I hate to agree with TS on anything, but Muslim men are not a vulnerable group (except in isolated pockets). They surely are playing that card well though.

Muslim women are the most vulnerable group on earth, imo. And yet the Left refuses to do anything to help them.

lol

You got a peer reviewed paper because when a link goes to the muslim issue with a link of consequences of Muslim inbreeding I'm not clicking it.

I doubt these papers have sourced their own data to build their analysis so you can find me the actual links or I'm going to think you just went with the Born in Bradford study that does not support your view but does highlight a problem in 6% of children born of a blood relative. Usually first cousins.

Were talking about a group of people that includes refugees from horrific war torn zones, people who have seen their communities and families ripped apart, killed and suffer greatly at the hand of brutal dictators, extremists and war.

We're talking about people who live in the west, some for many generations who despite just trying to get on with their lives like the rest of us face prejudice and hatred because of the acts of extremists who are their enemies even more than they are ours.

We may all have our views about Trump, Putin, Asad, Erdigan etc but it's the ordinary people in Muslim countries who are in the front line of the consequences of the political decisions.

Yes, those people are vulnerable. I already said in isolated pockets they are. But they are only a tiny fraction of all Muslims and many of them are not even Muslim. Don't equate individuals with an entire group. Or do you think Arab princes are vulnerable as well? How about the Indonesian Muslim with four wives... Vulnerable? Most Muslims live in Muslim controlled countries where they are a protected class, and many of those countries overtly or covertly ban other religions.

I mean, come on, I honestly thought you were one of the reasonable leftists.

I'm not equating individuals with the group at all

If you want to criticise an individual or group for their actual actions then that's going to be fine. It's making it about 'the Muslims' that is the problem.

Yes, obviously. But I was responding to the claim that Muslims are a vulnerable group. Only some of them are.

Generally when we are talking about Muslims being a protected class / vulnerable group it is in the context of majority non Muslim countries where they are in a minority. This is a heavily US Europe centric forum and so it may seem that the label is being used universally.

Of course but it's the vulnerable ones we have to be concerned about and they're the ones who are harmed by non PC language

This isn't some heavy handed approach. You can still address all the political issues.

Got it. Non PC language about Muslims is bad. Non PC language about people with Down Syndrome is ok.

Strange rules, but it's your forum.

Yes. These people are women and children sitting in refugee camps, praying for help, while Europe imports 70% fit young men - zero of which are actual refugees under the refugee convention as they've traversed multiple safe countries - over half of which aren't even refugees in any sense of the word.

This privileging of fit men young over women and children happens because of people like you.
This is just a fantasy in your mind, and nothing more, created by the same lying media who say no-go zones don't exist. Who covered up Cologne mass sexual assaults. Etc. Your mind is not all attached to reality here.

Death and maiming and fear done by male Muslim hate crimes is hundreds of times greater than death and maiming and fear done to any Muslims. Yet you protect the Muslims males. Why?

Subjugation, repression, abuse and misogynist hate crimes done by Muslim men to Muslim women is tens of thousands of times more prevalent than subjugation, etc of Muslim women done by others. Yet here you are protecting the Muslim men.

Respectfully, your mind is utterly warped on this issue and has no connection to reality. You're protecting the most hateful, violent, misogynist, xenophobic, non-integrating group of people on Earth. This is an objective fact.
The harm done to Muslims by Islam, and to Muslim women by Muslim men, far outweighs any harm done by the West. And views like yours kill more people than Bush ever did. Take Obama's choice to arm the rebels. It came from a left wing view, partly created and pushed by people like you, that Muslims are just like you and me, that they're essentially good people who want democracy and freedom. This is true for some, but as we know from opinion polls, not true for a huge proportion. In much of the Middle East there are two choices - secular dictators, or heavily fundamentalist Islam. The first is actually the best of two horrible choices.

The Arab Spring was always a stupid thing to cheer. Believing that Muslims would form decent societies if just given a chance was a fantasy completely detached from reality in the heads of people who could have known better if not for left wing PC bias in academia and the media.

