French generals cause backlash with 'civil war' warning

TomSweeney

Revolution 1917 wrote: »

Irish media keep silence

Of course!!



We all know what side the irish media and hack politicians are on ...

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Oh, so like the ‘victims’ offended by the intake of refugees? Going on about perceived victimhood of their “culture” whatever as opposed to their individual circumstances?

I'm not sure of your meaning TBH.

Any native has the right to comment/object/etc on what is happening within their own nation, especially when it involves the influx of foreign cultures, values, and behaviors which are considered opposite to their own national/ethnic culture.

The reference to victimhood relates to the groups who profit by playing the victim card. Natives complaining or objecting about immigration aren't profiting... they're seeking to reduce the cost that they (or their descendants) will have to pay.

Dyr

Chips Lovell wrote: »

Critical race theory? You're assuming that everyone who considers themselves antiracist is a proponent of of critical race theory or has even heard of it. I think the formulation you're looking for is: "Some anti-racists may be racists themselves".

O hai Motte.

You should start a thread in the politics forum about the definition of anti-racism.

Overheal

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not sure of your meaning TBH.

Any native has the right to comment/object/etc on what is happening within their own nation, especially when it involves the influx of foreign cultures, values, and behaviors which are considered opposite to their own national/ethnic culture.

The reference to victimhood relates to the groups who profit by playing the victim card. Natives complaining or objecting about immigration aren't profiting... they're seeking to reduce the cost that they (or their descendants) will have to pay.

Who's doing this, where, France?

Overheal

Overheal wrote: »

Who's doing this, where, France?

Never mind.

wes

gw80 wrote: »

If a woman's rights group claimed in their manifesto that "all men should die" buy you're logic you would still support them because they have the words "womens rights "in their name,

That is opposite of my logic. You really need to brush on your reading and comprehension, before you reply to people. Its embarrassing for everyone involved, when you get something so fundamentally wrong about what someone else said.

wes

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Not identifying as feminist is not the same as being anti feminist. Being anti third wave feminism is not the same as being anti second wave feminism. The english language is plenty flexible enough to allow everyone's stances to be defined in their own terms. Making it 'if you are not with us, you are against us' is unnecessary.

Saying anti-racism will lead to a civil war is pretty clearly racist and not to mention absurd (it would be comical if they weren't military people saying it). They made no attempt to single out a group or groups, they took issue with it entirely. The statement was remarkable straightforward. All I see is a lot of people trying to say they meant something else entirely.

gw80

wes wrote: »

Being against Anti-racism, is imo no different then being against LGBT or Women's rights.

If they have issues with specific groups, then they should name them. The fact they chose the term anti-racism and put it in the same space as Islamism tells me, we aren't dealing with the brightest bulbs, or more likely they are racist.

*EDIT*
To further expand my point, a lot of people don't like Tran Exclusionary Radical Feminists (TERFs), and they explicitly name why they have an issue with them, to separate them from the wider feminist movement. The only conclusion I can come to, for people who are against Anti-racism is that they are racists and being remarkable straight forward about it as well.

If a group said we must stop Women's rights, or stop LGBT rights, how would expect people to take what they are saying? Clearly they would be against such rights.


Maybe if you could get your words in the right order people might be able to comprehend what you are saying.

wes

wes wrote: »

Saying anti-racism will lead to a civil war is pretty clearly racist

Hardly... since the term anti-racism is very clearly open to interpretation, and application.

I find anti-racism to be concerned with applying racism to white people as a reaction to historical racism towards other racial groups, by white people. Reverse racism. It's fine when it's applied to whites, but awful when it's applied to Black people (or whatever other race that's not white).

The truth is,.. we don't need a term for people who find racism to be abhorrent... because society itself encourages/teaches the belief that racism is unacceptable.

and not to mention absurd (it would be comical if they weren't military people saying it). They made no attempt to single out a group or groups, they took issue with it entirely. The statement was remarkable straightforward. All I see is a lot of people trying to say they meant something else entirely.

