Denmark to Quota Non-Westerners in Neighborhoods

[Machismo]

If Damascus is safe, and since ISIS doesn't exist anymore you could actually argue the case, that's where refugees have to go. Not sure on the current status in Syria, though. It all depends. Refugee status only exists as long as your origin is deemed unsafe. It's not an "alternate route to immigration" like most people seem to think.

- - - Updated - - -



Devil's advocate here:

It's their country, they have every right to decide how to run it. They would absolutely be within their right to block any and all immigration and tell every non-Danish person to get fucked. People need to start about terms like racism and evaluate what they're saying. You have now actually argued a couple things that are just wrong:

1. A universal right to move and be a citizen of any country that you choose. Such a right does not exist.
2. The Danish population has no right to determine what type of society it wants to run. That couldn't be further from the truth, the Danish people are the ONLY ones that can determine what Danish society looks like.
3. That Denmark doesn't have a clear and well defined "culture". That's just nonsense. And you've essentially argued that Danish people should "give up being Danish, or else..."

I applaud your vigilance against racism, but these guys are not concentrating all immigrants in one quarter to remove them from society. It's not ghetto-ism. It's the opposite. It's the attempt to prevent quarters from becoming run down low income districts. And if you ever go to Denmark, you know their standards of living are exceptionally high, just like most nordic countries are.

I urge you to think about what you said and reflect on what's going on. Not saying there isn't any racism and they fart rainbows in Denmark, but I think you're blowing this way out of proportion.

I'm not saying they cannot do it, merely that it's an authoritarian step to take. Nations have the "right" to limit pretty much whatever freedoms they like. Countries implement all sorts of measures that are terrible, yet they are free to do so. This isn't the first time Denmark has pushed such measures, they have also pushed burqa bans, and many want to go even further with hijab bans, as well. Mind you, I think the authoritarian practices of forcing women to wear them are reprehensible as fuck, I also oppose the banning of wearing them.

As for those numbered points you made, I have not argued those things in this thread. I have not argued that such a right exists. i have not argued that the Danish people do not have the right to enforce such restrictions (merely that I oppose such restrictions).I have also not argued that I think Danish people should give up being Danish. You claimed I was wrong by asserting these things, when I never asserted them in the first place.

I simply oppose their attempts to push such restrictions.

As for "culture," my biggest concern is what people actually mean by that. It's almost always a code word for racism and xenophobia. That's why I want to know exactly what people mean when they say they want those to follow, or partake in the 'culture." It's why I bring up my own neighborhood... which has multiple cultures depending on the house. I don't have the same culture as the 7th Day Adventists, the hippies across the street, the hipsters a couple houses over, the Indian/Pakistani family next door, or the dude who is growing pot in his house.

[Slant]

I'm not saying they cannot do it, merely that it's an authoritarian step to take. Nations have the "right" to limit pretty much whatever freedoms they like. Countries implement all sorts of measures that are terrible, yet they are free to do so. This isn't the first time Denmark has pushed such measures, they have also pushed burqa bans, and many want to go even further with hijab bans, as well. Mind you, I think the authoritarian practices of forcing women to wear them are reprehensible as fuck, I also oppose the banning of wearing them.

As for those numbered points you made, I have not argued those things in this thread. I have not argued that such a right exists. i have not argued that the Danish people do not have the right to enforce such restrictions (merely that I oppose such restrictions).I have also not argued that I think Danish people should give up being Danish. You claimed I was wrong by asserting these things, when I never asserted them in the first place.

I simply oppose their attempts to push such restrictions.

It's not really. Not everything is authoritarian just because a Government enforces a policy. If you start arguing that bullshit, everything that isn't anarchy is authoritarian because at some point stuff gets enforced. We call that stuff "rules". This isn't infringing on human rights, so I don't know why you're going into that direction. This isn't about freedom of movement. Freedom of movement doesn't mean you can go anywhere you like all the time. Otherwise military bases wouldn't be off limits, any sign that says "personell only" would be illegal.

