Let me state my personal opinion about that as only one member of the AoEZone staff.
Like robo, I check reports and will delete posts that clearly violate the forum rules. (These rules were explicit and public on old AoCZone, they should be reinstated publicly.)
Unlike robo, I more or less read every word of the current discussion. Personally, I'm disgusted by certain right wing talking points and I'm very grateful to any AoEZone user who argues against it in here. I'd rather keep 1 post I disagree with and 5 I sympathize with than censor any posts or close topics. People should see that right wing opinions are not shut down by a censorship apparatus, but they simply face a majority of better arguments. Personally, I don't think there are illegitimate opinions or feelings (unless unauthentically manufactered for manipulative reasons). Hence I hate censoring. But there are wrong and weak arguments. Hence I hope for people who do the effort of arguing against what is wrong again and again, even if it won't change the mind of the people they're arguing against. A public discussion has always more than two interlocutors, there are always some lurkers on the fence. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." The deeds of good wo*men should be engaging in discussions, not censorship. So thanks to the 'good' posters in here, you are my heros! Show them we are united about this! Be proud!
AoE is what unites us, but we are a discussion forum with an off-topic section ("Community Café").
It takes under half a minute to do it:Haven't people already filmed themselves easily getting past Trumps "wall"?
What are those deper socio-economic factors?There is no serious publication or research that proves immigration leads to higher crime numbers. Once you account for socioeconomical factors, as anyone serious and not completely biased would, immigrants and descendants of immigrants do not have a higher criminal record than "local" population.
"Problems with immigrants" are merely a symptom of deeper socio economical failures of the system, but it's much more convenient to blame the others than conducting a deeper analysis on what is wrong with one's own society.
It takes under half a minute to do it:
Trump's Wall being free climbed in 27 seconds.
Rock climbing guide Erik Kloeker from Red River Gorge, Kentucky free solo's a replica of Trump's southern border wall. The replica uses the exact dimensions ...youtu.be
Do you want a brief summary from Marx over Gramsci, Lukacs, Bourdieu, Foucault to Piketty?What are those deper socio-economic factors?
Well, yes.Do you want a brief summary from Marx over Gramsci, Lukacs, Bourdieu, Foucault to Piketty?
Unfortunately this takes more than a small forum post.
So people here argue with me, because I blame immigrantion for problems in society (lets say criminality) and you come with explanation that blames society (or rather economy?) for immigrants problems? I am not sure if I understood your intentions correctly.Hm, I can't do all of them, but let's start with something ...
Disclaimer: A "brief summary" of complex sociological theories that fill books is obviously utter nonsense and doesn't release anybody who is interested from reading the s*** for oneself. I'm also a little shaky on the English translation of specific terms so please, anybody feel free to correct.
Marx:
The exchange value of a consumable thing is a measure of the average labor necessary to create or recreate the object. Human labor force is a consumable thing, whose recreation requires less labor than it is able to supply itself. So, human labor generates surplus value.
If somebody can't produce consumable things for themselves due to the lack of means of production, they have to sell their labor power to an owner of means of production and this owner consumes (or reinvests) the surplus value. Capital is basically the ability to buy and consume human labor power.
Machinery involved in the production only transfers their value to the consumable thing that is produced. Due to technological progress the share of value in the thing that comes from human labor decreases and therefore the rate of profit for the owner of the means of production generally falls. This tendency is partly balanced by progressive accumulation of capital, increased exploitation, generation of new societal needs and other mechanisms.
The structure of a society stems only from its principles of production. The position of a person in the society is governed by his or her position in the production process. The person's consciousness is governed by his or her material existence. The state and all its institutions (bureaucracy, law enforcement, education, etc.) are created to reproduce and enforce the current variant of the societal production process.
It's admirable that you're trying to explain how the economy exploits the people at the bottom of society. On the other hand, people on the right are already creating this looming threat of "post-modern neo-marxism", so it might be lost on them.
As TriRem already said, it should be enough to point out that ethnicity is not a predictor for criminal behavior once you account for other social factors like poverty, education, etc.
I hate this logic. At some point you blame the individual, not the circumstances. I was poor, worked hard on my education, got a good job, didnt steal. Maybe your argument is indeed lost on me.
By the way, most western countries are exploiting the rich. Not only do they tax a percentage of your income (so the rich pay more), the percentage goes up if you earn more.
This is not really getting to the point of discussion. TriRem was kinda saying: If you take 100 immigrants and compare them to 100 non-immigrants with equal socioeconomic factors (environment, financial situation etc..) there wont be a noticeable difference (in criminal rate)I hate this logic. At some point you blame the individual, not the circumstances. I was poor, worked hard on my education, got a good job, didnt steal. Maybe your argument is indeed lost on me.
By the way, most western countries are exploiting the rich. Not only do they tax a percentage of your income (so the rich pay more), the percentage goes up if you earn more.
I hate this logic. At some point you blame the individual, not the circumstances. I was poor, worked hard on my education, got a good job, didnt steal. Maybe your argument is indeed lost on me.
By the way, most western countries are exploiting the rich. Not only do they tax a percentage of your income (so the rich pay more), the percentage goes up if you earn more.
The point is that you blame immigration for problems in society based on correlations in certain statistics. But correlation is not causality. And the intention is to show, that the reason for the correlation lies in socio-economic phenomena, which affect immigrants more than average, because society is discriminatory for various reasons.So people here argue with me, because I blame immigrantion for problems in society (lets say criminality) and you come with explanation that blames society (or rather economy?) for immigrants problems? I am not sure if I understood your intentions correctly.