People like you hurt real people. You do horrible things to women. You need to own it. 400,000 Muslims are dead, millions displaced, a terror group controls the lives of 8 million people, because of people like you. The Syrian rebels - basically ISIS - would never have been armed and funded without left wing PC bias. Muslims would be integrated, and not living in huge ghettos, if not for left wing PC bias. You need to own the vast harm your worldview does to Muslims.

Black peter needed the context spelled out for him. "Whaddya mean black people are a vulnerable group, dontcha know Africa exists?!" ****ing simpleton.

5ive managed to get through an entire post about black people without using the N word. Finally, some progress from the racist pig.

Non PC language about people with Downs Syndrome is definitely not ok.

What is and isn't PC language isn't always clear and changes over time. I will do my best and discusssion about it will be very welcome. I will get it wrong sometimes and there will be other times when there is no clear right or wrong.

So its a yes then?

You think taking some care over language is the cause of all that?

The people in camps are a huge concern. I'd like to see us take in a lot more and very much include the women and children. I'd also like to see political solutions so it's safe for those who want to to go home.

Where do you we disagree?

Yes. I think the PC view of Muslims - that they're normal people just like you and me, and to say or suggest otherwise is horrible racism - is responsible for the way the Arab Spring was handled. Which is responsible for prolonging the war in Syria, the deaths, the refugees, ISIS.

Treating arriving Muslims with a PC worldview rather than a "you're scum with backward beliefs and need to integrate and learn some tolerance, or be sent home without a second thought" worldview, has deeply harmed Muslims.

Your view of the world is toxic.

If you're going to import them en masse, toxic beliefs like Islam have to met with unyielding strength and active disruption, not pandering and self censorship. Funnily enough, the left understands that when it comes to racism/KKK/Nazi like views. It doesn't understand it when it comes to worst-than-KKK views that many Muslims have. It's bizarre.
We disagree on whether we should handle vile ideologies with kid gloves. We disagree on who the oppressors are. We disagree on who we should protect, and why, and the consequences of doing so. We disagree on the effect rhetoric against Muslims will have (the Swedes are the most welcoming, PC people on Earth, for example - it hasn't moderated the Muslim communities there, who are more radical than in racist places of the world). We disagree on the reasons Muslims haven't integrated. We disagree on what will happen when Muslim populations grow larger. We disagree on whether Muslims can and will integrate without being forced to.

We agree that women and children in camps need helping over men.

I don't say it's horrible racism. I am saying as mod that you are goign to have to cut out saying that they aren't normal people.

and cut out saying that they're scum

They do have to conform to our laws and I dont want to pander or self-censor beyond being PC which cannot bear responsibiltiy for all the stuff you're heaping on it.

I agree we do disagree on a lot of that. I dont even agree on how you describe my position - there are no 'kid gloves' for example.

More like 'as well as the men' but it's a start.

In Germany they are already running commercials of white women wearing a burka to get white women to wear them because they have given up assimilating them already.

<snipped>

You know as well as I that once their numbers start rivaling white numbers THATS when laws start changing. In fact they are changing now where you can't say anything negative about Islam. They know white people there are generally very weak and buy into the "tolerance" BS they've been programmed to accept for fear of being called the oh so scary words "racist" and "bigot." As if lightning will strike them down if someone calls them the R-word.

There are even incidences of women who have been gang banged and identified their attackers as "migrants" and the women get labeled racists EVEN by who're people.

Just give it 15-20 years. When each Muslim dude has 18 kids by 4 different women.... And soon enough.... Chezlaw will be on the guillotione chopping block.

For those that don't know a Guardian article on Britain First.

Leader of hate group associated with other hate groups such as the British Nationalist Party and English Defence League leaves Britain first because it's too racist.

I'm not saying they're scum. I'm contrasting attitudes - your PC "softly softly let's not offend people who have horrible beliefs" and alternative ways of framing the situation. The strength of Muslim beliefs, the zeal behind them - is why the Middle East is all dictators and strongmen. Why the only secular Muslim state can be that way because they have a hyper-vigilant army constantly step in and ban/repress the fundamentalist. They're the only ones capable of keeping Muslim fundamentalism at bay.