You seem to oppose everything. You oppose policies and the reason for policies to exist at the same time. Sounds to me you're a quintessential reactionary. As for the numbered points, those are the conclusions if one reads your text and thinks it through. Just because you don't spell them out doesn't mean that your argument doesn't ultimately require those points otherwise it wouldn't make any sense. I put them down to make you reconsider what you're saying, but apparently that hasn't worked and you're doubling down...

[Machismo]

It's not really. Not everything is authoritarian just because a Government enforces a policy. If you start arguing that bullshit, everything that isn't anarchy is authoritarian because at some point stuff gets enforced. We call that stuff "rules". This isn't infringing on human rights, so I don't know why you're going into that direction. This isn't about freedom of movement. Freedom of movement doesn't mean you can go anywhere you like all the time. Otherwise military bases wouldn't be off limits, any sign that says "personell only" would be illegal.

You seem to oppose everything. You oppose policies and the reason for policies to exist at the same time. Sounds to me you're a quintessential reactionary. As for the numbered points, those are the conclusions if one reads your text and thinks it through. Just because you don't spell them out doesn't mean that your argument doesn't ultimately require those points otherwise it wouldn't make any sense. I put them down to make you reconsider what you're saying, but apparently that hasn't worked and you're doubling down...

It's authoritarian to me. Telling people where to live, and even forcibly moving them based on their ethnicity, is pretty damn authoritarian.

You keep building straw men, which seems like an odd strategy. There's no need to keep making shit up, when what I typed is right there. Try arguing against what I said, not what you imagined I'm thinking.

Your "conclusions" are not what I said, nor what I was even hinting at. You don't get to claim I'm arguing something that I never said, then when confronted, and even refuted with my own words, try and argue "What you really meant was..." Nope, that's not what I really meant, because I said what I meant. Feel free to address the literal words, instead of that hayboy you constructed in your brain.

I'm not doubling down on what I never said... because I never fucking said it in the first place. Let's look at the math... double of nothing... is nothing.

[Slant]

It's authoritarian to me. Telling people where to live, and even forcibly moving them based on their ethnicity, is pretty damn authoritarian.

You keep building straw men, which seems like an odd strategy. There's no need to keep making shit up, when what I typed is right there. Try arguing against what I said, not what you imagined I'm thinking.

Your "conclusions" are not what I said, nor what I was even hinting at. You don't get to claim I'm arguing something that I never said, then when confronted, and even refuted with my own words, try and argue "What you really meant was..." Nope, that's not what I really meant, because I said what I meant. Feel free to address the literal words, instead of that hayboy you constructed in your brain.

I'm not doubling down on what I never said... because I never fucking said it in the first place. Let's look at the math... double of nothing... is nothing.

Doesn't matter. If you use the word, you are agreeing to the commonly accepted meaning of the word. You do not get to redefine language just to make an argument. So what it means "to you" is irrelevant. You are wrong. You should use the appropriate word. They are not telling people where to live, they are telling people where not to live.

They do this all the fucking time. Did you ever wonder why industrial districts have so little residential housing? Yep, they disallowed people from building and living there. Did you wonder why a city has a certain look? Yes, there's rules that tell you how your house is allowed to look. This happens in society all the time. It's not a big deal. And just because you happen to find out that the Government actually does stuff and you simply didn't know about it until now doesn't make it outrageous. That's how societies function.

I argued against what you said. You just don't like it. That's not my problem, buddy.

[Shadowferal]

If people in US ghettos were forced to live upscale communities with the government footing the proportionate bill I can't see anyone complaining about it, other than those more affluent...and libertarian.

[Rozz]

Does anyone know how this impacts immigrants and the nation later on? Maybe it's better to prevent ghettos, but I worry about the impact it'll have on children who grow up with the policy.

[Machismo]

Doesn't matter. If you use the word, you are agreeing to the commonly accepted meaning of the word. You do not get to redefine language just to make an argument. So what it means "to you" is irrelevant. You are wrong. You should use the appropriate word. They are not telling people where to live, they are telling people where not to live.

