Flyktninger med feil farge nedprioriteres

[jjkoggan]

Crooked Cracker skrev (4 timer siden):

Right, if the allied forces only understood nazi theory they would know that race is the defining trait, they would't even go to war.

Given my arguments on the subject it should be pretty obvious what I meant.

I'm pretty sure that a resourceful and wealthy outsider would meet less real life barriers than a dirt-poor chinese peasant, and that would go for just about any country. Inserting racial absolutes is not just shady morally, but also a very vague way to describe reality. There are many more factors that would determine a persons potential barriers than race, some examples: Money, looks, mental health, physical health, social skills, IQ, strenght, height, weight, work position, upbringing, education, style, demeanor and so on. Are we gonna politicise every damn factor that could cause inequality?

Again, racial privilege theory is dubious nonsense, at best it's an unprecise measurement.

Aside from dozens of other traits as I explained, people are way more than ethnicity. To narrow humans down as such is a core nazi principle, I have explained this to you many times yet you don't seem to be bothered by it.

Meanwhile here in Norway most heroin junkies are white, I bet they appreciate that privilege.

That's ingroup preference, a mechanism not limited to race.

Because you don’t understand racial privilege theory you throw up many straw men in your attempt to discredit the the theory.  It makes it nearly impossible to discuss 

Racial preference theory does not claim that:

• racial privilege is the main determinate in one’s success in life
• that all people of a race are more successful than other races
• racial ingroup preference is the dominant factor in one’s success

This voids all your arguments against racial privilege theory simply because you don’t understand it 

 

 

Endret 6. oktober 2022 av jjkoggan

[Crooked Cracker]

jjkoggan skrev (9 minutter siden):

Because you don’t understand racial privilege theory you throw up many straw men in your attempt to discredit the the theory.  It makes it nearly impossible to discuss 

Racial preference does not claim that:

• racial privilege is the main determinate in one’s success in life
• that all people of a race are more successful than other races
• racial ingroup preference is the dominant factor in one’s success

 

 

Your words trying to explain racial privilege:

"At every level of society, a person who is not of Chinese descent will have barriers that people of Chinese descent would not."

And it was you who underlined the "every level of society" part.

I fully agree that I don't understand this rather inconsistent way of reasoning.

Endret 6. oktober 2022 av Crooked Cracker

[jjkoggan]

Crooked Cracker skrev (2 minutter siden):

Your words trying to explain racial privilege:

"At every level of society, a person who is not of Chinese descent will have barriers that people of Chinese descent would not."

And it was you who underlined the "every level of society" part.

I fully agree that I don't understand this rather inconsistent way of reasoning.

If you understood the theory you would have understood the statement.  No matter what level of society you belong to, having a Chinese background would be an advantage compared to someone without a Chinese background.  In other words, the poor Chinese man has an advantage over the poor non- Chinese man and the wealthy Chinese man has an advantage over the wealthy non- Chinese man.  A person doesn’t need to be wealthy to have a privilege 

I

[Crooked Cracker]

jjkoggan skrev (12 minutter siden):

If you understood the theory you would have understood the statement.  No matter what level of society you belong to, having a Chinese background would be an advantage compared to someone without a Chinese background.  In other words, the poor Chinese man has an advantage over the poor non- Chinese man and the wealthy Chinese man has an advantage over the wealthy non- Chinese man.  A person doesn’t need to be wealthy to have a privilege 

I

If you understood my counterarguments you would have seen why I disagree with statements such as "the poor Chinese man has an advantage over the poor non- Chinese man" that doesn't really say anything beyond speculation. The poor non-chinese man could have other benefits over the poor chinese man, like being more capable and socially skilled for instance. That could make him just as, or even more privileged - even within China. My point is that it doesn't serve any practical benefit to add race to such a broad concept as privilege.