This, at least, is only true for income taxes. The rich, not in the sense of some wealthy middle class, however, live off yield on capital, which usually is taxed less than income (in Germany 25% vs. 45% max. income tax).By the way, most western countries are exploiting the rich. Not only do they tax a percentage of your income (so the rich pay more), the percentage goes up if you earn more.
This, at least, is only true for income taxes. The rich, not in the sense of some wealthy middle class, however, live off yield on capital, which usually is taxed less than income (in Germany 25% vs. 45% max. income tax).
How does blaming the individual or referring to the individual help in addressing societal problems or when analysing statistics? Humans when looked at as a group dont behave like perfect individuals but rather predictable. Point being that if you have lets say 100 individuals starting off poor and 100 individuals starting off rich, it is very very likely that the second group will do better on avg after a given amount of time than the first group. Or if you put humans in certain environements they will behave somewhat predictably, which in turn possibly doesnt hold true for one individual at all, but that doesnt really matter.
What you wrote there is actually very easy to disprove.
If only the individual were to blame, you would expect to see similar poverty rates across all the ethnicities.
No, poverty depends on so many factors. Your ethnicity depends (on average) on your geographical location. Your opportunities depend greatly on your location. But I suppose we are talking about immigrants in a western culture. I believe your chances of succeeding depend on your parents, your culture, your motivation, your genes (not talking about race here, I am saying someone with a talent for welding or medicine has more chance to succeed than someone artistic) and the social systems in place to help kids to start their education.
As it stands though, minorities are at a far greater risk for poverty. Statistics don’t lie.
So it’s very clear there are other factors that play a role here.
Unless you actually believe that being white inherently makes you more hardworking than say a black person?
Of course not, I believe (as does science) that the racial differences are less than the variations within a race. I believe nurture is more important than nature anyway.
As for your last point, here’s an easy example to understand.
If you make 500$/month, you obviously need to make every cent count. Now if you were to pay 50% taxes on top of that, it’s very easy to see how the situation becomes unsustainable.
Now if you’re making 6 figures a month though, even if you pay 50% taxes, you are still making a good amount of money and living a comfortable life.
That’s why the percentage increases when you go higher up on the tax bracket.
Ya, but that's where we are in different worlds. In my country a salary of 500$ a month for an adult on a full time job (40h/week) is not allowed. Compagnies are forced to pay a minimum salary. It isnt much, certainly not enough to buy a house, own 2 cars and raise 2 kids but its plenty to live and pay taxes. If you cant work the government will give you money, most of that money isnt coming from my salary but from your 6 figure friend.
Ya I am planning to visit Somalia, Yemen and North Korea for a fresh perspective. Maybe then I can judge the western world with my new 'higher' standards. I am sure my conclusion would be the same tho, in the western world the rich (or rather those with high paying jobs) are doing the heavy lifting in absolute terms. Please explain why your view is different.Anyone that looks around a country in the western world and is saying the society is "exploiting" the rich has to get some perspective...
You simply can not deny causality between immigration and crime. I asked and I ask again. Is child marriages, honor killings, acid attacks, vandalizing christian temples or hypergamy something common in modern european culture? Or is it result of immigration?The point is that you blame immigration for problems in society based on correlations in certain statistics. But correlation is not causality. And the intention is to show, that the reason for the correlation lies in socio-economic phenomena, which affect immigrants more than average, because society is discriminatory for various reasons.
You simply can not deny causality between immigration and crime.
Researchers in the United States have pointed out that the urban crime problem is not generated by immigrants, legal or undocumented, and that immigrants are not increasing crime rates. Socially disadvantaged neighborhoods may, however, make immigrant groups more susceptible to crime victimization when social support networks do not exist or are lacking. Despite the research findings on crime and immigration, the U.S. public mistakenly believes foreign-born immigrants to be dangerous criminals. To respond to undocumented immigration and the public fear of crime, anti-immigration laws enacted in the early 21st century have attempted to hasten the deportation processes for undocumented immigrants. Such laws have increased the workload in the U.S. courts, and consequently deportation is likely when the undocumented immigrant has committed a serious violent crime or agrees to removal. Immigration laws and policies should consider the unintended consequences of crime victimization on undocumented immigrants and the global conditions that cause mass migrations of people across dangerous borders.
I asked and I ask again. Is child marriages, honor killings, acid attacks, vandalizing christian temples or hypergamy something common in modern european culture? Or is it result of immigration?
We walking circles. Once again you look for reasons in some vague socio-economic phenomena and also discriminatory society. What are those socio-economic phenomena? Is it poverty? Poverty does not cause crime. Is it lack of education? Lack of education does not cause crime. Do you know where the problem lies? It lies in cultures that immigrants bring with them and values that are ingrained within them.
I agree partly. But then again, the people with high-paying jobs and "the rich" (let's say the richest 0,01% of the population), who mostly live off yield of capital are two very distinct groups, the only common demographic probably being super-well-payed managers (who usually receive income depending on the company's yield of capital or shareholder value).in the western world the rich (or rather those with high paying jobs) are doing the heavy lifting in absolute terms
I did not mention straight murders. Anyway, you avoided my question. Who brought that specific type of crimes into Europe?But above all, dumbing down a complex system of factors and causes which makes a person likely to commit a crime into "ME MUSLEM SO ME KELL AND STEAL" is just straight up insane.