They do this all the fucking time. Did you ever wonder why industrial districts have so little residential housing? Yep, they disallowed people from building and living there. Did you wonder why a city has a certain look? Yes, there's rules that tell you how your house is allowed to look. This happens in society all the time. It's not a big deal. And just because you happen to find out that the Government actually does stuff and you simply didn't know about it until now doesn't make it outrageous. That's how societies function.

I argued against what you said. You just don't like it. That's not my problem, buddy.

It does matter, because I'm literally saying I didn't fucking say it, nor did I hint, insinuate, imply, or even allude to it. So, to continue to argue that I totes meant what I never said, is simply disingenuous on your part.

You argued against what I never said... keep building that straw man.

This is telling people where they can, and cannot live. It's literally based on ethnicity. I could just imagine the United States government telling San Francisco to dismantle Chinatown, because it has too many Asians living there. Clearly there's too many Italians and Irish living in Brooklyn, so they need to move, right? Well, the Bible Belt is full of Christians, and we cannot have that... so let's move them further north.

[Machismo]

This is a legitimate argument for the US I guess but a totally irrelevant one for a small, unicultural country like Denmark.

What exactly is "Danish culture?"

[Shadowferal]

Does anyone know how this impacts immigrants and the nation later on? Maybe it's better to prevent ghettos, but I worry about the impact it'll have on children who grow up with the policy.

Well, the "idea" at least how it was supposed to be in the US was the "melting pot." Get one migrating family mixed in a hundred native families...have children mixing, socializing with the natives and native culture.

[Slant]

It does matter, because I'm literally saying I didn't fucking say it, nor did I hint, insinuate, imply, or even allude to it. So, to continue to argue that I totes meant what I never said, is simply disingenuous on your part.

You argued against what I never said... keep building that straw man.

This is telling people where they can, and cannot live. It's literally based on ethnicity. I could just imagine the United States government telling San Francisco to dismantle Chinatown, because it has too many Asians living there. Clearly there's too many Italians and Irish living in Brooklyn, so they need to move, right? Well, the Bible Belt is full of Christians, and we cannot have that... so let's move them further north.

OK, let me spell it out, apparently you don't know what you're doing:

I'm not saying they cannot do it, merely that it's an authoritarian step to take. Nations have the "right" to limit pretty much whatever freedoms they like. Countries implement all sorts of measures that are terrible, yet they are free to do so.

It's authoritarian to me. Telling people where to live, and even forcibly moving them based on their ethnicity, is pretty damn authoritarian.

That's you using a word wrong. Multiple times. You LITERALLY said it multiple times. And used it wrong. You didn't hint, insinuate, imply or allude, you EXPLICITELY USED THE WORD. And then I pointed out to you that you seem to follow the wrong definition if you think that a Government telling people where not to live is authoritarian, you started doubling down on this and claim I am arguing strawman and that's what the word meant to you... a sure way to tell an American has lost the plot and no actual argument anymore. It doesn't matter what the word "means to you". You are losing the argument on a formality because your formal education apparently failed you. That's tough for you, but ultimately doesn't win you any points.

Governments implement rules on housing ALL THE FUCKING TIME. If you argue that this is authoritarian, you live in an authoritarian regime yourself. Something isn't authoritarian because of racism, btw. I'm just throwing this in here just in case you are so married to the buzzword because of that.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict.../authoritarian

Definition of authoritarian
1: of, relating to, or favoring blind submission to authority
had authoritarian parents
2: of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people
an authoritarian regime

What the fuck is it with you lot and not knowing what words mean today?

[Machismo]

OK, let me spell it out, apparently you don't know what you're doing:





That's you using a word wrong. Multiple times. You LITERALLY said it multiple times. And used it wrong. You didn't hint, insinuate, imply or allude, you EXPLICITELY USED THE WORD. And then I pointed out to you that you seem to follow the wrong definition if you think that a Government telling people where not to live is authoritarian, you started doubling down on this and claim I am arguing strawman... a sure way to tell an American has lost the plot and no actual argument anymore.