Endret 6. oktober 2022 av Crooked Cracker

[jjkoggan]

Crooked Cracker skrev (11 timer siden):

If you understood my counterarguments you would have seen why I disagree with statements such as "the poor Chinese man has an advantage over the poor non- Chinese man" that doesn't really say anything beyond speculation. The poor non-chinese man could have other benefits over the poor chinese man, like being more capable and socially skilled for instance.

Again, another straw man argument.

Any individual, who is non Chinese would gain an advantage/privilege  over his previous self if he became Chinese.  It doesn’t assert anything about his relationship to others, only that that individual person would be a little better off than he was before.  

Again- if you and I suddenly  became Somalis in our western countries, we would lose some advantages we had before we became Somali.  Note that I am not comparing anybody to anybody else, I am comparing ourselves to ourselves 

Think of it like giving green people money but not orange people.   Each green person that received money has an advantage/privilege they didn’t have before that orange people lack.  The extra money(privilege)  may or may not have a big impact on green people's lives depending on other factors that also influence  socioeconomic status but the extra money(privilege) is still a privilege green people have that orange people don't.

I hope you now understand it well enough to not throw another straw man 

 

Sitat

That could make him just as, or even more privileged - even within China. My point is that it doesn't serve any practical benefit to add race to such a broad concept as privilege.

Yes, even during slavery in the USA there were some wealthy black people who overcame huge obstacles to be wealthier than many slave owners.   Does that mean that white people had no advantages/privileges over black people or that slavery should not have been abolished?

Endret 6. oktober 2022 av jjkoggan

[Crooked Cracker]

jjkoggan skrev (10 timer siden):

Again, another straw man argument.

 I used your words and followed their official definitions, that's not a straw man.

Sitat

Any individual, who is non Chinese would gain an advantage/privilege  over his previous self if he became Chinese.  It doesn’t assert anything about his relationship to others, only that that individual person would be a little better off than he was before.

He might get some benefits, yet he could also get some downsides compared to his previous self by becomng chinese. He could also still be generally less privileged as non-chinese people. Again, "privilege" is too broad of a concept to be attached to single attributes such as race, it's just speculation.

Sitat

Again- if you and I suddenly  became Somalis in our western countries, we would lose some advantages we had before we became Somali.  Note that I am not comparing anybody to anybody else, I am comparing ourselves to ourselves 

We could also gain some benefits, for instance a bigger social network, more attention from certain norwegian women or increased welfare benefits. Again, you can't define a person as priviliged based on skin color alone, as there is literally thousands of other determining factors. As such it's factually wrong to state that all somalis are less privileged. I would call a healthy somalian man way more privileged than a handicapped norwegian. 

Sitat

Think of it like giving green people money but not orange people.   Each green person that received money has an advantage/privilege they didn’t have before that orange people lack.  The extra money(privilege)  may or may not have a big impact on green people's lives depending on other factors that also influence  socioeconomic status but the extra money(privilege) is still a privilege green people have that orange people don't.

Except that not all green people gets the money, or all orange people gets denied the money. The real world is not as simple as this cute illustration of yours, even if you wish it so to defend your arguments. 

Sitat

I hope you now understand it well enough to not throw another straw man.

I never did, if pretending so makes you feel better than by all means go ahead.

Sitat

 

Yes, even during slavery in the USA there were some wealthy black people who overcame huge obstacles to be wealthier than many slave owners.   Does that mean that white people had no advantages/privileges over black people or that slavery should not have been abolished?

Slavery in historical context is not a thing that strictly benefited white people. Also, far from all whites had slaves at all, actually very few percent. Remember people born with light skin encompasses way more than white americans.

Obviously the white slave-owners had privilege over the black slaves,  but to impose that setting on entire races across all generations is just utter absurdity to the highest degree.

Endret 6. oktober 2022 av Crooked Cracker

[jjkoggan]

Crooked Cracker skrev (2 timer siden):

 I used your words and followed their official definitions, that's not a straw man.

