After Nazi praising scandal, Canada’s House Speaker resigns

[Pennywise 36,080]

2 hours ago, Melech said:

bombing another country is a bad thing either way  

Not the Isr*el defender saying this  like, I live for this level of delusion ngl 

[Dennis 8,391]

45 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

I said native indigenous minorities should speak their languages in the places where they are from as opposed to immigrants which are expected to learn the new languages

"expected to learn the new language" gives me assimilationism vibes  

If you are a citizen, you are a citizen, equal before the law.

This proves my point. You are advocating for preferential treatment of European citizens based on whether they're "indigenous" or not. And this is white european nationalism.

So you're saying Arab citizens of France should have lesser of a right to have their linguistic needs accommodated by the State than say "Breton" (which are white indigenous French citizens). 

That is literally what's called nationalism, the idea that "indigenous" citizens should always have more rights than immigrants. Well at least own it. 

[Bronco 25,127]

12 minutes ago, Dennis said:

"expected to learn the new language" gives me assimilationism vibes  

If you are a citizen, you are a citizen, equal before the law.

This proves my point. You are advocating for preferential treatment of European citizens based on whether they're "indigenous" or not. And this is white european nationalism.

So you're saying Arab citizens of France should have lesser of a right to have their linguistic needs accommodated by the State than say "Breton" (which are white indigenous French citizens). 

That is literally what's called nationalism, the idea that "indigenous" citizens should always have more rights than immigrants. Well at least own it.

Immigrants should have support, immigration documentation should be available in accessible languages for people and generally far more support should be made available to allow fair & respectful immigration processing. This is doubly important for asylum seekers. But equally they should also have provisions made available to aid integration into their new community through language education resources & support. It's impossible for immigration to take place in a way that doesn't promote conflict if the state refuses to support the integration. 

But that doesn't mean that native language & identity should be allowed to die like many minority native cultures are at risk of. And while I see you are critiquing for someone taking a position that festers conflict, your attempts to critique their view is equally a position that posits a conflict rather than looks for a solution. 

Multi-culturalism was and is only possible through an equal relationship between the native population & the migrant population which allows for cultural trade. And I can't see either of you putting forward a position that allows for communities to align instead of existing in seperated neighbourhoods. 

[Dennis 8,391]

25 minutes ago, Bronco said:

Immigrants should have support, immigration documentation should be available in accessible languages for people and generally far more support should be made available to allow fair & respectful immigration processing. This is doubly important for asylum seekers. But equally they should also have provisions made available to aid integration into their new community through language education resources & support. It's impossible for immigration to take place in a way that doesn't promote conflict if the state refuses to support the integration. 

But that doesn't mean that native language & identity should be allowed to die like many minority native cultures are at risk of. And while I see you are critiquing for someone taking a position that festers conflict, your attempts to critique their view is equally a position that posits a conflict rather than looks for a solution. 

Multi-culturalism was and is only possible through an equal relationship between the native population & the migrant population which allows for cultural trade. And I can't see either of you putting forward a position that allows for communities to align instead of existing in seperated neighbourhoods. 

Well I generally agree with you, key word you used here is "integration", while I criticized "assimilation".

There is a difference between integration and assimilation.

No one is denying the fact that if you are in France, the state should help you and educate you to be able to be fluent in French. However, in this globalized day and age, the idea that you can create special rules for "indigenous" citizens to have their rarely-used language promoted, a treatment that "immigrant" citizens are not entitled to, strikes at the heart of the principle of Equality. And that is my point. There is state language, but if you're going to have the state sponsor other languages, you can't use "who was here first" as a metric for preferential treatment. 

When I asked the person in question, why Arabs and Turks shouldn't be entitled to have their own schools in Europe, he said it was because they came from somewhere else and are not indigenous. I take issue with that notion.

On another topic where I made a threat about the rise of far-right in Europe and anti-immigrant sentiment (although I believe in reforms to immigration, I don't condone hateful political parties that want to ban an entire religion), he insinuated that because I'm American I shouldn't be commenting on Europeans anti-immigration rhetoric (here) and downplayed their mistreatment (here). So of course I'm not gonna take his ridiculous attempts as conveniently framing me as some sort of "White Lives Matter" guy whenever I criticize Putin, when he's actually the one who made questionable statements in the past, and showing indirect support for the closest thing we have today to modern day nazism.

 

[FfFfFfFF 58,120]

46 minutes ago, Bronco said:

Immigrants should have support, immigration documentation should be available in accessible languages for people and generally far more support should be made available to allow fair & respectful immigration processing. This is doubly important for asylum seekers. But equally they should also have provisions made available to aid integration into their new community through language education resources & support. It's impossible for immigration to take place in a way that doesn't promote conflict if the state refuses to support the integration. 