Governments implement rules on housing ALL THE FUCKING TIME. If you argue that this is authoritarian, you live in an authoritarian regime yourself. Something isn't authoritarian because of racism, btw.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dict.../authoritarian


What the fuck is it with you lot and not knowing what words mean today?

Yes, that is authoritarian. Now, HOW authoritarian it is can easily be debated. Is it authoritarian when the Israeli government bulldozes neighborhoods and builds Jewish settlements?

You made three bullet points that I never said, that's the problem. can you acknowledge that I didn't say those things? Or, are you simply going to try to ignore those straw men. When I confronted you about those straw men, you said I was doubling down on something I didn't even say in the first place. Shall I refresh your memory?

1. A universal right to move and be a citizen of any country that you choose. Such a right does not exist.
2. The Danish population has no right to determine what type of society it wants to run. That couldn't be further from the truth, the Danish people are the ONLY ones that can determine what Danish society looks like.
3. That Denmark doesn't have a clear and well defined "culture". That's just nonsense. And you've essentially argued that Danish people should "give up being Danish, or else..."

Are you willing to acknowledge that I never said those things?


As for calling it authoritarian, I absolutely did, and I stand by it. This is the government literally saying where people can, and cannot live... based on their fucking ethnicity. This would mean dismantling Chinatown in San Francisco and other similar neighborhoods across this country. That seems pretty fucking authoritarian.

As for authoritarianism itself, the judgement of such things is largely subjective. Many would consider the Chinese government to be quite authoritarian, others would disagree. So, who is right?

[Logwyn]

Well, the "idea" at least how it was supposed to be in the US was the "melting pot." Get one migrating family mixed in a hundred native families...have children mixing, socializing with the natives and native culture.

Forcing schools to be integrated did not really work too well in the US. Been said that the USA is a nation of immigrants that hates immigrants. Irony at its finest.

People tend to favor others that are like them or from the same nation. Human nature. Danes would have been better off saying that they are limiting immigration from certain countries that are known to support terrorism.

[Rozz]

Well, the "idea" at least how it was supposed to be in the US was the "melting pot." Get one migrating family mixed in a hundred native families...have children mixing, socializing with the natives and native culture.

Yeah, that's why I'm concerned. It's anecdotal, but I worry that this sort of policy will introduce its own complicated set of social issues on those 30%. But I don't have any evidence to back up such a worry other than my own distrust. I can rationally see how community bubbles can stagnate those moving to a new place, but also recognize the importance they have to the groups that form them.

[Slant]

Are you willing to acknowledge that I never said those things?

As for calling it authoritarian, I absolutely did, and I stand by it. This is the government literally saying where people can, and cannot live... based on their fucking ethnicity. This would mean dismantling Chinatown in San Francisco and other similar neighborhoods across this country. That seems pretty fucking authoritarian.

As for authoritarianism itself, the judgement of such things is largely subjective. Many would consider the Chinese government to be quite authoritarian, others would disagree. So, who is right?

Sheesh...

If you think Governments telling people in its country, specifically non-ciitzens on where not to settle is authoritarian, that implies you think there is a universal right to move literally wherever you want. That's just a common sense conclusion to what you said. The implication is obvious, as it would be the only legal way for your argument to be true. If you were aware of this doesn't matter, I put it there to make you aware of it.

Let me ask you... why can't you go and build a residential house in an industrial district?

That's the problem with people who demand such things, a complete and total inability to actually show exactly what that "culture" is. In the end, it boils down to "Be more like us, or else..."

And then you move on to say that the Danish say "Be like us, or else". The implication being that you think it's wrong that the Danish exert control over their society. Again, this is a point you didn't think through, that's why I pointed it out to you.

And then you proceed to ask the Danish to somehow prove what their culture is? They don't have to. They ARE their culture. You might as well ask me to prove that I exist.

