Anti-Pegida Fred

[MetallKopp]

Da würde ich vermutlich "Farbige" sagen. Und ja ich weiß, der Begriff hat einen negativen Ursprung, der heute aber zumindest in meiner Wahrnehmung nicht mehr besteht.

Diese "Versuche" sind meines erachtens ziemlicher Humbug, weil du Sprache nicht künstlich erziehen kannst. Etwas wächst entweder in den Sprachgebrauch hinein, oder eben nicht. Und für ein Wort einfach einen englischen Begriff nehmen, der letztlich genau das gleiche bedeutet, ist dann eben nochmal der absolute Unsinn, weil jeder genau weiß, und bei jedem Gebrauch merkt, es handelt sich um ein Kunstwort. Dieses Kunstwort ist dann einfach ein weiteres Wort, welches Weiße Menschen allen anderen aufdrücken, weil sie denken, damit weniger "offensive" zu seien.

Das Problem an dieser Sache ist, dass ein Wort alleine nie "offensive" ist, sondern vor allen Dingen der Kontext in dem es benutzt wird. Wenn sich in der Haltung der Menschen nichts ändert, kann man so viel Person of Coloren wie man will. Das Wort wird dann einfach wieder genauso schlecht wie das vorherige, weil die Menschen es genauso abwertend benutzen, wie das vorherige.

Ich hab eigentlich immer das Problem, dass ich "PoC" zuerst als Abkürzung für "Point of Contact" kennengelernt habe.

Naja, ich sehe noch ein anderes grundlegendes Problem der Political Correctness in der Sprache. Es hat viele Versuche gegeben, nicht bereits negativ konnotierte Bezeichnungen für Menschengruppen zu suchen, um sich von rassistisch motivierten Äußerungen abzugrenzen. Das geschieht auch, um sich selbst und der Welt zu versichern "ich bin anders". Bei dem Terminus "PoC" liegt die Sache allerdings ein bisschen anders, weil die Bezeichnung von Betroffenen selbst gewählt wurde.

Ich gebe Dir insofern Recht, dass der Kontext entscheidend ist. Boateng z.B. ist ein schwarzer Deutscher, ich bin ein weißer Deutscher. Wir beide sind Deutsche, die sich aufgrund ihres Äußeren voneinander unterscheiden. Ich käme nie auf die Idee zu behaupten, das sei rassistisch.
Sehr oft werden Menschen allerdings auf ihre Hautfarbe oder Herkunft reduziert, das geschieht ganz häufig im Einklang damit, ihnen ihr gleichberechtigtes "Deutschsein" abzusprechen. Wie im aktuellen Fall bei Boateng: der sei ein ganz dufter Typ und spielt auch ganz toll Fußball, aber irgendwie gehöre er trotzdem nicht zu uns, sagt Gauland. Da schwingt dann auch eine gewisse Unsicherheit vieler Antirassisten mit, wie damit umgegangen werden soll. Eine Ausdrucksweise, die sich von Rassismus unterscheidet, wird meist angestrebt, weil eben in der alltäglichen Sprache manchmal unbewusst Rassistisches weiter transportiert und gefestigt wird.
Du weißt, ich bin ein großer Fan von PC, bin mir über diese Feinheiten aber gerade ein bisschen im Unklaren.

Da haben die Kinder wenigstens überlebt

Sollen wir darüber jetzt irgendwie froh sein, habt Ihr jetzt die "besseren" Kinderschänder, oder wie soll ich das jetzt verstehen?

 

[Hirnschlacht]

I am pro-Pegida

I think the politicians should have got the permission of the people, before Merkel invited everyone on the planet, to migrate to Germany.

Oh dude...

First, just because you´ve got this opinion, it doesn´t mean you have to be pro-Pegida!

Believe me, I watched this movement, from the beginning to now, and that are not the guys, you want to "pro". No, really not!

Their leaders, and the most of the hardline supporters are real dumb, racist Scumbags, and nothing other! I read ther websites, their forums, their news, everything to get a whole and universal perspective to make the right judge about them. They mostly got just a black-white view on their environment.

The thing is, I don't care about refugees. Have you never noticed that countries have borders? That's because they establish legal systems within those borders, after hundreds of years of customs.

