Misandry and xenophobia meet in one place: Male asylum seekers banned from German swimming pool

[–]192873982 3 points4 points5 points 10 years ago (32 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]192873982 -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (19 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]192873982 -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]192873982 -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

That's not what I was talking about.

When you want to ban 100 people, you can't expect that the pool supervisor checks the images of 100 people everytime someone enters the building. That's where they will try to find a cheaper (but worse) solution. That is, they will try to find a group that optimally contains all of these 100 people and as few as possible other people, and is easier to check. That's probably how they came up with "male migrants".

You can ask yourself the question, why the female migrants didn't cause any problems. Well, because they are different, and because female muslim migrants rarely go to the pool.

Shit, maybe all males should be banned from Wal Mart because some males shoplift?

Women steal more often actually

Some females shoplift too but we wouldn't dare talk about that nor ban them.

That is sadly true.

If wal mart wouldn't earn money with women, because they stole that much, I would agree with walmart banning women, but I also know that even in such a case, societ wouldn't be okay with it, which is societies fault.

I am sorry, you wanna ban migrants, I am with you but you wanna cut them into groups and then ban them, that's where you lose me.

It's not about men and women, it's about people being responsible for their own actions, but also people are a little responsible for the actions of people who are like them. You could say it's unfair, but it's inevitable. If people with big noses were extremely violent and you had a big nose, you'd suffer from that stereotype, but it would be unavoidable.

We are a little responsible for the actions of other MRAs, feminists are a little responsible for the actions of other feminists, muslim people are responsible for the actions of other muslim, men are a little responsible for the actions of other men, and so on.

[–]franklindeer 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]192873982 -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]franklindeer 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

But you haven't proposed a better solution.

I don't really care. It's not my job to solve the problem. The fact of the matter is that the solution cannot be discrimination. There is a very good reason that we forbid it at such a high level and forbid it very broadly.

Checking too many people becomes infeasible, so what then? Close the pool for everyone? Will cause outrage!

So what? Who cares what the reaction is so long as the action is within the law and respects the fundamental rights of citizens?

Close the pool for all migrants?

I like that the only alternative you can come up with is more discrimination, just broader.

That leaves us with the only option of deporting those responsible migrants out of Germany.

Ha what? We've gone from bad acts at a single pool to deporting, illegally no less, the entire refugee population of Germany? You're nuts.

Which means you can't do anything

What? You could hire security, increase the number of staff, sex segregate but provide equal access. There are a dozen things you could do that don't require infringing on basic rights or involve illegal deportation. You've gone off the deep end, no pun intended.

[–]franklindeer 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]192873982 -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]franklindeer 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

It doesn't matter what you accept or don't accept.

You're right, it only matters what the constitution dictates. And I would be very surprised if the constitution in Germany didn't expressly forbid this kind of discrimination.

Propose a better solution and you are allowed to complain.

That's not how this works for starters. I don't have to solve the Israel Palestine conflict to be critical of the actions of Israel or Palestine. As for this specific issue I don't particularly care if it was a convenient solution. Western culture and indeed the laws of nearly every western country expressly forbid this kind of discrimination regardless of circumstance. So I don't personally give a flying fuck if they have to hire security or employ casino software to identify past bad actors. What they cannot do, is limit access on the basis of race, gender or religion.

Also refugees are not part of society

They are for all intents and purposes in that they cannot be forced out by law once they've been accepted. They do not have all the same entitlements a taxpaying citizen does but they do have all the legal rights anyone else does. As would a tourist in fact.

[–]192873982 -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

That's not how this works for starters. I don't have to solve the Israel Palestine conflict to be critical of the actions of Israel or Palestine.

Not really. Proposing a possible solution or even multiple possible solutions for the israel palestine conflict is fucking easy. That's why you can complain. The problem is that they won't accept any of the solutions.

As for this specific issue I don't particularly care if it was a convenient solution.

And I was not talking about convenient, but about feasible.

Western culture and indeed the laws of nearly every western country expressly forbid this kind of discrimination regardless of circumstance.

But demonstrations, which is an important political tool, can be cancelled because someone made a threat to blow up a bomb? Why is that okay, if safety shouldn't allow to limit peoples freedom?

So I don't personally give a flying fuck if they have to hire security or employ casino software to identify past bad actors.

So you expect local people to accept a huge price increase due to a few hundred migrants? Honestly, if you where a political leader, you'd create violent uprisings.

What they cannot do, is limit access on the basis of race, gender or religion.

Being a refugee is none of these terms. That means you would be okay, to limit the pool for all refugees?

but they do have all the legal rights

No, they can't vote.

[–]franklindeer 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

Not really. Proposing a possible solution or even multiple possible solutions for the israel palestine conflict is fucking easy. That's why you can complain. The problem is that they won't accept any of the solutions.

It is not a prerequisite for criticism. Demanding that it be is a common debate tactic though and it's nonsense.

And I was not talking about convenient, but about feasible.

It's immaterial what you were talking about. You were advocating for race and gender discrimination. If the only alternative is tearing down the pool, so be it. You can't infringe on basic rights to solve problems, that's why they're considered fundamental rights.

So you expect local people to accept a huge price increase due to a few hundred migrants? Honestly, if you where a political leader, you'd create violent uprisings.

I don't care what the local people think. And I am not a political leader and the courts don't much give a shit what the reasoning is either. Unless the individual bearer of the rights has been shown to abuse his or her responsibilities, as an individual, they are guaranteed them. This action infringes upon the rights of some individuals as punishment for the bad acts of other individuals. That whole idea is antithetical to the values of western democracy.

Being a refugee is none of these terms. That means you would be okay, to limit the pool for all refugees?

And how do you think they're identifying refugees? Are they requiring passports at the door? No. They're discriminating based on race and ethnicity.