Anything else you'd like me to point out to you? See, this is the problem when I acutally think about what you write. And then suddenly you realise that your 2s thought post was pretty silly to begin with. And now you're mad cos I'm not letting it go. I understand.

- - - Updated - - -

As for authoritarianism itself, the judgement of such things is largely subjective. Many would consider the Chinese government to be quite authoritarian, others would disagree. So, who is right?

*beep* Wrong. It's not subjective. That's just you being lazy and not having an actual argument. A western democracy like Denmark is BY ALL ACCOUNTS AND METRICS not authoritarian. I am done here, won't waste my time any longer with this nonsense.

[Freighter]

Yeah, that's why I'm concerned. It's anecdotal, but I worry that this sort of policy will introduce its own complicated set of social issues on those 30%. But I don't have any evidence to back up such a worry other than my own distrust. I can rationally see how community bubbles can stagnate those moving to a new place, but also recognize the importance they have to the groups that form them.

Like what? Singapore has been doing similar to this for a long time now.

[Shadowferal]

Forcing schools to be integrated did not really work too well in the US. Been said that the USA is a nation of immigrants that hates immigrants. Irony at its finest.

A nation of immigrants that insist they're Americans... I guess it was always going to be a work in progress. That's my American interpretation. The big issue in most other countries is their respective cultural identities. Language, history, social mores, traditions, et al... Being born and raised as a citizen of a country and what that means to...you. You have these things...been around them all the time and like most people you become blind to what you've lived with your entire life. The only time you awaken to...this, is when an immigrant shows you something different. It doesn't mean bad or good, but it usually challenges your unique cultural identity.

...rambling...sorry.

- - - Updated - - -

Like what? Singapore has been doing similar to this for a long time now.

Do you live in Singapore?

[Freighter]

Do you live in Singapore?

I used to a few years back.

[Shadowferal]

I used to a few years back.

And you left?
No. Nevermind. It's not for me to know.

[Freighter]

And you left?
No. Nevermind. It's not for me to know.

Yes, because I lost my job. Couldn't exactly stay there and had to go back home.

[Machismo]

Sheesh...

If you think Governments telling people in its country, specifically non-ciitzens on where not to settle is authoritarian, that implies you think there is a universal right to move literally wherever you want. That's just a common sense conclusion to what you said. The implication is obvious, as it would be the only legal way for your argument to be true. If you were aware of this doesn't matter, I put it there to make you aware of it.

Let me ask you... why can't you go and build a residential house in an industrial district?



And then you move on to say that the Danish say "Be like us, or else". The implication being that you think it's wrong that the Danish exert control over their society. Again, this is a point you didn't think through, that's why I pointed it out to you.

And then you proceed to ask the Danish to somehow prove what their culture is? They don't have to. They ARE their culture. You might as well ask me to prove that I exist.

Anything else you'd like me to point out to you? See, this is the problem when I acutally think about what you write. And then suddenly you realise that your 2s thought post was pretty silly to begin with. And now you're mad cos I'm not letting it go. I understand.

- - - Updated - - -



*beep* Wrong. It's not subjective. That's just you being lazy and not having an actual argument. A western democracy like Denmark is BY ALL ACCOUNTS AND METRICS not authoritarian. I am done here, won't waste my time any longer with this nonsense.

Nope, that's you reverting back to your initial straw man. How many times do I need to tell you that I'm not saying that? Considering I have refuted your claim, and have categorically denied that's wat I'm saying, then you are the one with the disconnect.

To answer your question, because the government says so, and will force me out... it's not because I happen to be the wrong race, which is what is happening here.

if you are going to demand I adhere to a culture, you sure as shit better be able to define what that culture is. If not, then there's a huge problem. As for the "implication," I am emphatically saying you are wrong, and I am not implying that. That's just you bouncing back to the straw man... again.

So, is China authoritarian? If authoritarianism is not subjective, then please point out the list of countries that are authoritarian, and those that are not. After all, if it's an objective truth, then such a thing should be very easy for you to demonstrate. I want to see the exact point when our 200 nations suddenly become authoritarian.