You clearly don't give a toss about any of that, because you want to give a green light to anyone that is in need. You will bring about your own ruin if you do that.

I did quit!

I've been out the British Army for about 6 months.

My belief is, that national borders must be respected. Merkel says every country must take their 'fair share'. But what kind of pressure will that place on us all? I now work for the British NHS, and I can tell you, we don't need any more people added on to the waiting list. All of these people that you have invited, need healthcare, homes, education

... I think it's pretty obvious

I think borders are one thing, but people are not just things. And that is the point, where the borders are less.

And you talk about economic migrants. When I hear the stories from a friend who works with People who come from this countries which´re not at war and see their scars on the back, than i think, these categories are not the only truth.

Every one who is here now, travels through a hell of a trip. This means, their situation at home, must be much more worse, than this trip in the unknown. When I imagine, that I would be so far, to make such a trip, I really would give a fuck about borders. Everyone would give a fuck about borders!

When they now let all these people stand in front of the borders, we´ll have one of the biggest humanitarian catastrophes of our time. Then we all´ve blood on our hands.

The sacrifice is not a big one, for us. We´ll stay rich like before.

The other thing is, it is nor just a political decision. PEGIDA say and think, they´re the voice of the nation, but truth is, they´re not! There´re more people against PEGIDA.

 

[MetallKopp]

I am pro-Pegida

I think the politicians should have got the permission of the people, before Merkel invited everyone on the planet, to migrate to Germany.

Well, the politicians didn't need permission to save the fucking banks, or to cut pensions, or to cut on education spendings. Why in the world would they need permission to welcome a bunch of refugees?

I mean, we must have seen it coming. Since 2012 latest (!) ist was present in the media that there were hundreds of thousands of refugees trying to get away from Syria. What Europe did was trying to keep them away. They have been piling up at our borders for months.

Anyway, Mrs Merkel opened the borders for Syrian refugees. We know that there's simply war in Syria. So what's the big deal to get them a safe place where they can stay?

I don't see why Europe has to take all the world's economic migrants. The genuine refugees account for about 1 in 5.

We don't. And we send away most of them who arrive. Most refugees stay in a country near their home. Pakistan took ten times the number of refugees compared to Germany in 2013. And who's richer? Yeah, right.

The Syrian Civil War started when a group of religious fanatics attacked the secular government.

There is no reason why the West is to blame for this massive shift of people, and we should not have to accommodate them. All newcomers to any country require housing, education, healthcare. And we cannot take all the world's poor.

Like, people over there being killed by weapons manufactured in Europe or under European licensing? If we take one million refugees, there's still 59 million we don't take.
The West has been intervening in the region for decades. Talking about destabilisation there, you know I'm right. So you're all like "we'll take all your oil, but stay the fuck away from us"? What the?

 

[E'Lell]

Schon gewusst: Kein Land hat in seiner Geschichte mehr Kriege geführt als die Briten. Aber wie immer nix mit der Sache zu tun. Merkwürdiges Volk.

 

[perfectmansions]

I was wrong to conflate the two issues of Islamisation and mass migration. They are two different topics, but I dislike both of these ideas.

It's all very well saying "people are more important than borders". The trouble is, where do you draw the line? Do we stop at 2 million people? Or do we encourage and assist countless millions in getting to Europe? If you do let countless millions into your country, your public services will not be able to cope, and the struggle to find housing, jobs, and similar things will become more difficult for everyone.

The second topic - Islamisation, is also problematic. This is an ideology that is against freedom of speech. If I was to say that the Prophet Mohammed was a bad man, some Muslims out there would want to kill me. And their treatment of women as recommended by the Koran and the Shariah is very different to how we treat women in the West.

The Islamic ideology can only have a limited sympathy for democracy as we know it. This is because Islam was created between 600-700AD, and Mohammed never encountered democracy or approved of it. His style of ruling was strict and authoritarian. You can see this, because Islam is not able to accept any sort of criticism. If you do try to comment upon things that are bad about the Islamic ideology, you have people who become 'offended', and the debate is closed down. The person who criticised is usually called a racist or an Islamophobe.

 

[perfectmansions]

Well, the politicians didn't need permission to save the fucking banks, or to cut pensions, or to cut on education spendings. Why in the world would they need permission to welcome a bunch of refugees?

