No because every organisation in the world exists under conditions of internal logics frustrated by external ones and every organisation finds an equilibrium thereby. Its not failure if the internal logics can not fully express themselves its just the natural state of limitation that all organisations exist within.

So now do you see? Look at your bold and look at his bold.

This is a person who needs to know smeone's skin colour before they can form an opinion about them.

And now I hope you can see why critics call people like this "regressive".

^ Not sure if you misunderstood what he wrote or if you are intentionally misrepresenting it. Hint: Nowhere in that quoted paragraph does he mention anything about "forming an opinion about them".

And this is the reason why lots of people across Europe would support a ban:

https://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/...im-immigration

This is about underlying values, and the feeling that lots of these people from Muslim countries are fundamentally not on their side.

If you read the Dame Casey report: https://www.gov.uk/government/public...nd-integration

Lots of Muslim people openly say they wouldn't report a terrorist, for example. Lots of Muslim people openly say they don't feel positively towards the UK, for example.

I watched an interview on French TV with someone who is a Muslim living and working in France arguing for the right to put Sharia Law over French law.

All of this sort of thing leads people to the views they have.

But let's just gloss over it all with the word "racism" and never look at the underlying issues, cos it is easier and I want to feel good about myself telling everyone that Donald Trump is a bad man.

"No Trump, no KKK, no fascist USA!"

So far off the mark it's unreal.

when you say "support for islam" do you mean people that think muslims should have the same rights as everyone else, including the alt-righters, or do you mean stuff like economic support for islamist organisations? the second one seems rare.

because you can obviously both believe in human rights and believe that muslims should have human rights.

Oh here we go again. It's other "people across Europe who support a ban" on Muslims, not you of course, oh no, because you're only an anti-SJW (wtf that really means).

It depends on the definition of Muslim. If you define a Muslim as someone who believes that the Koran is the literal word of God, well that also includes the obligation to kill apostates then there is little room for their being classed as moderates by mainstream European culture.

But there are people who say they are Muslims but in practice ignore most of the dumb stuff - presumably they don't think it actually comes from a deity but they are unwilling to cut ties with (and risk retribution from) the community they were born in. They are usually called "moderate muslims", but "closet apostates" might be more apt in some cases.

I look at data and draw inferences and think strategically from hence. I listen to what people are saying and why.

I don't "support the Muslim ban", but I do support looking at the underlying reasons for people feeling the way they do.

Hint: "oh, they are just all racists" doesn't cut it.

A bit like cultural Jews who are effectively atheists? Then fair enough it might earn some slight carve-outs.

But maybe not, because maintaining and building the brand is still condoning the extremism.

Isn't he just pointing out that skln colour matters to some other people, such as racists who are the mirror image of (my definition of) SJWs and are making the opposite mistake compared to the correct position of just giving everyone a fair go.

Lets say I judged all Christians/White people on the basis of that leaflet. You would rightly proceed to call me a dumbo and a bigot.

That is because you are familiar with the cultural precedents of that leaflet and all the massive plurality contained with the semiotic container of "Christian" "White" etc.

But guess what, the person judging all Muslims on the basis of that one interview is just as dumb and bigoted as anyone judging all Christians on the basis of that leaflet. It only does not immediately appear that way because you are unfamiliar with the cultural precedents of that interview and all the plurality within the term Muslim.

This is the difference between the left and the right, the right rush in at break neck speed to make sweeping generalisations about identity, trying to create homogenous blocks of belief and agency where as the left being just smarter in general understand that heterogeneity is the natural state of large groupings of populations.

You will probably deny it, but you would be fine with someone calling the Christian judger a racist but not fine with someone calling the Muslim judger a racist.

You are not really against identity politics in the slightest, you just want it reformulated so more allowable to make sweeping statements against certain political identities, if anything you want to strengthen identity politics.

I didn't read it that way.

I think there is basically no difference between a racist and an SJW when it comes to this. They both play identity politics but bat for different sides.