But that doesn't mean that native language & identity should be allowed to die like many minority native cultures are at risk of. And while I see you are critiquing for someone taking a position that festers conflict, your attempts to critique their view is equally a position that posits a conflict rather than looks for a solution. 

Multi-culturalism was and is only possible through an equal relationship between the native population & the migrant population which allows for cultural trade. And I can't see either of you putting forward a position that allows for communities to align instead of existing in seperated neighbourhoods. 

@Bronco, you misunderstood my post and I find it hurtful that you liked the slanderous post above. If you read my previous thread, I used the ''immigrant'' vs ''indigenous minority'' talking about to frame that ethnic minorities deserve their linguistic needs to be accomoated by the state where they live in.

Because I am coming at it from the perspective of Eastern Europe, where the borders came into existence just a few decades ago. So mainly the issue of linguistic preservation concerns indigenous minorities which were assimilated by neighbouring states, and there are actually very few immigrant communities.

When you immigrate to another country you are expected to learn the language of that country. If another country comes and take over your territory, you should retain the right to speak your language; I see so much mental gimnastics to try to paint this as a gotcha moment only some of the users can feel better about themselves even though they have no idea what are they talking about and need justification for their own biased views.

[FfFfFfFF 58,120]

1 hour ago, Dennis said:

"expected to learn the new language" gives me assimilationism vibes  

Let me make sure I understand. You now support Ukraine reversing its 2017 education law which banned secondary education in minority languages, or do you support assimilation? 

I am sure you do not, but just say it so the hypocrisy comes out.

[Dennis 8,391]

9 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

Let me make sure I understand. You now support Ukraine reversing its 2017 education law which banned secondary education in minority languages, or do you support assimilation? 

I'm indifferent to Ukraine's 2017 education law, you know why? Because it's hypocritical to fight very hard for Russian, Romanian, Hungarian minorities to have special rights when other brown/black minorities in Europe don't get to be entitled to have such rights because they're "not indigenous".

So of course, I don't care about Ukraine's 2017 education law. If anything, it exposed European hypocrisy. Arabs, Turks and others not having their own school was never an issue. But when it's about ethnic white minorities, all of a sudden it's a big human rights issue. Either you have these special rules for everyone, or you don't. At least Ukraine was honest about it, and tried to standardize and have the same rules for everybody regardless of race/religion. 

But to someone who exclusively cares about indigenous eastern europeans, this may not be so obvious.

 

[Bronco 25,127]

24 minutes ago, Dennis said:

However, in this globalized day and age, the idea that you can create special rules for "indigenous" citizens to have their rarely-used language promoted, a treatment that "immigrant" citizens are not entitled to, strikes at the heart of the principle of Equality

I mean anyone who thinks that special rules shouldn't be used to secure protection from harm & discrimination whether the minority is indigenous or migrant doesn't actually support equality. 

You say you're against assimilation, & that you want immigrants to be given support in maintaining their identity through integration. Yet you oppose the idea that indigenous minorities of a nation/region should be given support in maintaining their identity rather than be lost to de-jure or de-facto assimilation. 
It's not about "whos here first" it's about equity & equality.
1.People should not be denied their identity by any state - be it religious, ethnic, gender, sexuality or anything else. 
2.People's identity should not be erased simply because you don't think there's enough of them, that's not equality in the slightest - that's supremacy. 
3.People's identity in their birthplace should be respected from birth through to death. 

How you can argue that immigrants should (rightfully) have their language & culture supported & integrated while opposing the idea that native minorities equally deserve the same respect & rights to their own language & culture is astounding. 

You're a walking mess of hypocrisy. 

[Dennis 8,391]

13 minutes ago, Bronco said:

How you can argue that immigrants should (rightfully) have their language & culture supported & integrated while opposing the idea that native minorities equally deserve the same respect & rights to their own language & culture is astounding. 

This is what happens when you respond without carefully reading the other person's post.

Let me put it in the simplest terms possible. There are state languages and there are non-state languages.

In France, there is the State language: French. The State should help immigrants integrate by teaching them French in school (this is what I mean by integration, that is helping people learn the language rather than legally expect them to or require them to).

However, if you're going to establish provisions for non-State languages, such as for example, forcing companies to hire speakers of other languages. You cannot favor "indigenous languages" over other spoken  "languages" in the country.

I'll give you a practical example: Say there are 1500 French citizens who speak "Breton". "Breton" is an indigenous language in France. There are millions of french citizens who speak Arabic, because their parents immigrated from the Arab world.

You create a law sponsoring Breton, requiring companies to accommodate Breton language, and not Arabic,  solely based on the fact that it's an "indigenous" language, despite the fact that millions more of French citizens speak Arabic and are not entitled to such preferential treatment. That undermines the principle of equality before the law.