No, you made mistake of either not understanding that "an" advantage refers to a single advantage, not overall a better life or simply not thinking logically.

 

Sitat

He might get some benefits, yet he could also get some downsides compared to his previous self by becomng chinese. He could also still be generally less privileged as non-chinese people. Again, "privilege" is too broad of a concept to be attached to single attributes such as race, it's just speculation.

Saying that you don't have a disadvantage of some kind because other parts of your life are good makes no sense.  The disadvantage remains whether or not you overcome it.

 

Sitat

We could also gain some benefits, for instance a bigger social network, more attention from certain norwegian women or increased welfare benefits. Again, you can't define a person as priviliged based on skin color alone, as there is literally thousands of other determining factors. As such it's factually wrong to state that all somalis are less privileged. I would call a healthy somalian man way more privileged than a handicapped norwegian. 

I could lose an arm and be better off because I won the lottery and thousands of other positive things happened to me.  Winning the lottery and thousands of other positive things do not change the fact that others that have both arms have an advantage over me in certain ways.  I am not sure you understand this logic, because you keep arguing that something is not a disadvantage if other factors lead to a better life.

 

Sitat

Except that not all green people gets the money, or all orange people gets denied the money. The real world is not as simple as this cute illustration of yours, even if you wish it so to defend your arguments. 

Some disadvantages are universal because they are systemic and institutional.  Somali children in Norway don't have somali norwegian olympic winning ski jumpers to look up to or mentor them if they want to become champion ski jumpers, for example.  In fact they are likely to be not taken as seriously as aspiring  ski jumpers who are ethnic norwegian.

 

Sitat

I never did, if pretending so makes you feel better than by all means go ahead.

No, you made mistake of either not understanding that "an" advantage refers to a single advantage, not overall a better life or simply not thinking logically.

Sitat

 

Slavery in historical context is not a thing that strictly benefited white people. Also, far from all whites had slaves at all, actually very few percent. Remember people born with light skin encompasses way more than white americans.

Obviously the white slave-owners had privilege over the black slaves,  but to impose that setting on entire races across all generations is just utter absurdity to the highest degree.

 

All black people had disadvantages white people did not have, the list is long.  The fact that some blacks managed to achieve some status does not mean that white privilege did not exist.  The fact that Obama became president does not mean that he experienced no racism that white presidents did not have to endure.

[Musefella]

jjkoggan skrev (På 3.10.2022 den 17.25):

Som dere sier er jeg en innvandrer i USA som alle ikke- urfolk er som bor i USA.  Forfedrene mine kom fra england,  tyskland, irland og ??? før 1903.  Min nordeuropeisk bakgrunn var sikkert det som førte til at folk snakket norsk til meg.  Min erfaring er at nordmenn generellt er glad i utlendinger som prøver å snakke norsk, selv om det er drittdårlig.

Innvandrer i usa, kan du gi litt mer i detalj hvordan du fikk til det?

De har tross alt et strengt innvandring regelverk, i hvert fall sammenlignet med Norge.

[jjkoggan]

Musefella skrev (37 minutter siden):

Innvandrer i usa, kan du gi litt mer i detalj hvordan du fikk til det?

De har tross alt et strengt innvandring regelverk, i hvert fall sammenlignet med Norge.

Min bestefar flyttet til Usa noe rundt 1906, derfor er jeg som dere sier - en annengenerasjons innvandrer selv om jeg ble født i usa.   På amerikansk er jeg 2nd generation American. 

[Crooked Cracker]

jjkoggan skrev (1 time siden):

No, you made mistake of either not understanding that "an" advantage refers to a single advantage, not overall a better life or simply not thinking logically.

You make the mistake of asserting that having certain advantages applies to every single indivdual in a particular group when race is the premise, that implies certain people will have advantages regardless of circumstances, a false concluson.