I believe politicians are the servants of the people. The people put them there, and the people can remove them. The people should be consulted over large crisis issues. Especially if the politicians are about to do something that will cause a drastic change to that country.

We don't. And we send away most of them who arrive. Most refugees stay in a country near their home. Pakistan took ten times the number of refugees compared to Germany in 2013. And who's richer? Yeah, right.

We are not able to send many of them back due to Human Rights legislation. It is illegal under these laws to send any asylum sekker back to a place where they might experience hardship. And as regards to where migrants prefer to settle, it's clear they all want to come to Europe with a passion. Why else would you undertake a perilous ocean journey in a dinghy. The answer is they have heard that the streets of Germany are paved with gold.

Like, people over there being killed by weapons manufactured in Europe or under European licensing? If we take one million refugees, there's still 59 million we don't take.
The West has been intervening in the region for decades. Talking about destabilisation there, you know I'm right. So you're all like "we'll take all your oil, but stay the fuck away from us"? What the?

I have already said, the Syrian Civil War started due to religious fanaticism. No Western forces were involved. It started long before the rise of ISIS, so don't try and tell me that we destabilised the region or something.

 

[perfectmansions]

The other thing is, it is nor just a political decision. PEGIDA say and think, they´re the voice of the nation, but truth is, they´re not! There´re more people against PEGIDA.

I certainly don't think that PEGIDA has popular support in Germany. On the contrary I think the people of Germany have had years of their own politicians and world politicians shaming and blaming them for the happenings of the Second World War. I know I won't get any new fans for mentioning this. But it is true, this embrace of the migrant crisis, I explain it as a lot of people are trying to 'make amends' for something that they have nothing to do with.

I really do believe that German people today are not connected to all the terrible things that happened in WWII. Because they're a different generation. But look for example, at how welcoming Sweden has been towards migrants. It think they have taken more migrants than any other country. They took on this attitude because they were one of the big Axis powers in WWII.

Thanks for not banning me by the way. I am a big believer in freedom of speech. I think that all these issues need to be explored without shutting out any of the opinions.

 

[Quark]

I was wrong to conflate the two issues of Islamisation and mass migration. They are two different topics, but I dislike both of these ideas.

It's all very well saying "people are more important than borders". The trouble is, where do you draw the line? Do we stop at 2 million people? Or do we encourage and assist countless millions in getting to Europe? If you do let countless millions into your country, your public services will not be able to cope, and the struggle to find housing, jobs, and similar things will become more difficult for everyone.

Q: Why do almost ALL migrants want to go to the UK?
A: The asylem laws are (at this moment) very welcoming, hence the diversity of the Brittish population! But then again, you are locked, as an island nation it's quite easy to close borders. (yeah, been there 2x, passport check 2x, even though going through 3 countries)

The second topic - Islamisation, is also problematic. This is an ideology that is against freedom of speech. If I was to say that the Prophet Mohammed was a bad man, some Muslims out there would want to kill me. And their treatment of women as recommended by the Koran and the Shariah is very different to how we treat women in the West.

The Islamic ideology can only have a limited sympathy for democracy as we know it. This is because Islam was created between 600-700AD, and Mohammed never encountered democracy or approved of it. His style of ruling was strict and authoritarian. You can see this, because Islam is not able to accept any sort of criticism. If you do try to comment upon things that are bad about the Islamic ideology, you have people who become 'offended', and the debate is closed down. The person who criticised is usually called a racist or an Islamophobe.

Er, yeah, right!
And the Anglican Church (of England) are the Saints of all religions, isn't it!
You DO know how that is created? To give Henry a chance to devorce, yet it's now again forbidden.
And the Roman Catholics kill millions of people every day, by just one man, who forbids preservatives in the battle of AIDS. Very good religion.

Bedankt, maar toch liever niet.
Tip: READ about islam, but try to find a source outside of the Christian world! They're all biass! (which goes in all ways btw)

 

[perfectmansions]

On the first point, it is true that the British population is historically made up of different peoples, but they had hundreds of years to settle down and integrate. By the mid 20th Century, everyone was on the same page, there was a great community spirit. This all changed when we had the open-door immigration policy forced on us by the EU. In 1975, we thought we were joining a trading group, but we got political union, and laws made for us by Brussels.

