Europe - The Official Thread
- Thread starter Touring Mars
- Start date
Hun200kmh
Guess what ... I'm
Of course it does make it look like that because that is exactly what it means. Europe strives for the perfect human society, free at last from superstition and walking towards the bright future where season, science, logic finally bring humanity to everlasting joy.
Last edited:
Imari
50% is the new placeholder.
I wouldn't read too much into that. It only takes a violent minority to make it unsafe for anyone to declare opposition. If I lived in a town with a guy that had shown he was willing to kill anyone who disagreed with him, I'd probably watch what I said publically even though he's only one guy. Silence does not equal support.
I'd generalise that to traditional religions do not seem compatible with modern secular societies. I don't think religion per se is incompatible, but particularly the Abrahamic religions seem to have too little emphasis on fairness and justice and too much emphasis on retribution. And due to their reliance on foundational documents that can be interpreted in ways that are in striking opposition to modern norms, I don't think that there's a way to really change that.
I'd like to request that God sends another prophet to expound upon His laws in a way that is compatible with modern values. Then we can at least have a new religion that works with the society that it's a part of. I'd prefer people just to think for themselves and come to informed and considered opinions based on their own experiences, but that seems like too much to ask right now.
Last edited:
Hun200kmh
Guess what ... I'm
Of course. And he'd be a gay rights champion, pro-abortion, pro-euthanasia, anti-religious atheist. Now THAT would be a proper XXIst Century prophet, we would all worship him, watch his YT Channels, Twitch streams and praise him as the ultimate influencer.
Last edited:
ShiftingGears
I'm a country member
It surprises me hearing that theres any criticism of Macron for his condemnation of extremism. However a big problem I see is that even something as benign as condemning extremism can be made to look divisive by state actors stoking it through social media.
Think of how much disinformation is on Twitter and Facebook and even reddit, and you could easily paint a condemnation of extremism from Macron as more divisive or widespread than it actually is.
Think of how much disinformation is on Twitter and Facebook and even reddit, and you could easily paint a condemnation of extremism from Macron as more divisive or widespread than it actually is.
Last edited:
CTznOfTime
Girls love Diamond Member
Seems to me that rural (populism) French citizens and somehow that also includes the youths and the 'minorities' (who actually are becoming now the majority almost) are all rooting against Macron (seen as pro elitists and the rich i am guessing).
I am quite feeling disturbed that more french people are supporting trumpism and extreme right ideologies, because it just doesn't seem logical to me...
Yes i am aware of the rampant poverty situation in France, social economic injustice and precarity of the poor, combined that with immigration issues...
The (lower) middle class are suffocating underneath it all...
I guess it sort of make sense that they are 'criticizing' Macron, but to support trumpism... that's just weird to me...
i guess stupid ?!
Last edited:
Milouse
Well-Known Member
No. Just no.
I usually don't know where to start when reacting from what i read in WaPo, NYT and almost every mainstream anglo-saxon medias regarding religion and France. They just embrace a narrative from a minority of activist promoting essentialism and a made up post-colonial debt, then skew it with their communautarist vision. When they not hire those activists to write a regular column.
https://unherd.com/2020/10/why-is-the-anglo-media-portaying-france-as-the-villain/
I grew up as a teenager in the 80's in a medium (~30,000 inhabitants) city with then one of the highest immigration based population of the country. My mother was a school manager there. Muslims were numerous, maybe a majority, and religion wasn't even a subject. Nor colonialism - ended way before our birth. Then came the islamic facism in the early 90's, and 25 years of proselytism later, the city turned out to get the sad record of being the main Jihadist factory of the 10's, and that's just the tip of the iceberg of rampant obscurantism (teaching the Shoa or Darwinism became a challenge ; and today repetition of Samuel Paty scenario is looming there). All this to say that i know very well the difference between a Muslim and what is called an "islamiste". France fights the later, not the former. France protects Muslims by his laws. But "Islamists" are spending a lot of energy trying to blur the lines, and anglo-saxon medias, and those under the sphere of influence, which includes many hard islamic countries, are buying that.
Last edited:
TenEightyOne
I'm Slow, But I'm Wide!
I'd draw a careful difference between "Anglo" and "Anglophone", the former would be taken to mean "English" and the second "anywhere that speaks mainly English", in that article it particularly discusses the USA. There are strong differences in the reasons why the two different spheres might like to be negative about France on this issue. For American press of recent time there has been a strong slant against Otherness with Islam becoming a strong focus of that for communities that aren't close enough to the Mexican Caravans. Reporting on countries that are being torn apart by Islam (or so parts of the US press say) is perfect for their message.
England has different reasons to make hay, particularly in the febrile political Euro-sphere of recent years. France? Terrible, ripped apart by gangs, unions, Islam and corrupt, social-elite leadership. This is what happens when you become a Republic. Germany? Terrible. ripped apart by gangs, unions, Islam and inept pro-Russian leadership. This is what happens when you become a Republic.
