European politics: Into the "right" futur

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

WWTR,

I'm still floored we have someone arguing that cultural differences could be used as a mitigating factor if it was a group of migrants who did this.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

To be honest, I'm not sure the integration of the migrants is going to go well, and even if it does, there will be significant friction in the meantime.

If the perpetrators were in fact second generation immigrants, and not recent refugees, that makes the problem seem even more daunting.

I think there is most definitely a cultural problem with misogyny, violence against women, homophobia, antisemitism etc. among many Middle Eastern, North African, and Central Asian cultures*. I don't think it's necessarily Islam, thought it's hard to disentangle Islam from Arabic/Turkish culture. And I don't think just letting them into progressive, Western nations and exposing them to WEIRD cultural values and giving them a better standard of living will fix those issues in the short of medium run.

I'm just rambling a bit right now, but my basic point is that certain cultures are objectively worse than others, and exposing ourselves to people with the worse cultures will cause problems until those people are assimilated, or until those cultures are shorn of their more problematic aspects.

But maybe we have to continue to take in refugees regardless of those difficulties. Perhaps it's the price we have to pay for fucking up the Middle East even more than it was before.

WWTR,

I'm still floored we have someone arguing that cultural differences could be used as a mitigating factor if it was a group of migrants who did this.

While I don't believe that, I do understand a version of that: if it was a group of migrants who did this, then the standard western progressive response (shame people who victim blame and commit microagressions, decry rape culture, ask for more soul searching to eliminate unconscious and subtle sexism) will be completely, rather than just mostly, useless.

*Those problems also exist among almost every culture in the world, including ours, but at least the predominant narrative with ours is that those things are problems and we should endeavor to fix them. Or at least get defensive when people accuse us of such.

[Biglose]

Most of the attacks ended up stealing a whole bunch of things. Sounds less silly to me. 

Right. It's obviously a conspiracy. There's no possible way that it doesn't happen all the time. 

Well, it does happen all the time! The police assumes that the core of the perpetrators are people already known to the police. The standart response by the police and the media was to silence the victims. Reporting does not help, harresment if you spke out. The thing is that this year around the perpetrators had their ranks bolstered probably by refugees. The first reaction by the media, politicians and the police was as always to deny anything happened. But to many women spoke out, there were to Iostm victims in a too short periode of time. What added to that was the fact that some were with their (boy) friends, so there were even men around to tell them that it wasn't their fault. It is rather shocking how much it took to finally break this wall of silence.

[mormont]

It's a different argument for the same opinion.

A huge criminal organization specifically mobilized for New Year to ... grope women? Sounds silly.

 

I see nothing odd about what happened. A bunch of Arabs came together for a New Year celebration, got drunk and started to attack women, feeling that nobody could stop them because there was so many of them. Doesn't seem strange at all. 

It doesn't seem strange to you that reportedly several hundred of these guys 'came together' and 'got drunk' and then all spontaneously decided to engage in a crime spree spread across an entire city?

Sounds silly.

I don't know about you, but I can't recall ever getting together with hundreds and hundreds of people for a party, and then all of us deciding to do the exact same thing (and going on to actually do it), with no-one objecting or wandering off to do their own thing or (given that this was criminal activity) deciding to tell anyone. The idea that something on this scale this wasn't organised or planned in any way is, on the face of it, something I find extremely hard to credit.

The idea that there's 'nothing odd' about it at all, on the other hand, is just nonsense and plainly wrong. The one thing we do know about it at this stage is that it is a very, very unusual occurrence.

[Dofs]

It doesn't seem strange to you that reportedly several hundred of these guys 'came together' and 'got drunk' and then all spontaneously decided to engage in a crime spree spread across an entire city?

Sounds silly.

I don't know about you, but I can't recall ever getting together with hundreds and hundreds of people for a party, and then all of us deciding to do the exact same thing (and going on to actually do it), with no-one objecting or wandering off to do their own thing or (given that this was criminal activity) deciding to tell anyone. The idea that something on this scale this wasn't organised or planned in any way is, on the face of it, something I find extremely hard to credit.