And then shout down anyone who doesn't really want to do identity politics but wants to look at data.

"But you would say that because you're a straight white male".

Oh right, there we are.

This is a completely misleading definition though, you wouldn't apply it to other religions.

How many people do you know who literally believe in Noah's Ark or that the earth is 6000 years old? That has to be <5% of Christians in Europe, and much lower when excluding olds. Everyone else is not a Christian in your book?

Most Muslims are moderate and cherry pick what they choose to believe. If you exclude these moderate ones and only look at people who believe literally then yes, the remaining ones are not being classed as "moderates". The same applies to Christians though.

You seem to have missed the part where I posted two different studies.

One by the Royal Institute of International Affairs and the other commissioned by the UK Government.

Data which suggests that the man represented on French television actually isn't that uncommon.

But that would involve actually looking at the facts wouldn't it, which it seems you are spectacularly unwilling to do.

Some are racists, others have had their xenophobia ramped up by a persistent campaign in the mass media and from deplorables like you.

Issues:

- People not speaking English [insert native host language here] and being raised in envionments where they happens generationally.
- People not integrating in society
- People not adopting the values of the host nation
- People maintaining greater allegience to and interests in their country of origin than their host nation.

I mean ... people who keep on harping on about Irish and Jews and Italians going to New York don't seem to recognise that most of those people properly left their countries to build a new life and adopted American values when they arrived.

Muslim populations across Europe have not been doing this. So why do people keep making that analogy?

You are a partisan shill and a zealot who can only see racism and xenophobia as issues, and who can only label people when they give you data and real issues that led people to their views.

I'll remind you I voted to remain in the EU.

You're calling me a "deplorable" for basically just speaking the truth about why people voted the way they did. *You* are the issue.

This here, total and absolute damning evidence of pure intellectual dishonesty in black and white.

Nothing I posted pointed or implied anything like the quoted statement, its just made up fantasy bull****.

Anyway, I'm fired up so I'm off for a cup of tea.

The more people like me dominate the conversation, the greater hope we will have of reaching a brighter future for everyone, because I'm looking at underlying issues. I'm actually listening to what people are saying and why. I'm actually giving a clear picture of what has happened.

The more people like jalfrezi dominate it, the more we will exacerabate current problems because he's only offering a surface-level analysis in the name of ... I don't even know. Some warped righteous sense of political correctness. If the left sticks to jalfrezi's narrative, we'll have Nazism again across Europe. Properly. And that scares me, because history tells us that when Europe lurches right, it lurches right.

I hope people will come to their senses sooner rather than later.

Lord, how many Muslims do you personally know? Maybe things are different in the UK, but ime the vast majority of Muslims integrates just fine and only a small minority doesn't.

Whay are you singling out Muslims for this attention?

I've worked with people whose Indian parents immigrated from Uganda, and they still hold India in a much higher regard than Britain, the country that rescued them from a terrible fate.

The whole question of identity is extremely complex and lends itself very poorly to the sort of glib 'analysis' you're attempting with a very obvious anti-Muslim skew.

You're like ToothSayer with go slower stripes.

Well my dad is Iranian, so there's a wonderful start.

And my opinions on this are formed from a mixture of having a special interest in this topic for this reason, and first-hand experience of seeing how migrant communities operate internally.

The person who doesn't see racism and xenophobia as issues is the issue. That means you.

Your wafer thin 'analysis' is, as usual, based on nothing other than sheer ignorance:

UK mosques open day

Jalfrezi, you are nothing but a partisan shill. Like literally so blind to facts it's ridiculous.

I have posted stats here, you choose not to engage with them and instead keep pushing your idea that it's all just about racism. Engage with the points made.

I haven't seen your stats. Point me to them and I'll have a look, as long as they're not the blue circles of doom again.

You're claiming an Iranian parent as reason for singling out Muslims for your accusation of non-integration?

You should look outside your immediate sphere, at other communities that equally fail to integrate.

HINT: there are several.