The right praising Japanese failures is a recurring theme. They often laud Japan’s restrictive immigration policy despite the fact that it is a huge contributor to Japan’s economic problems at the moment. Of course, they would respond that the protection of national culture/race comes first, but that philosophy is a pretty good way to ensure your culture will very literally die
The thing is, from what I’ve seen, the dogmatic economists and the liberals and all the lot yelling at them have overstated their case on just how big this problem is for their economy, and they’re going very hard on automation which is about to push many people out of work in the West over the next few decades, and while we in the West are told we need to “get used to” Islamic terrorist attacks, and will probably soon be told we need to ignore FGM, etc, in the name of cultural diversity… they don’t have to deal with that problem essentially at all. (And that isn’t the only factor - there are social Rules Japanese corporations follow that would not be feasible under mass migration, for instance.)
Why should we have to get used to terrorist attacks? What on Earth is so bloody valuable about Islam that we can’t get a similar advantage from taking Hindus, Buddhists, etc instead?
“while we in the West are told we need to ‘get used to’ Islamic terrorist attacks”
No, we need to “get used to” terrorist attacks generally, which will be an inevitable consequence of asymmetric military conditions and technological development and can’t be fully prevented by any reasonable means
“will probably soon be told we need to ignore FGM, etc, in the name of cultural diversity…”
No, you won’t, but you’ll find a few anecdotes of people saying that and then use them to justify the belief that it’s a popular social narrative
“What on Earth is so bloody valuable about Islam that we can’t get a similar advantage from taking Hindus, Buddhists, etc instead?”
A few things here worthy of note: terrorism is an asymmetric military tactic utilized by radical groups regardless of ideology and belief and there are groups of both Hindus and Buddhists who are currently using terrorist tactics; immigration is not a primary contributor to terrorism and those who claim otherwise have an extremely weak case that they’ve made seem legitimate by repeating it over and over; and if you genuinely think that terrorism is an intrinsically Islamic phenomenon you have a tenuous grasp of both the nature of terrorism and global demography
No, we need to “get used to” terrorist attacks generally, which will be an inevitable consequence of asymmetric military conditions and technological development and can’t be fully prevented by any reasonable means
Look man, you might come back and say that “well the IRA used terrorist attacks”, and yeah they did, and they killed people, but they also would give warning allowing evacuations before blowing up something big and expensive and not end up killing anyone. Why?
Because they were national separatists. They had a far more specific and measurable goal, which they were arguably more successful at. In other words they had a different ideology, and different ideologies produce different behavior, which is the entire reason anyone cares what ideology someone follows to begin with. And religions are very much like ideologies.
Much like FGM is cultural, and cousin marriage is cultural, and different cultures produce different behaviors besides what food you eat and what rug you put in your house.
So I’m going to ask a test question here to see how serious you really are: Are you willing to ban cousin marriage, or would you argue that doing so is a form of unfair ethnic discrimination?
No, we need to “get used to” terrorist attacks generally, which will be an inevitable consequence of asymmetric military conditions and technological development and can’t be fully prevented by any reasonable means
So do we need to get used to #PrayForEngland being renewed each year, or sometimes more than once a year? Or does the difference in the rate of terrorism between different groups mean that we might only need #PrayForEngland about once per decade?
Have you ever noticed that when we #PrayForJapan, it’s usually because of some enormous natural disaster that could not have been prevented, and not because of some massive terrorist attack? They have had terrorist attacks, but the frequency is much lower, and as such they’re not having to “get used to” it.
No, you won’t, but you’ll find a few anecdotes of people saying that and then use them to justify the belief that it’s a popular social narrative
I can see a push for the legalization of polygamy on the horizon, I’m confident it will start to come in about ten years, which we were promised would not happen. ‘Soon’ was probably overblowing it, the FGM thing will come in 20 if conditions don’t change, as demographic changes transform it into an issue that can be captured for votes by the larger political parties. After all, we already allow male ‘circumcision’, so what’s one more step? The law won’t stop such a political transformation because you get the laws that the culture supports, which is why Chechnya has Chechen laws and we don’t.
A few things here worthy of note: terrorism is an asymmetric military tactic utilized by radical groups regardless of ideology and belief and there are groups of both Hindus and Buddhists who are currently using terrorist tactics; immigration is not a primary contributor to terrorism and those who claim otherwise have an extremely weak case that they’ve made seem legitimate by repeating it over and over; and if you genuinely think that terrorism is an intrinsically Islamic phenomenon you have a tenuous grasp of both the nature of terrorism and global demography
It weren’t Hindus what blew up the fucking towers mate.
I’m going to guess that the Hindu terrorism is a result of some kind of spiraling ethnic tension (probably with Islam!) or national separatism, and that their tactics suit this. I’d also bet money that the rate of terrorist deaths caused per Hindu is lower by at least a factor of 2.
Now you might well point to US intervention in the Middle East, but you know what “Get The Fuck Out of the Middle East” would look like as a terrorist campaign intended to be actually successful? It would look more like the IRA, and less like this bullshit we’re getting now.