The idea that there's 'nothing odd' about it at all, on the other hand, is just nonsense and plainly wrong. The one thing we do know about it at this stage is that it is a very, very unusual occurrence.

And I don't find it silly. A huge bunch of people from uneducated and backward countries being in a foreign city, feeling that they can do whatever they want there and doing whatever they want there was not that uncommon even in Europe a few centuries ago.

[ThePrunesThatWasPromised]

But they're doctors and engineers I thought?

[mormont]

And I don't find it silly. A huge bunch of people from uneducated and backward countries being in a foreign city, feeling that they can do whatever they want there and doing whatever they want there was not that uncommon even in Europe a few centuries ago.

OK, so you have no actual explanation for the bizarre and unlikely features of what you're alleging happened - you're just saying that you personally don't find it odd, asserting that these (as yet largely unidentified) people were from 'uneducated and backward countries' (which, even if true, does not explain any of the oddities I pointed out), and giving some hopelessly vague mumble about alleged historical precedents (I have no idea to what you might be referring there, but whatever it is, I'm guessing that it's not actually comparable at all).

It might be wise, I think, to wait until more facts about what happened become clear before we draw any conclusions from it.

[ThePrunesThatWasPromised]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/12086473/Suspects-in-Cologne-sex-attacks-claimed-to-be-Syrian-refugees.html

Lara Logan had the same thing happen to her when reporting on Arab Spring in Egypt.

Funny how the left rushes to judgment in these cases when the accused are white college kids...

[Dofs]

OK, so you have no actual explanation for the bizarre and unlikely features of what you're alleging happened - you're just saying that you personally don't find it odd, asserting that these (as yet largely unidentified) people were from 'uneducated and backward countries' (which, even if true, does not explain any of the oddities I pointed out), and giving some hopelessly vague mumble about alleged historical precedents (I have no idea to what you might be referring there, but whatever it is, I'm guessing that it's not actually comparable at all).

It might be wise, I think, to wait until more facts about what happened become clear before we draw any conclusions from it.

Look up for the gang rapes in India during broad daylight, they were pretty widely reported. Look up at the assaults during the Arab Spring riots. Look up how common were sexual assaults in Europe even during WW2 in occupied territories. That's my expanation. You don't like it, whatever.

[Marcus Agrippa]

SO, I have a question for greeks, I am reading Michael Lewis Boomerang: Travels in the new third world- and he describes greeks have a general inability to trust each other, and they of course avoid paying taxes because of this mindset. Is this all true, partly true, or patenly false?

[Tijgy]

I would not know about the Greeks but Belgian people tend also to avoid taxes a lot. But that can be explained we have to pay taxes a lot, more than in other countries. 

[Marcus Agrippa]

I would not know about the Greeks but Belgian people tend also to avoid taxes a lot. But that can be explained we have to pay taxes a lot, more than in other countries. 

It's an interesting mindset of SE Europe then? Looking at the comparison countries that he did Ireland guaranteed everyone who bought bonds which has crippled Ireland and will do so for a whole generation, and where Iceland told the banks to screw off. It's an interesting mindset. I might take a look at Romania as well thought most of my economic focus is on France, Japan, and the UK.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

SO, I have a question for greeks, I am reading Michael Lewis Boomerang: Travels in the new third world- and he describes greeks have a general inability to trust each other, and they of course avoid paying taxes because of this mindset. Is this all true, partly true, or patenly false?

Sociologists do study high and low trust societies, and it make a huge difference in how well a country runs, but I doubt it's that bad in Greece and it's not their only problem

[Tijgy]

It's an interesting mindset of SE Europe then? Looking at the comparison countries that he did Ireland guaranteed everyone who bought bonds which has crippled Ireland and will do so for a whole generation, and where Iceland told the banks to screw off. It's an interesting mindset. I might take a look at Romania as well thought most of my economic focus is on France, Japan, and the UK.