That makes little sense. The objection is not racial. It's cultural. The belief that French culture, as the dominant culture in France, is under threat. That the threat appears to come from non-whites doesn't make it a race issue (since it involves all other races and their influence/behavior in France).

This is about the failure of integration/assimilation, along with the dangers of Identity politics, which elevates different races over other, and encourages divisions to form within society.

MadYaker

Deleted User wrote: »

Hardly... since the term anti-racism is very clearly open to interpretation, and application.

I find anti-racism to be concerned with applying racism to white people as a reaction to historical racism towards other racial groups, by white people. Reverse racism. It's fine when it's applied to whites, but awful when it's applied to Black people (or whatever other race that's not white).

The truth is,.. we don't need a term for people who find racism to be abhorrent... because society itself encourages/teaches the belief that racism is unacceptable.



That makes little sense. The objection is not racial. It's cultural. The belief that French culture, as the dominant culture in France, is under threat. That the threat appears to come from non-whites doesn't make it a race issue (since it involves all other races and their influence/behavior in France).

This is about the failure of integration/assimilation, along with the dangers of Identity politics, which elevates different races over other, and encourages divisions to form within society.

How would you define French culture? I don't believe they put a definition on it in the letter. They didn't even mention the word.

WrenBoy

MadYaker wrote: »

How would you define French culture? I don't believe they put a definition on it in the letter. They didn't even mention the word.

Liberté, égalité, fraternité

tabby aspreme

WrenBoy wrote: »

Liberté, égalité, fraternité

Those ideas would be scarce in the Koran

MadYaker

WrenBoy wrote: »

Liberté, égalité, fraternité

That’s not a definition of french culture it’s a slogan.

Dyr

wes wrote: »

Saying anti-racism will lead to a civil war is pretty clearly racist and not to mention absurd (it would be comical if they weren't military people saying it). They made no attempt to single out a group or groups, they took issue with it entirely. The statement was remarkable straightforward. All I see is a lot of people trying to say they meant something else entirely.

One of the things I saw pointed out about certain quarters and how they frame arguments is that they will take a sentence or phrase, ignore its context and interperet it in a way that is so literal or obtuse it becomes obvious that they're making a bad faith argument. That's why the intersectionalist weirdos starting using terms like anti racism in the first place, so when they're weirdo ideas are challenged they can scream racism.

Anyway I can't stop noticing now when this stupid slight of hand is used and your post is a great example.

MadYaker

MadYaker wrote: »

How would you define French culture? I don't believe they put a definition on it in the letter. They didn't even mention the word.

I'd define any modern culture as being the range of values common, or encouraged to be learned within that society. Different cultures place greater importance of one value over another, whether that's the value of a human life, the importance of children, or the rights of women in society.

Kaybaykwah

This A.M.: French Prime Minister Darmanin announced that 89 mosques will be controlled by the state, with a 2 month suspension of activities. They are all suspected of "separatism" in the context of French law.

Overheal

Kaybaykwah wrote: »

This A.M.: French Prime Minister Darmanin announced that 89 mosques will be controlled by the state, with a 2 month suspension of activities. They are all suspected of "separatism" in the context of French law.

Woah. That is not the way to handle it is it. In the US the first amendment would kill that idea dead on arrival. That's as good as the State declaring war on an entire religion.

Timberrrrrrrr

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And was posted on a known right wing site.

Boards.ie? Because I've seen this site described as such. And as being "infested" with lefties.

Kaybaykwah

Overheal wrote: »

Woah. That is not the way to handle it is it. In the US the first amendment would kill that idea dead on arrival. That's as good as the State declaring war on an entire religion.

Yes, definitely.

I have become a little more familiar with the French mentality that brought about a clear separation of state and religion in the past couple of years. In 1905, they passed a law on this very important issue, in order to quash the encroachment of religious institutions on education, health and other things. This, of course was a repeat of the French Revolution's violent detachment from the Catholic yoke.