The "softly softly, let's no offend the minority" approach allows radicalization to happen. It actually encourages it. Youth have pastors screaming the "truth" at them (that gays should be killed, that Jews are scum who should be wiped out, that non-Muslims are lesser human beings, etc), and the message they get from people like you? "Islam is a peaceful religion and we're sorry for being racist! We know you are underprivileged! We're no better". It does a disservice to everyone - the West, Muslims, and especially Muslim women. Integration of immigrants was brutal back in America in 1900s - you work or starve. You integrate or get left behind. And you know what? It worked. Do you think the current PC version is working, with radicalized Muslim ghettos all over Europe that get worse, not better, in the second and third generation?

Of course it can. Your view of the world has killed hundreds of thousands of people and displaced millions in the last few years. It infected Obama's mind, the Democrat's mind, and it informed a view of foreign policy that was utterly at odds with reality - the idea that Muslims are "just like you and me". The Muslims in Syria are not. The are as different to Westerners as Nazis were to the British. The Pew results show that. A very large portion of the population are heavily fundamentalist and happy to condone violence and oppression of women. They do not change in the second, third generation, at least not with the "softly softly let's not upset the vulnerable group or force them to integrate under pain of deportation" ideology.

I realize you find that view offensive. That you do is incredible, though. You're British FFS. You're turning into a sad parody of your former brave selves. It's straight up Brave New World with all of its crazy.
Of course there are kid gloves. How much have you disparaged racism vs Muslim hate? You call Muslim males "vulnerable groups". That is the definition of kid gloves. They are the precise opposite of vulnerable group. Muslim males, as a group, are the greatest oppressors of women in both the West and their own countries.
I contend that if you really care about helping as many Muslims as possible, you would turn around anyone who makes it to Germany or England as a "refugee", and use the large sums of money ($90 billion according to Merkel) otherwise wasted on them to help far more, actual, vulnerable refugees.

Another example of insane leftist policy informed by PC, that's actually hurting people relative to resources rather than helping them. $90 billion could wipe out the hunger of 200 million children and their parents - in fact all world hunger and malnutrition - for that same time period, rather than "help" a million dissatisfied Muslim males. It could put all of the world's millions of refugees in livable tents and a private army for security, with most of the money left over. Resettle millions in third countries in actual houses and new lives.

You do tremendous damage to real people trying to bend over backwards to be PC.

Britain First are a political party formed by a "politician" because the BNP were no longer racist enough for him. True story.

ok but PC is not about not offending people who have horrible beliefs. It's not really about offense at all. It's about language that results in hatred and prejudice towards people who are vulnerable to the resuts of that hatred and prejudice.

You realise wrong. I've snipped a lot of your post because we need to deal with some of the incorrect assumptions it's built on.

I'm not remotely offended. Not in the least bit.

I've tried to explain what I mean by vulnerable groups.


I dont see it as waste at all. Where there's other things we can do then I'm keen to hear about it but I dont see it as an either/or.

Again it's nothing to do with being PC. I can understand someone urging that we tackle world hunger as a top priority. Plenty of other places to find the money before we start cutting out help to other people in need.

This is not a place to promote Britain First. No links or claims it's a source of information please.

There's a long line I wont sweat that most implausible eventuality

I'm curious about this decision, Chez. I understand you don't want to spread hatred you feel is harmful, but links to videos? Are you claiming you believe any videos on that site would be doctored, fake news?

Brings me back to the no-go zone claims and I asked in P if anyone thought this 60 minutes video was badly edited or staged. Finally a day later someone did claim it was but provided no evidence. What is the good of making denials, unsubstantiated accusations, and even censoring these sorts of videos? Do you think that does any good? I don't. I think it probably makes people think you're just obscuring the truth, and you lose credibility. Why not let them in and argue about them, provide evidence, etc, confront the issues head on?