I do not know a lot about Greece and how they think. The only thing I know is from a historical law perspective. 

Private law of West Europe and Eastern Europe are both based on old Roman Law. But during all those centuries this old Roman Law was differently interpreted in Western Europe and Greece. So technically they have a completely different view regarding private law. (And according my professor of Roman Law - he told this like fifty times, no kidding - we should learn how they started to interpret the roman law differently so we can understand why they do think differently in order to stop conflict between us and them). 

But this might us not really understand why the Greek do not trust each other but the huge differences between the law systemes (and culture) might explain the differences between Western European and Greece law and culture and the conflict situations that arise out of this, f.e. Western Europe (aka Germany) want that Greece do some things which goes actually against their culture and mindset?

I am really just repeating the speech my professor of Roman Law who repeated this speech like once a week during 26 weeks. (It was kind of nice - at one point we were just staring. But I must say this professor is amazingly smart. His hobby (or his studies) consisted also off changeling almost each fact we have on the Roman law/culture but I must say his thoughts are actually more convincing than the mainstream stories)

[mormont]

Look up for the gang rapes in India during broad daylight, they were pretty widely reported. Look up at the assaults during the Arab Spring riots. Look up how common were sexual assaults in Europe even during WW2 in occupied territories. That's my expanation. You don't like it, whatever.

I mean, nobody's denying that gang rapes happen. We're pointing out that this one has, or seems to have, some unusual features. Your explanations don't really explain these. But, as I say, we'll presumably find out more about what happened and can discuss it more at that time.

[Marcus Agrippa]

Sociologists do study high and low trust societies, and it make a huge difference in how well a country runs, but I doubt it's that bad in Greece and it's not their only problem

"It behaves as a collection of atomized particles, each of which has grown accustomed to pursuing its own interest at the expense of the common good. There’s no question that the government is resolved to at least try to re-create Greek civic life. The only question is: Can such a thing, once lost, ever be re-created?" Michael Lewis

 

Its his take on the issue. I do agree with him on the extent of that it seems to make civic life quite hard. However, on the opposite side of the page why did this happen in the first place? If americans (being born here believe me) Could find a way to avoid all taxes we would. However, that is simply not the case for us.
 

I do not know a lot about Greece and how they think. The only thing I know is from a historical law perspective. 

Private law of West Europe and Eastern Europe are both based on old Roman Law. But during all those centuries this old Roman Law was differently interpreted in Western Europe and Greece. So technically they have a completely different view regarding private law. (And according my professor of Roman Law - he told this like fifty times, no kidding - we should learn how they started to interpret the roman law differently so we can understand why they do think differently in order to stop conflict between us and them). 

But this might us not really understand why the Greek do not trust each other but the huge differences between the law systemes (and culture) might explain the differences between Western European and Greece law and culture and the conflict situations that arise out of this, f.e. Western Europe (aka Germany) want that Greece do some things which goes actually against their culture and mindset?

I am really just repeating the speech my professor of Roman Law who repeated this speech like once a week during 26 weeks. (It was kind of nice - at one point we were just staring. But I must say this professor is amazingly smart. His hobby (or his studies) consisted also off changeling almost each fact we have on the Roman law/culture but I must say his thoughts are actually more convincing than the mainstream stories)

This is interesting, I studied roman law for quite a while, just out of inteest, but never looked at the different evolutions of it. He is also very right about europe and the west and rome. We still practice a lot of things from the roman period even if it's evolved.

[Tijgy]

 

This is interesting, I studied roman law for quite a while, just out of inteest, but never looked at the different evolutions of it. He is also very right about europe and the west and rome. We still practice a lot of things from the roman period even if it's evolved.