Now, never mistake your lack of understanding of my argument as some sort of "hypocrisy" on my end. That was rather rude especially when I really took the time to explain this to you.
 

[FfFfFfFF 58,120]

22 minutes ago, Dennis said:

I'm indifferent to Ukraine's 2017 education law, you know why? Because it's hypocritical to fight very hard for Russian, Romanian, Hungarian minorities to have special rights when other brown/black minorities in Europe don't get to be entitled to have such rights because they're "not indigenous".

So of course, I don't care about Ukraine's 2017 education law. If anything, it exposed European hypocrisy. Arabs, Turks and others not having their own school was never an issue. But when it's about ethnic white minorities, all of a sudden it's a big human rights issue. Either you have these special rules for everyone, or you don't. At least Ukraine was honest about it, and tried to standardize and have the same rules for everybody regardless of race/religion. 

But to someone who exclusively cares about indigenous eastern europeans, this may not be so obvious.

 

First of all you are not indifferent when you are supporting and advocating for it. 

Second of all, I would understand that children of ethnic minorities which immigrated to Kyiv (an Ukrainian majority city in an Ukrainian majority area) would not have schools teaching said languages, because they knowingly emmigrated out of the area they live in, in a place that is dominantly of another's ethnicity. I don't have an issue in that regard. But areas which are ethnically Romanian or Hungarian around Ukraine's borderlands should have schools teaching their curriculum in their language full stop, and I cannot support any measure preventing this.

Your stance on this is just denying there are any issues when it comes to Ukraine because you are emotionally invested in the conflict. So instead of asking for progress and European values to be brough into Ukraine so the society will progress, you deny any issues at all happen. The last 2 years proved that there are things that do not fit into the narrative and nobody can adress. So instead of peacefully solving sore issues we let them going (at best) or make excuses for them (at worst).

[Dennis 8,391]

21 minutes ago, FfFfFfFF said:

areas which are ethnically Romanian or Hungarian

How do you decide this? Based on history? Or based on what a majority of current residents in that province speak?

If it's the latter, then surely, you should support areas in Europe where there is an Arabic or Turkish majority to have their own schools? You said no because they came "from somewhere else" and are not "indigenous". You are expecting citizens who are descendants of immigrants to learn the state language, but if you trace your heritage back to a European indegenious minority, you're exempt from that rule. That is unequal application of the law.

So until you support similar rights for descendants of immigrants, your stance is hypocritical. You care more about European minorities than non-European minorities. Equality before the law is blind equality. I know this may be unpopular for some of y'all, but that's the way it is.

Same goes to you @Bronco if you share his position, I'd like an explanation as to why descendants of immigrants should be "expected" to learn the State language but not indigenous European minorities who get to be entitled to some special rules? 

 

[Bronco 25,127]

2 minutes ago, Dennis said:

This is what happens when you respond without carefully reading the other person's post.

Let me put it in the simplest terms possible. There are state languages and there are non-state languages.

In France, there is the State language: French. The State should help immigrants integrate by teaching them French in school (this is what I mean by integration, that is helping people learn the language rather than legally expect them to or require them to).

However, if you're going to establish provisions for non-State languages, such as for example, forcing companies to hire speakers of other languages. You cannot favor "indigenous languages" over other spoken  "languages" in the country.

I'll give you a practical example: Say there are 1500 French citizens who speak "Breton". "Breton" is an indigenous language in France. There are millions of french citizens who speak Arabic, because their parents immigrated from the Arab world.

You create a law sponsoring Breton, requiring companies to accommodate Breton language, and not Arabic,  solely based on the fact that it's an "indigenous" language, despite the fact that millions more of French citizens speak Arabic and are not entitled to such preferential treatment. That undermines the principle of equality before the law.

Now, never mistake your lack of understanding of my argument as some sort of "hypocrisy" on my end. That was rather rude especially when I really took the time to explain this to you.
 

You've not countered the hypocrisy. And your comments suggesting that ethnic minorities in Eastern Europe who have faced systemic abuse, attack, rape & genocide are of less interest to you because they are white prove you are a hypocrite. 

Don't try and be patronising and claim to have explained anything to me. You're a typical American. Ignorant to the rest of the world & constrained by a piss-poor education you seem perfectly happy with maintaining. 

You talk about equality - but rather than support the right for ethinic minorities to maintain their culture in their indiginous regions you make it a contest. There is no contest if you truly support equality. 

You spend all your time on this subject attacking the rights of persecuted minorities or the idea of these persecuted minorities having rights. Rather than advocating for the simple principle that everyone should enjoy the right to their heritage, culture & language. 