Sitat

 

Saying that you don't have a disadvantage of some kind because other parts of your life are good makes no sense.  The disadvantage remains whether or not you overcome it.

It's because the word "privileged" can be intepreted in different ways, you can say it applies to having one advantage, but when you state whites are privileged as a group it implies they have it better overall, and it's been used to tie that alleged privilige to their opportunities and success in life. It's why I say that race + privilige is a clumsy and unpresice combination of words. Besides, some people havng less than others doesn't prove in itself they been disadvantaged.

Sitat

I could lose an arm and be better off because I won the lottery and thousands of other positive things happened to me.  Winning the lottery and thousands of other positive things do not change the fact that others that have both arms have an advantage over me in certain ways.  I am not sure you understand this logic, because you keep arguing that something is not a disadvantage if other factors lead to a better life.

Sure, but even you should understand at the individual level we all have advantages and disadvantages. Thus basically everybody can say that others are privileged compared to them. This approach to life doesn't accomplish anything except advocting victim mentality, envy, hate and so on.

Sitat

 

Some disadvantages are universal because they are systemic and institutional.  Somali children in Norway don't have somali norwegian olympic winning ski jumpers to look up to or mentor them if they want to become champion ski jumpers, for example.  In fact they are likely to be not taken as seriously as aspiring  ski jumpers who are ethnic norwegian.

Continuing from my reponse over, It's downright destructive to focus on all the possible things anyone doesn't have, especally on a political level. Are norwegians gonna cry about black privilege because somali kids skin can handle the sun better? Where does it end? Sure we can look at inequality in society but setting race as a premise in itself is too broad to be a precise measurement. 

Sitat

 

All black people had disadvantages white people did not have, the list is long.

In a certain time in your country, yes but don't impose that setting of race on the world, it's just wrong plain and simple.

Sitat

The fact that some blacks managed to achieve some status does not mean that white privilege did not exist.  The fact that Obama became president does not mean that he experienced no racism that white presidents did not have to endure.

Agan you impose american history onto global racial standards, you understand that race is not limited to a country, right? There was whites slaves being held by non-white masters, who naturally had the privilege in that scenario. Again, race + privilege by the definition and meaning words is not gonna be anything more than a rough estimate.

Endret 7. oktober 2022 av Crooked Cracker

[jjkoggan]

Crooked Cracker skrev (1 time siden):

You make the mistake of asserting that having certain advantages applies to every single indivdual in a particular group when race is the premise, that implies certain people will have advantages regardless of circumstances, a false concluson.

Some racial disadvantages apply to all members of a race, they are systemic and apply to all.

Sitat

It's because the word "privileged" can be intepreted in different ways, you can say it applies to having one advantage, but when you state whites are privileged as a group it implies they have it better overall, and it's been used to tie that alleged privilige to their opportunities and success in life. It's why I say that race + privilige is a clumsy and unpresice combination of words. Besides, some people havng less than others doesn't prove in itself they been disadvantaged.

I used the word "advantage", not privilege.  

Sitat

Sure, but even you should understand at the individual level we all have advantages and disadvantages. Thus basically everybody can say that others are privileged compared to them. This approach to life doesn't accomplish anything except advocting victim mentality, envy, hate and so on.

Yes, everybody can have certain privileges others don't have.  Social science research helps us understand better how privilege affects different outcomes so that we can attempt to reduce unfair advantages that some groups have.  Ignoring these problems will ensure they are never solved.

 

Sitat

Continuing from my reponse over, It's downright destructive to focus on all the possible things anyone doesn't have, especally on a political level. Are norwegians gonna cry about black privilege because somali kids skin can handle the sun better? Where does it end? Sure we can look at inequality in society but setting race as a premise in itself is too broad to be a precise measurement.

 Ignorance of a problem ensures it will never be solved.

Sitat

In a certain time in your country, yes but don't impose that setting of race on the world, it's just wrong plain and simple.