His whole lessons existed of learning the evolution, even in his course which everyone had the follow. I was so interested that I followed his elective, what existed of reading several texts of roman law over the centuries (800 BC until 1500) with texts of Grotius, pieces of canon law, the work of the legal scholars of the middle-ages, ... They really studies those texts, started to have their receptions of them which lead actually to "new law". 

The most interesting thing about his courses was his taking mainstream ideas in doubts. Apparently until 16th century law actually was totally precedent law. So each text actually was a verdict by a court. In several old roman texts they speak about giving food to dei, which is almost translated to Gods. According to him this translation is wrong. Why would the romans speak about gods in their legal texts. According to him you should translate deus = the enlightened = judge. So when they speak of giving food to dei, it should be understood to him as in giving/paying the judges for giving their verdict. Deus only started to mean "God" as a consequence of christian influences

[Clueless Northman]

According to him you should translate deus = the enlightened = judge. So when they speak of giving food to dei, it should be understood to him as in giving/paying the judges for giving their verdict. Deus only started to mean "God" as a consequence of christian influences

Huh? Deus didn't mean "god" in the early Latin? Really? Seriously, when Cicero wrote the De natura deorum, he wasn't talking about judges...

And the word is so loaded - since pre-Latin era - that I can't see it getting such a weaker secondary meaning. Romans considered that claiming to be a "deus" was a pretty big deal, like basically everyone in the Mediterranean/European world.

[Born Yesterday]

SO, I have a question for greeks, I am reading Michael Lewis Boomerang: Travels in the new third world- and he describes greeks have a general inability to trust each other, and they of course avoid paying taxes because of this mindset. Is this all true, partly true, or patenly false?

Inability to trust each other? False. Familial and community bonds are, if anything, stronger than Western Europe's - as far as I can tell. And trusting complete strangers is no more or less likely in Greece than anywhere else in the world.

There is an inability to trust the state, though. A justified inability, if you ask me, though occasionally overblown.

As for Roman law, sorry, but that's kind of irrelevant. What is now Greece was under Ottoman law for 400 years. A revolution resulted in independence around 1830, and the first constitution was a gem of the Enlightenment, including universal suffrage (not to women, but to all male adults regardless of income, a novelty unheard of since the French Revolution). But about 2 seconds later the head of state was murdered and an absolute monarchy was imposed by the Great Powers. A Bavarian boy king ruled with no elections, no constitution (it took a second rebellion for that), no nothing, and Greek law ended up a mash-up of several European legal systems, with a few Ottoman leftovers, and a spectacular lack of church/state separation which remains unresolved to this day. There was no continuity in Roman law to be interpreted this way or that.

Also, umm, Belgium is not SE Europe.

[Tijgy]

Huh? Deus didn't mean "god" in the early Latin? Really? Seriously, when Cicero wrote the De natura deorum, he wasn't talking about judges...

And the word is so loaded - since pre-Latin era - that I can't see it getting such a weaker secondary meaning. Romans considered that claiming to be a "deus" was a pretty big deal, like basically everyone in the Mediterranean/European world.

Like I said, he is someone who likes to challenge the mainstream ideas. Is he right? I do not know. To be honest I was sitting all the time with big eyes during his class and was also thinking what is he saying now, because it went totally against all the things I learned. But the main purpose of his studies is encouraging people not take everything what we currently think about the Romans for granted and to think for your own. 

So is it possible to wonder? Cicero might have indeed written about the nature of Gods. I must say I do know nothing about his work. But a quick look on wikipedia can give me a picture of his work: speeches, texts on rhetoric and philosophy. His books on philosophy have the topics of politics, life (friendship, age, dead, pain, ...), law and then one book suddenly on the gods? He was al lawyer, politician and a philosopher. And suddenly he became more interested in theology? Would it more logical to think that book was written about for example how a judge must act during a trial, what was his duty or should there even be a judge; a book on legal philosophy? 

And why should being a judge not be important? Law has always been important, it is a way to dissolve disputes between your people and to create peace. So claiming a "judge" is also a pretty big deal.