France is really quite the opposite of the American ideal of a republic, there is no hint of an "In God We Trust" anywhere in the panoply of slogans that prop up the idea of statehood.

Overheal

wd0661 wrote: »

who are you to tell the French how to run their country ?

Where did I tell them how to run their country?

Anyone who thinks the types of issues now developing are just a French issue is sorely deluded. This will affect all of Western Europe. They are just further along the curve.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Anyone who thinks the types of issues now developing are just a French issue is sorely deluded. This will affect all of Western Europe. They are just further along the curve.

Yup. In France if you (are accused of) showing kids a picture of the prophet you'll be beheaded, in England you'll just lose your career and have to go into hiding. We'll all get there eventually.

Kaybaykwah

Kaybaykwah wrote: »

This A.M.: French Prime Minister Darmanin announced that 89 mosques will be controlled by the state, with a 2 month suspension of activities. They are all suspected of "separatism" in the context of French law.

Got a source for that? Darmanin also is the interior Minister.

Overheal

wd0661 wrote: »

Originally Posted by Overheal View Post
Woah. That is not the way to handle it is it.

right here

That's a question isn't it.

TomTomTim

Deleted User wrote: »

Anyone who thinks the types of issues now developing are just a French issue is sorely deluded. This will affect all of Western Europe. They are just further along the curve.

Agreed. The French have a healthier intellectual culture than most of Europe though, which well help them in the end. People who are against this process in France aren't treated with the same disdain that they are in other parts of Europe; and it's not considered a taboo to discuss the topic on a national level.

Baggly

wd0661 wrote: »

questions have question marks, dont they ?

either way i m happy the french dont care about you or opinions like yours scraped from the bottom of the American media bucket .

vive la france

Mod

The bad man is gone folks. Suggest ignoring their posts.

Read: wd0661 is forum banned.

Dyr

Deleted User wrote: »

Boards.ie? Because I've seen this site described as such. And as being "infested" with lefties.

Not only is it s right wing website, its a "known" right wing website

It's funny the terminology thats always adopted innit?

Baggly

Mod

Buttonftw and Bambi - both of you get back on topic.

Kaybaykwah

Deleted User wrote: »

Got a source for that? Darmanin also is the interior Minister.

https://www.sudouest.fr/politique/gerald-darmanin/gerald-darmanin-annonce-le-controle-de-89-mosquees-soupconnees-de-separatisme-1499381.php



This is an article from March 2021, there were 89 then, and 76 in 2020 in other news. However, this morning on France Inter's newscast, I heard the news repeated again. Not sure exactly what this morning's numbers were, but there seems to be a push to shut down at least 89 of them.


This is from January in the Figaro;

https://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/separatisme-neuf-mosquees-fermees-en-un-mois-20210115

Overheal

Kaybaykwah wrote: »

https://www.sudouest.fr/politique/gerald-darmanin/gerald-darmanin-annonce-le-controle-de-89-mosquees-soupconnees-de-separatisme-1499381.php



This is an article from March 2021, there were 89 then, and 76 in 2020 in other news. However, this morning on France Inter's newscast, I heard the news repeated again. Not sure exactly what this morning's numbers were, but there seems to be a push to shut down at least 89 of them.


This is from January in the Figaro;

https://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/separatisme-neuf-mosquees-fermees-en-un-mois-20210115

Hey I'm getting good at turning off cookies no matter the language barrier :pac:

First link is **** journalism: they mention the mosques are "out of compliance" but fail to say how, " Fourteen were closed for non-compliance with safety standards," but which standards, wet floor, not enough handicapped stalls, inciting violence etc? I'd like a lot more info for what the mosques are alleged to be doing wrong. That type of song and dance is how abortion clinics are shut down in the US: 'oh, you need surgical grade facilities to give someone plan B' etc. - like, what safety issues are endemic to 89 mosques and no other place of worship? Is this a building code thing and if so who built them? Surely a licensed French contractor? Show me the incitement of violence emanating from these mosques, someone please.