Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by hnhg 450 days ago
Some of those cultures that apparently celebrate gay people were also chemically castrating them not that long ago, and also have a lot of locals who still hate gay people and cannot wait to get back to the old ways.

The rise of the far right in Europe and USA might challenge your idea of fixed regional cultures quite soon.

2 comments

The main drive of who you call “far right” is precisely to import less people that want to throw gays off roofs.
Some of them, maybe. Some others are just not tolerant of LGBT lifestyles and equality at all.

Also, I don't think someone who wants limited immigration is necessarily far right.

*)limiting ILLEGAL immigration, emphasis on the word illegal.

Nobody in Europe has a problem with LEGAL immigration, but the left wing parties and MSM keeps ignoring this and sweeping illegal immigration along the legal immigration banner to drive the narrative that Europeans are racists who hate all immigrants in order to justify (social) media censorship and restrictions on free speech to fight the "right wing extremist nazi" boogie man, which ironically, actually fuels the swing towards the extremist right wing, because the regular public discourse and communication channels for criticizing illegal immigration in public are censored/disabled.

A lot of people in Europe absolutely have a problem with legal immigration, with asylum seekers particularly maligned.

Specifically, the rise of far-right parties in Scandinavia, Germany and France is very much a reaction to legal immigration from Arab and African countries. The argument is not "they're stealing our jobs", but "they're abusing our welfare benefits, driving up crime and raping our women".

Is an asylum seeker really legal if their claim is a stretch and they are in fact just an economic migrant? Seems like an arguable category that should be treated separately. Though I agree there appear to be plenty of people in Europe who want to restrict legal immigration too. Is this taboo there now too?
> Is an asylum seeker really legal

Yes. You answered your own question. A person who is her legally is here legally. If their claim is denied (and I'd argue in many cases the bias would be towards denying valid claims then the other way around) and they refused to leave then they'd be an unathorized immigrant without legal right to stay in the country. But before then they are explicitly there legally.

1) Not all asylum seekers are legal immigrants. Legal means you have obtained an entry visa before crossing the border.

2) Even huge amounts of legal asylum seekers can end up straining the already thin welfare state, so it's only normal that taxpayers paying for the welfare state, ask their politicians "where are you goanna house all these newly arrived asylum seekers when even citizens and taxpayers are struggling with housing?" or "how do you know all those unvetted people you're letting in aren't criminals or if they're compatible with our culture and values so that we and our children can feel safe in public?"

So when politicians provide no answers to those questions, how are you surprised voters aren't taking this well and choosing the extreme right?

1) no it means legally seeking asylum under the legal process

2) Maybe build more housing? Maybe hire some of the new immigrants to build more housing. They're not unvetted because they are going through a vetting process. Statistically we know most aren't criminals.

I'm not sure who you're asking, but I'm not surprised at all.
They always say that, until you talk about legalizing more immigration, then you find out that no, they don't want any more immigration period.
I don’t think that anyone minds immigration of highly educated people from advanced civilized countries that have aligned values and respect local cultures.

But illegal and legal immigrants from other countries mainly consume taxpayer resources and spread crime and violence.

Of course they do mind, ask any dark skinned person with a university degree about their experiences.
That is absolutely not true. Whoever you heard that from is lying to you. Local citizens cause way more crime than immigrants. Maybe think about where you are getting your news from, because it is bullshit.
>until you talk about legalizing more immigration

Maybe because people have been duped so much in the last 10+ years to know that the loaded statement of "more immigration" from the government only means legalizing more ILLEGAL immigration, driving them to hate all forms of immigration because the governments have proven themselves useless at enforcing border controls and depurations of those who brake the law.

That's the result that you get when you maliciously sweep ILLEGAL immigration under the same political banner used for legal immigration, as the liberal European governments have done, so you end up hurting the image of legal immigration as well but this is the fault of politicians, not the people whoa have suffered form illegal immigration and have next to no channels of changing this other than voting far right.

Ummm... At least in the US, they are absolutely not worried about law breaking at all. Look who they just elected president? "Law and order" is basically dead here.
That same far right might challenge your idea of the far right. E.g. Germany's AfD is headed by a lesbian in a relationship with a Sri Lankan, and the party enjoys disproportionate support by gay men:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/why-do-so-many-gay-men-s...

In a world where Ernst Röhm, leader of the SA, the Nazi Party's stormtroopers, was openly gay, and Reich uniforms and Hugo Boss feature heavily in gay iconography ... that would suprise us why?
I was replying specifically to a post that equated the far right with anti-gay views. Ask them.
Fair point, I was chaining in general and not specifically having a go at yourself.

People are complicated and there's no shortage of head scratching examples of seemingly mismatched fellow travellers.