It's funny you keep talking about how absurd it'd be to give Bretons special treatment in France over French-Arabs. Because until 1993 Bretons actually had less rights to their own culture than French-Arabs. Until 1993 Bretonne surnames were illegal to give to your children. Between 1830 & 1960 it was illegal in France for any language besides French to be spoken or taught. 
Continuing on with the Breton analogy you've chosen to use - you realise that the same people in France opposed to French-Arab integration are the very same people voting against support for Breton on the basis that violates the French Republic. 
 

[Dennis 8,391]

19 minutes ago, Bronco said:

You've not countered the hypocrisy. And your comments suggesting that ethnic minorities in Eastern Europe who have faced systemic abuse, attack, rape & genocide are of less interest to you because they are white prove you are a hypocrite. 

They're not "less of an interest to me" because they're white. I support blind equality. But you seem to think their suffering is more worthy of attention than others. And the Kurds who fled to Europe did not face systematic suffering? Their descendants don't deserve the same rights because they came "from somewhere else". You're telling me Romanians (who have a whole state to themselves) are more endangered than say the Kurds who fled an oppressive regime in Turkey or Syria?

Well it's good that I challenged what I think is, the comfort you guys have with European centrism.

And I start to see why your responses got heated. Eventually you'll realize the true meaning of equality. We all come from somewhere else. Never let that become an excuse to favor certain people over others. This doesn't mean I support citizenship for everybody. But once someone earns/gets citizenship, there's absolutely no excuse to treat them differently than "indigenous" citizens.

As for what you said about Bretons, I can't verify it, but ask the French government. I support blind equality, not preferential treatment for Arabs or Bretons.

[Bronco 25,127]

16 minutes ago, Dennis said:

Same goes to you @Bronco if you share his position, I'd like an explanation as to why descendants of immigrants should be "expected" to learn the State language but not indigenous European minorities who get to be entitled to some special rules? 

Have you read a single thing I've written Dennis? 

Even in the original thread regarding the languages debate I never once said that indigenous European minorities shouldn't speak the state language.

Don't pin falsehoods onto me when you're the one out here arguing that people shouldn't be given the right to practice their culture, language & heritage without oppression because they are white. 

I have been POINTEDLY clear that I am advocate for ethnic minorities in a nation, european or not, being allowed to maintain and engage in their culture - something you repeatedly oppose. And for immigrant minorities being given the SAME right to maintain and engage in their culture. That is a position I have elaborated on in every post made in this thread Dennis. 

The state language is the state language. People should learn the state language, I fully believe that. People who are not native speakers of the state language should recieve full support when engaging in the state through services like translated documents & live translation services while also be given the support needed to learn the state language. 
What I oppose is the forceful suppression of a person's culture, language & heritage simply because they are a minority in a nation state - be they an ethnic native of a region within that state or an immigrant to the nation state. 

I work for an organisation that has entire programme and team in existence to support & safeguard unaccompanied asylum seeking children. The state would leave them in their support accomodation & care homes to rot while their processed and then abandon them once processed. We explicitly set out to give them social support, to connect them with immigration legal support, to help them learn to live on their own and we ensure that these kids actually have people they can rely on. 

Meanwhile all you do is suggest that these kids should be in-competition with others for their rights. I see no reason for someone who claims to want people to be able to maintain their identity attacking people being given the right to do so. But here you are, rather than saying yes this is right but it doesn't go far enough you attack it. 

[Dennis 8,391]

9 minutes ago, Bronco said:

I have been POINTEDLY clear that I am advocate for ethnic minorities in a nation, european or not, being allowed to maintain and engage in their culture - something you repeatedly oppose. And for immigrant minorities being given the SAME right to maintain and engage in their culture. That is a position I have elaborated on in every post made in this thread Dennis. 

By the way, I responded but my post wasn't approved because I mentioned names of some endangered minorities that fled the Arab world or that other country that shall be named I guess.

My point is, many descendants of immigrants also fled oppression. And if you're going to open the door to special treatment, you do it for everybody or you don't. You don't do it in a way that jeopardizes the principle of equality.
 

Maybe you rushed to criticze my stance without understanding the context. And you even called me hypocritical without understanding my argument. I hope you'll reflect on that. The context was that it's hypocritical to criticize Ukraine or push them to do it for some white european minorities, while defending bigger European countries decision to not bother doing it for their much larger minorities. That's the issue. You understand why some like me think it's disingenuous?

If you believe in what I quoted above, well then you could've said it from the start instead of arguing against me. Because the other person that I was engaged with, DOES NOT believe in that. He said that because they come from somewhere else, they're not entitled to the same treatment. Maybe let them defend their own stance, if you two don't agree.