On the second point, I am an atheist, and I do not defend the Christians at all. So perhaps I went a bit far when endorsing PEGIDA, if they are supposed to be Christians.

 

[Quark]

I believe politicians are the servants of the people. The people put them there, and the people can remove them. The people should be consulted over large crisis issues. Especially if the politicians are about to do something that will cause a drastic change to that country.

We are not able to send many of them back due to Human Rights legislation. It is illegal under these laws to send any asylum seaker back to a place where they might experience hardship. And as regards to where migrants prefer to settle, it's clear they all want to come to Europe with a passion. Why else would you undertake a perilous ocean journey in a dinghy. The answer is they have heard that the streets of Germany are paved with gold.

Who told them? Not me! Neither the Europeans. It's easy, it's what they see.

I have already said, the Syrian Civil War started due to religious fanaticism. No Western forces were involved. It started long before the rise of ISIS, so don't try and tell me that we destabilised the region or something.

Daesh are religious fanatics! And in a sense, so is Assad! And it has all to do with either shia or sunite muslims. Minority opresses majority. And the Arabic spring did the rest.

 

[Quark]

On the first point, it is true that the British population is historically made up of different peoples, but they had hundreds of years to settle down and integrate. By the mid 20th Century, everyone was on the same page, there was a great community spirit. This all changed when we had the open-door immigration policy forced on us by the EU. In 1975, we thought we were joining a trading group, but we got political union, and laws made for us by Brussels.

On the second point, I am an atheist, and I do not defend the Christians at all. So perhaps I went a bit far when endorsing PEGIDA, if they are supposed to be Christians.

FAUX! FOUT! FALSCH!

Asylem laws are NATIONAL competences. It's not a EU competence. So this is a blatant lie. But then again, Johnson is not such a good source. Nor is Cameron.

 

[perfectmansions]

I don't believe that's true. The UK has no power to turn away people coming from any other of the 27 member states. It's called the free movement of peoples and it's a founding principle of the EU.

 

[Quark]

I certainly don't think that PEGIDA has popular support in Germany. On the contrary I think the people of Germany have had years of their own politicians and world politicians shaming and blaming them for the happenings of the Second World War. I know I won't get any new fans for mentioning this. But it is true, this embrace of the migrant crisis, I explain it as a lot of people are trying to 'make amends' for something that they have nothing to do with.

I really do believe that German people today are not connected to all the terrible things that happened in WWII. Because they're a different generation. But look for example, at how welcoming Sweden has been towards migrants. It think they have taken more migrants than any other country. They took on this attitude because they were one of the big Axis powers in WWII.

Thanks for not banning me by the way. I am a big believer in freedom of speech. I think that all these issues need to be explored without shutting out any of the opinions.

I won't hesitate to ban you, if you are getting explicitly rascist, fasist, or anything that is against the (German Federal) law. And it will be permanently. But as long as you behave yourself, no worries.

 

[perfectmansions]

I won't hesitate to ban you, if you are getting explicitly rascist, fasist, or anything that is against the (German Federal) law. And it will be permanently. But as long as you behave yourself, no worries.

Cheers metal god. I mean at the end of the day, we all like metal. Metal is about freedom of speech, right?

 

[Quark]

I don't believe that's true. The UK has no power to turn away people coming from any other of the 27 member states. It's called the free movement of peoples and it's a founding principle of the EU.

Now what were we talking about? ASYLEM SEEKERS or EU RESIDENTS!?
I talked about ASYLEM LAWS which are NATIONAL competences!
The FREE TRAFFIC between EU citizens is a treaty, approved by the UK Government. They could've backed out, if they wanted, they didn't.
In that respect, I'd prefer the UK to leave the EU, so they can do whatever they want to, and lose a lot of money. (as import taxes can be put onto UK goods and services) But that's a COMPLETELY different discussion!

Once again, Brussels did NOT decide who you should let in as ASYLEM SEEKER or not. That's Cameron and his house. The only thing the UK accepted, are the Human Rights Treaty. And the interpretation of said treaty is up to the UK itself. It has NOTHING to do with the free travel of EU citizens.

(lezen is een vak)