Can you explain this in Norwegian?  I don't understand your use of the word "setting".

 

Sitat

Agan you impose american history onto global racial standards, you understand that race is not limited to a country, right? There was whites slaves being held by non-white masters, who naturally had the privilege in that scenario. Again, race + privilege by the definition and meaning words is not gonna be anything more than a rough estimate.

I have explained to you many times that racial privilege is culture specific, not race specific.  Slavery was a very common practice for all races centuries ago.

[Aiven]

ITtraktor skrev (På 26.9.2022 den 20.26):

https://www.nrk.no/ytring/norge-lager-klasseskille-blant-flyktningene-1.16113357?fbclid=IwAR06U-9KYA4zu7DTocHgsdMohlFUSPnk-9K5FUzuP-EeceTHGvtu_sE6F1s

 

Man ser det overalt. Har man feil farge blir man nedprioritert. 

Tror du har helt rett i dette. Men det er også en effekt av at USA har lykkes med å putte Ukraina i offer-rollen, for et politisk formål. Uten USAs propaganda-apparat i ryggen ville man hatt mindre sympati og tatt imot færre flyktninger. Zelensky har jo touret hele Europa og fått sponset lokale taleskrivere i hvert eneste land for å trykke på riktige knapper overalt. En slik rørende omfavnelse er det ikke mange angrepede lands presidenter som får.

Norge tok vel ikke imot en eneste flyktning fra borgerkrigen i Ukraina som startet i 2014? Det kan i så fall ikke ha vært mange. Russland tok imot 1 million flyktninger fra Øst-Ukraina bare mellom 2014 og 2015. Grunnen til at vi ikke tok imot flyktninger fra Ukraina da var neppe at de fleste flyktningene var russisk-etniske, det var ikke blitt på moten å hate russere ennå. Men simpelten at få i Norge visste om konflikten, fordi norske medier knapt nevnte den.

Nå sier jeg ikke at Ukraina ikke er et offer, det er selvsagt forjævlig det som skjer der nå. Like fullt, at vi ikke tok imot mange flyktninger fra landet før i år er et tankekors. Politiske valg har alltid en årsak, men det er ikke alltid like logisk, eller konsekvent. Litt for mye er mediedrevet. Og for mye av mediedrivet har opphav i land utenfor Norge dessverre.

Endret 7. oktober 2022 av Aiven

[Crooked Cracker]

jjkoggan skrev (2 timer siden):

Some racial disadvantages apply to all members of a race, they are systemic and apply to all.

Such as? Can you name some advantages that are strictly race-based?

Sitat

I used the word "advantage", not privilege.  

Yes, to explain what privilege entails.

Sitat

Yes, everybody can have certain privileges others don't have.  Social science research helps us understand better how privilege affects different outcomes so that we can attempt to reduce unfair advantages that some groups have.  Ignoring these problems will ensure they are never solved.

Reducing unfairness is a noble ideal, sure, but come on now. You have to see that attributing a singluar factor such as race to privilege in absolute terms sets precedence for just about anything else.

Unattractive, short, overweight, bald, clumsy, talentless, unathletic, restless, depressed, lethargic, lonely, awkward, abused, abandoned, traumatized, insecure, unstable, unmotivated, attention deficit, allergic, addiction prone, less intelligent, less creative, socially inept, etc can all make a case that they are less privileged than their counterparts. Now if we politicise every factor that could lead to advantages for someone it would be more like a proper madhouse than a functional society.

Sitat

Can you explain this in Norwegian?  I don't understand your use of the word "setting".

I'll try again: Please don't impose american history and race-standards upon the rest of the world.

Sitat

I have explained to you many times that racial privilege is culture specific, not race specific.  Slavery was a very common practice for all races centuries ago.

And I have explained just as many times that this argument makes zero sense.

Racial privilige is by definition of words race-specific, if you have a problem with that please contact your nearest lexicographer instead of regurgitating the same nonsense endlessly.

