overall very pro tai/ How 4 Missouri Professors Are Teaching About a Free-Speech Furor http://chronicle.com/article/How-4-Missouri-Professors-Are/234169?cid=rc_right
/some/ Journalists Applaud Tim Tai for Reporting at University of Missouri http://observer.com/2015/11/journalists-applaud-tim-tai-for-reporting-at-university-of-missouri/
Silly Student Protesters Have It Wrong: ‘Safe Spaces’ Are Incompatible with a University http://www.nationalreview.com/article/426979/safe-spaces-college-campus-incompatible
Why Is A Mizzou Communications Professor Telling Reporters To 'Get Out'? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/why-is-a-mizzou-communications-prof-telling-reporters-to-get-out_56417132e4b0b24aee4ba849
CONTRA TAI / PRO CLICK
There’s a good reason protesters at the University of Missouri didn’t want the media around https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/11/11/theres-a-good-reason-protesters-at-the-university-of-missouri-didnt-want-the-media-around/?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b
^ response https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2015/11/12/journalist-on-mizzou-clash-photojournalist-tim-tai-clearly-escalated-the-situation/
What A Clash Between Press And Mizzou Protestors Can Teach Us /pretending to be neutral/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/what-a-clash-between-press-and-mizzou-protestors-can-teach-us_56422e29e4b0411d3072b048
Journalist: "I'm in the media, can I talk to you?"
Professor: "No, you need to get out."
Journalist: "No I don't."
Professor: "You need to get out. You need to get out."
Journalist: "No, I actually don't."
Journalist: "Okay. Hey who wants to help me get this reporter out of here? I need some muscle over here!"
If you start your exchange by being snide ("I'm in the media, can I talk to you?" and "No I actually don't"), that suggests that your reason for reporting on this particular event is not journalism: it's opportunism.
The professor behaved badly, that much is clear in the video, and she has apologized. But the guy holding the video camera, the guy who's now claiming she assaulted him--to me, it looks like he went onto that site looking to cause trouble and get it on tape. I don't know why, and really the reasons don't matter. A journalist should be professional, especially when dealing with a sensitive situation like that one obviously was.
EDIT: Just re-watched the video and transcribed the actual exchange.
So i agree his tone wasn't the best, but it's *really* not important - why should she (Click) be sensitive to his tone? She did answer "no", which is perfectly normal and probably expected, but not necessarily; the only abnormal thing is the part with physical violence and the threat of it.
One, tone is important. If you walk up to someone and say "You're the best-looking person I've seen all day", your tone is what determines whether that statement is a compliment or an insult.
If you go up to someone and say "I'm in the media, can I talk to you", if your tone makes it sound like you're making fun of the person, that person is going to assume you're there to antagonize them. It puts them on the defensive, which as a journalist is the last thing you should be trying to do.
Second, the physical violence we see in the video is directed at the guy's camera, not the guy himself. You can see both her hands, and the only one moving out of screen is the one that's physically pushing the camera away. This isn't really assault; at best, it's destruction of property, except that his camera was probably not damaged by what she did.
What you're seeing is a a guy going up to a woman, the guy putting a camera in her face and acting rude to her, and then the woman pushing the camera away because she doesn't want to be filmed. The woman may be overreacting, but the guy taking video is presenting himself in a very confrontational manner. To me, that places him at fault.
Tone generally is important, but not in this case, or more precisely it isn't very relevant. Whether his tone is unpleasant can decide if she will talk to him or not - but it can't decide that she will do what she did. That's something totally on her. Was she somewhat rightfully provoked by his tone? Was he insulting, berating her etc? Why would she be so "triggered" by his question?
To his "can I talk to you", she thought something along the lines of: "Oh there we go, there's a troll; like i would ever talk to him, when there's a sign that says NO MEDIA; i'm going to show the insolent fool who's the elder here and that he's messing with a higher power", when in reality, she's simply not in a position to see him and treat him like that.