England? Labouring under a tide immigrants that France should have stopped. For those reasons I don't think that article really hits the nail on the head. It also seems to aim for one good guy, one bad guy: "France has just witnessed one of its schoolteachers decapitated for blasphemy in the street in the year 2020, yet it is somehow coming out of this situation as the menace, the deliberate provocateur bringing all this violence on itself". That's immature and it's short-sighted. That event proves the capacity of an ideology to create vile murderers but it doesn't make France/Macron politically and socially omnipotent.
To Macron... I believe it's undeniable that laïcité imposes limitations on religious expression, and that generates hatred because it's impossible for it not to.
When you're generating hatred you're growing the number of people attracted to 'extremist' standpoints. And it's difficult because ultimately I believe Macron's that the ultimate concept of a new balance between egalitarianism and religious freedom represents a state that all countries should work towards. However, implementing it in (nearly) one go isn't going to work. In fact it's going to make things far, far worse.
England has different reasons to make hay, particularly in the febrile political Euro-sphere of recent years. France? Terrible, ripped apart by gangs, unions, Islam and corrupt, social-elite leadership. This is what happens when you become a Republic. Germany? Terrible. ripped apart by gangs, unions, Islam and inept pro-Russian leadership. This is what happens when you become a Republic.
England? Labouring under a tide immigrants that France should have stopped. For those reasons I don't think that article really hits the nail on the head. It also seems to aim for one good guy, one bad guy: "France has just witnessed one of its schoolteachers decapitated for blasphemy in the street in the year 2020, yet it is somehow coming out of this situation as the menace, the deliberate provocateur bringing all this violence on itself". That's immature and it's short-sighted. That event proves the capacity of an ideology to create vile murderers but it doesn't make France/Macron politically and socially omnipotent.
To Macron... I believe it's undeniable that laïcité imposes limitations on religious expression, and that generates hatred because it's impossible for it not to.
When you're generating hatred you're growing the number of people attracted to 'extremist' standpoints. And it's difficult because ultimately I believe Macron's that the ultimate concept of a new balance between egalitarianism and religious freedom represents a state that all countries should work towards. However, implementing it in (nearly) one go isn't going to work. In fact it's going to make things far, far worse.
Last edited:
Anyone keeping up to date with Belarus? They're in major dispute with Poland over immigration between the two countries; basically, Belarus has accepted and invited thousands of non-EU immigrants under the false promise of transit into the EU. Belarus is one step closer than Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq. Once they arrive in Belarus, they have pretty much been "escorted" to the border to swamp Polish border control. The Polish army has sent 12,000 troops to the Belarusian border to handle the situation.
What does Lukashenko have to say for himself? Mild swear:
What does Lukashenko have to say for himself? Mild swear:
You bastards, you lunatics, you want me to protect you from migrants?
inCloud
Well-Known Member
De jure, Belarus invited them as students.
IDK, what European countries expected from Luka. He always been like that, but Europe was totally Ok when he kill his political opponents and beat **** out of opposition. Right now he doesn't have anything to lose and became dangerous to everyone around him.
Last edited by a moderator:
Scaff
Moderator
I mean it's not as if the EU imposed sanctions on him, his party and others within his government is it? Sanctions that did ease and then got re-introduced recently.
Belarus–European Union relations - Wikipedia
So no, your claim is not accurate at all , and it's not as if the EU has ever held joint war games with Belarus now is it?
Last edited by a moderator:
Belarus threatens to cut gas deliveries to EU if sanctioned over border crisis
Lukashenko responds to possible sanctions as thousands of migrants camp in freezing temperatures at Poland border
The EU are openly accusing the Belarusian leader (and Russia) of exploiting migrants in order to destabilise the EU itself.
Russia has responded by sending nuclear-capable bombers on patrols and dummy bombing runs at the Belarusian border, and now Belarus is threatening to cut off gas supplies as tensions escalate.
unit-one
Well-Known Member
Well, he said that he will send illegal immigrants if EU or USA "will step over the red line" and now he's doing this.
Estonia sent reinforcements to Lithuania border.
"
According to the Minister of Internal Affairs Kristjan Jaani, the Estonian police detained five illegal migrants who entered the territory of the European Union through Belarus.
The minister said that the biggest risk is that Estonia will become a transit channel for illegal migrants to the Nordic countries. "Fortunately, this scenario has not yet materialized," Jaani said.
According to him, five illegal migrants from Belarus have been detained in Estonia, two of whom have already been sent back, and one will be sent on Thursday (it's today).
The minister added that the court proceedings against the two persons have not yet been completed.
Jaani noted that police attention is focused on internal borders, especially in the passenger port of Tallinn, since it can be assumed that the goal of migrants is to enter the Nordic countries. “But we also operate on the southern border. So far, no changes have been observed on the Estonian-Russian border,” the minister added."