Endret 7. oktober 2022 av Crooked Cracker

[lada1]

1 hour ago, Aiven said:

Tror du har helt rett i dette. Men det er også en effekt av at USA har lykkes med å putte Ukraina i offer-rollen, for et politisk formål. Uten USAs propaganda-apparat i ryggen ville man hatt mindre sympati og tatt imot færre flyktninger. Zelensky har jo touret hele Europa og fått sponset lokale taleskrivere i hvert eneste land for å trykke på riktige knapper overalt. En slik rørende omfavnelse er det ikke mange angrepede lands presidenter som får.

Norge tok vel ikke imot en eneste flyktning fra borgerkrigen i Ukraina som startet i 2014? Det kan i så fall ikke ha vært mange. Russland tok imot 1 million flyktninger fra Øst-Ukraina bare mellom 2014 og 2015. Grunnen til at vi ikke tok imot flyktninger fra Ukraina da var neppe at de fleste flyktningene var russisk-etniske, det var ikke blitt på moten å hate russere ennå. Men simpelten at få i Norge visste om konflikten, fordi norske medier knapt nevnte den.

Nå sier jeg ikke at Ukraina ikke er et offer, det er selvsagt forjævlig det som skjer der nå. Like fullt, at vi ikke tok imot mange flyktninger fra landet før i år er et tankekors. Politiske valg har alltid en årsak, men det er ikke alltid like logisk, eller konsekvent. Litt for mye er mediedrevet. Og for mye av mediedrivet har opphav i land utenfor Norge dessverre.

Ja, du fant svaret, vi er offer for USA sitt propaganda-aparat!  Den kjøper jeg 🙂

[DukeNukem3d]

Afrikanere bør i fremtiden få lov til å flykte til andre afrikanske land. Og folk i midtøsten bør få lov til å flykte til f.eks Saudi-Arabia, Qatar og andre rike land i midtøsten også. Slik ukrainere flykter til Europa idag, de flykter ikke til en masse andre kontinent. De flykter til nærområdene.

Så forhåpentligvis så lærer verden av hvordan vi tar imot ukrainske flyktninger med åpne grenser i europa, altså nærområdene, nå.

[Baranladion]

Aiven skrev (1 time siden):

Grunnen til at vi ikke tok imot flyktninger fra Ukraina da var neppe at de fleste flyktningene var russisk-etniske, det var ikke blitt på moten å hate russere ennå. Men simpelten at få i Norge visste om konflikten, fordi norske medier knapt nevnte den.

Nå sier jeg ikke at Ukraina ikke er et offer, det er selvsagt forjævlig det som skjer der nå. Like fullt, at vi ikke tok imot mange flyktninger fra landet før i år er et tankekors.

Mulig jeg er på jordet her, men kan ikke grunnen rett og slett ha vært at flyktningene den gang nettopp kunne flykte til Russland? Hvis jeg måtte flyktet fra Norge fordi Danmark angrep oss, så ville det vært helt naturlig for meg å flykte til Sverige, der språk og kultur er likt og ting er relativt kjent. 

Når krigen brøt ut, så flyktet Ukrainerne til naboland, og med et så voldsomt antall, så trengte de hjelp fra andre land for å ta imot folk. 

[lada1]

8 minutes ago, Baranladion said:

Mulig jeg er på jordet her, men kan ikke grunnen rett og slett ha vært at flyktningene den gang nettopp kunne flykte til Russland? Hvis jeg måtte flyktet fra Norge fordi Danmark angrep oss, så ville det vært helt naturlig for meg å flykte til Sverige, der språk og kultur er likt og ting er relativt kjent. 

Når krigen brøt ut, så flyktet Ukrainerne til naboland, og med et så voldsomt antall, så trengte de hjelp fra andre land for å ta imot folk. 