Her attitude has a strain of delusion:
The "no media" sign doesn't bind him, and arguably, he *should not* abide by it because everyone wants important public events to be covered
She's not an authority figure for him outside of the teaching environment and especially when he's a performing an important and specially protected social role (journalism)
She's not a big figure for the students that protest - her function may be important but it's purely technical, not substantial; she's not a true exponent of this higher power, of this rage and frustration with inequality that young people may vent in various ways so she has to behave well, there are simply no excuses for her
re:"second..."
i disagree, but i'd rather not go into details, it would take too long (already has)
Again, the professor should have behaved differently. But the guy with the camera also shouldn't have started the conversation by being a dick.
Edit: But yes, he was unprofessional. I'm not trying to argue that point -- in fact, I was confusing the photographer and the cameraman before when I asked you about it. Just saying I reacted to that video really strongly.
Has ISIS not made it clear enough that they are not just Syria's problem anymore? I know we have some reasons to avoid putting boots on the ground but this is a discrete organization taking territory and cities. I'm starting to think America and Europe need put their great helms back on.
The Islamic apocalypse is almost as bad as the Norse.
I think the part that makes it controversial is that she is a journalism professor.
That actually does satisfy the elements for a tort of assault and battery, as closely associated objects are considered part of the body. But that's just lawyer-talk, the only thing I really worried about is that she literally said "can I get some muscle over here" to have someone physically removed from a public space. That was the more worrying part to me.
If Arab nations have skin in the game the fear of blowback would be slightly assuaged. Turkey would be a great ally (and this is coming from an ethnic Greek!). Even with their current government being more Islamic than normal they still fear ISIS more than anyone. Turkish boots on the ground would be nice, and the Turkish people are known for having making great boots
So yeah, lets do something but lets not let it be only the US and France, who have never had much success in the Middle East.
I'm more worried about the chilling effect this might have on the refugee crisis. Reducing the number of people Western nations allow in seems more sensible now, but I'm worried that those who are leaving Syria to escape the same people who attacked Paris will not find anywhere to go. If Europe closes the door completely out of fear of another moment like this those refugees might not be welcome anywhere, which could create a real humanitarian crisis.
The bigger picture is that yes, it is a humanitarian crisis - which many argue was caused by putting boots on the ground in the first place (cue much finger pointing and ranting about oil interests). However, that 'bigger picture' is one that was viewed from afar, and now that we have to face it close up it has become lost in the detail.
Individual European countries are now concerned about their own interests, rather than the EU as a whole. It's all very well for Angela Merkel to issue a diktat to Europe to open it's doors, but what can a country do when it's already suffering from a severe housing shortage and economic cutbacks (i.e. full and broke)?
Add terror attacks to that which are, rightly or wrongly, attributed to 'foreigners' (or even worse, religious fundamentalist foreigners), and it's easy to see why the 'ordinary man in the street' wants to pull up the drawbridge.
I just hope the current national socialist populists (they're a bit communist, too, and have an extreme fondness of fascism) don't win yet AGAIN. (It doesn't matter who of the opposing parties wins (as wubble said, I just vote the one I dislike the least. My view on politics is highly critical and my enthusiasm is negative), since most of them got together under the name of "Let's Change", and they don't re-inaugurate highways older than my father nor unfinished hospitals that were started over 50 years ago).
It's not their "everything for everyone" politics I dislike the most, but their little care for personal merit. They want to remove the basic common year that people like them placed as the first year of university (for public ones only) for similar purposes (letting everyone go basically).
>A bit communist
U wot m8?
The issue is how to view the refugee crisis in light of that undeniable fact. The vast majority of refugees are not violent radical Muslims, and are indeed escaping from the product of that very group, but it is not that hard to see why European governments would be suspicious.
I've heard proposals to take women, children, the elderly and only married men with children. Singling out single young Muslim males probably would reduce the risk of inviting potential terrorists to enter WEstern nations, but it is hardly a humane solution.
I think the worst outcome would be leaving hundreds of thousands of refugees out in the cold. I also find it weird how the most developed Asian nations don't seem to have any interest at all in sharing the humanitarian burden of welcoming refugees.