Mange flyktet nok (i 2014 og tiden etter) til andre deler av Ukraina - tilsvarende som at mange i Finnmark i sin tid flyktet sørover innen Norge.

Endret 7. oktober 2022 av lada1

[knutinh]

Aiven skrev (4 timer siden):

Norge tok vel ikke imot en eneste flyktning fra borgerkrigen i Ukraina som startet i 2014? Det kan i så fall ikke ha vært mange. Russland tok imot 1 million flyktninger fra Øst-Ukraina bare mellom 2014 og 2015. Grunnen til at vi ikke tok imot flyktninger fra Ukraina da var neppe at de fleste flyktningene var russisk-etniske, det var ikke blitt på moten å hate russere ennå. Men simpelten at få i Norge visste om konflikten, fordi norske medier knapt nevnte den.

Jeg vet ikke om Norge «ikke tok imot en eneste flyktning» fra Ukraina i 2014.

Hva betyr dette argumentet for en påstand om at Norsk flyktningehjelp er fundamentalt rasistisk?

Trådstart:

Sitat

Man ser det overalt. Har man feil farge blir man nedprioritert. 

Nå kan det jo hende at ingen Ukrainere ønsket å komme til Norge i 2014. Eller at Norske myndigheter ikke så noe behov for å invitere dem hit fordi de fikk sine behov dekket i nærområdet.

-k

Endret 7. oktober 2022 av knutinh

[knutinh]

Crooked Cracker skrev (2 timer siden):

I'll try again: Please don't impose american history and race-standards upon the rest of the world.

Det ligger kanskje til oss som tilhører Abrahamittisk religiøs kulturarv å prøve å «kolonialisere» resten av verden med våre ideer?

Når Amerikanere ihuga påstår at alle som har lys hud er kolonialister og undertrykkere så er det bare en «stolt» kulturarv de fører videre når de krever at resten av verden skal tenke likt?

-k

Endret 7. oktober 2022 av knutinh

[DukeNukem3d]

Aiven skrev (4 timer siden):

Tror du har helt rett i dette. Men det er også en effekt av at USA har lykkes med å putte Ukraina i offer-rollen, for et politisk formål. Uten USAs propaganda-apparat i ryggen ville man hatt mindre sympati og tatt imot færre flyktninger. Zelensky har jo touret hele Europa og fått sponset lokale taleskrivere i hvert eneste land for å trykke på riktige knapper overalt. En slik rørende omfavnelse er det ikke mange angrepede lands presidenter som får.

Norge tok vel ikke imot en eneste flyktning fra borgerkrigen i Ukraina som startet i 2014? Det kan i så fall ikke ha vært mange. Russland tok imot 1 million flyktninger fra Øst-Ukraina bare mellom 2014 og 2015. Grunnen til at vi ikke tok imot flyktninger fra Ukraina da var neppe at de fleste flyktningene var russisk-etniske, det var ikke blitt på moten å hate russere ennå. Men simpelten at få i Norge visste om konflikten, fordi norske medier knapt nevnte den.

Nå sier jeg ikke at Ukraina ikke er et offer, det er selvsagt forjævlig det som skjer der nå. Like fullt, at vi ikke tok imot mange flyktninger fra landet før i år er et tankekors. Politiske valg har alltid en årsak, men det er ikke alltid like logisk, eller konsekvent. Litt for mye er mediedrevet. Og for mye av mediedrivet har opphav i land utenfor Norge dessverre.

Jeg klarer helt fint å ta side med Ukraina uten å engang lytte til hva noen i USA har å si om konflikten. Selvsagt tar alle oppegående mennesker side med et land som bare forsvarer seg mot en helt uprovosert angrepskrig fra Putin der han begår kriminalitet mot menneskeheten vi ikke har sett i Europa siden WW2.

Spørsmålet er heller hvilken propaganda du har slukt rått, er det fra Kari Jacquesson og co?

Endret 7. oktober 2022 av DukeNukem3d