No, they can't vote.

"They do not have all the same entitlements a taxpaying citizen does but they do have all the legal rights anyone else does."

I see you chose only to mine a tiny portion of that sentence to suit your needs.

[–]192873982 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

If the only alternative is tearing down the pool, so be it. You can't infringe on basic rights to solve problems, that's why they're considered fundamental rights.

If I was a swimmer and the pool where I trained for years is torn down, because of a few hundreds of migrants, I would probably tear down the migrants housing with my own hands.

There's one rule that is above all other rules: "Rules can only be untouchable, if it's possible to make a system work with those rules under all circumstances"

This means if you can't make the system work well enough with a "free and open society", then that means a free and open society does not work.

Now you may say that it does work, and you can just ignore the complaining people, but that doesn't work, since the people will take matter in their own hands.

I see you chose only to mine a tiny portion of that sentence to suit your needs.

Nope, I looked at the whole thing. They don't have all the legal rights, since the right to vote is a legal right. I agree with the they don't have all the entitlements, since legal rights are a form of entitlements.

[–]franklindeer 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]192873982 -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]franklindeer 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]192873982 -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]franklindeer 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]192873982 -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

The thing you fail to understand about fundamental rights it's that you can't just skirt or infringe upon them to appease people

A democratic society values the opinions of it's citizens above all, even abote the human rights. The human rights apply in democratic societies only, because the majority of the people believe in human rights.

Ensuring rights is always more important than keeping people happy, but you evidently disagree.

Yes, because making people too unhappy leads to the destruction of your society and therefore the destruction of the protection of the rights you value so much.

Fortunately the entire legal establishment, most constitutions, international law and the courts all disagree with your view.

And that's why Europe has huge problems right now, because they have taken in so many refugees that they can't keep the citizens happy and protect these important values at the same time.

[–]franklindeer 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

A democratic society values the opinions of it's citizens above all

Yes and no. Those opinions are enshrined in the law and in the case of fundamental rights it would take a very sustained, popular opinion to have any impact.

Yes, because making people too unhappy leads to the destruction of your society and therefore the destruction of the protection of the rights you value so much.

And you're suggesting that people pissed about the pool not discriminating more is going to lead to full societal collapse. Discriminate or fail? What a load of shit.

And that's why Europe has huge problems right now, because they have taken in so many refugees that they can't keep the citizens happy and protect these important values at the same time.

Ahh yes, Europe's big achilles heel is protecting the basic rights of its citizens. /s

The issues in Europe are mostly a result of flawed policy and geography. To suggest that they weren't avoidable because the citizenry loves their fundamental rights too much is crazy talk.

I'm done with you. I've never seen anyone blow something so out of proportion or be so flippant about basic rights.

[–]192873982 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

And you're suggesting that people pissed about the pool not discriminating more is going to lead to full societal collapse. Discriminate or fail? What a load of shit.

No, of course not. I assumed that you would decide against the happiness of the people in other similar cases and added up, over man years, it would lead to the destruction of the system.

The issues in Europe are mostly a result of flawed policy and geography. To suggest that they weren't avoidable because the citizenry loves their fundamental rights too much is crazy talk.

No, it will break down, because the government ignored or misjudged heavily, how many refugees are bearable by the system.

I'm done with you. I've never seen anyone blow something so out of proportion or be so flippant about basic rights.

Different than what you perceived, I value the basic rights actually very much. But I believe they are only usefull, if the system it creates is stable in itself. If these rights lead to the destruction of the system under certain conditions, the rights either can't be absolute or the system must have protection to avoid the conditions that break the system. That's all I am saying. My argument is not even on the level of rights, but on the level of systems.

[–]franklindeer 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

No, of course not. I assumed that you would decide against the happiness of the people in other similar cases and added up, over man years, it would lead to the destruction of the system.

We're talking about a specific instance here though where the solution, according to you, must necessarily involve discrimination or the results will be dire. You're changing the goal posts.

No, it will break down, because the government ignored or misjudged heavily, how many refugees are bearable by the system.

Well that's yet to be seen but the issue then is policy and the burden of having so many refugees and the problems that not vetting them has allowed. The problem is not a lack of solutions that employ discrimination or a love of fundamental rights.

But I believe they are only usefull, if the system it creates is stable in itself.

Germany is pretty stable and they are by no means in an emergency situation. The country can certainly handle solutions that don't involve convenient discrimination.

If these rights lead to the destruction of the system under certain conditions, the rights either can't be absolute or the system must have protection to avoid the conditions that break the system.

This is an opinion based on something that has never happened. At this moment in time, it has only been shown that fundamental rights can be absolute and that they don't lead to the collapse of a system. So the assumption that ensuring rights is likely to lead to a catastrophic collapse and therefore we must be willing to sacrifice them whenever it's expedient, is baseless.

[–]FromTheFarSouth[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

this is consequences for their actions

Sure, as if all refugees participated in the Cologne attacks and not just a minority of criminals within the large community of refugees. Judging all male refugees for what those criminals did in Cologne is like judging all British people for what Chavs do. There's an interesting post by Faisal Saeed Al Mutar on Facebook that I would like to share here:

The far right: ALL Muslims are terrorists.

the far left: No Muslim is a terrorist and terrorism has nothing to do with Islam.

Me: Muslims belong to a spectrum from liberal to extremist, there is an obvious connection between Wahabi/Salafist interpretations of Islam and terrorism and there are peaceful interpretations of Islam too that are not at war with liberal values.

the Far Right: APOLOGIST! you are practicing TAQIYA!

the Far left: RACIST, ISLAMOPHOBE, STOP SAYING ALL MUSLIMS ARE EXTREMISTS.

[–]192873982 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CzechoslovakianJesus 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lethn 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]FromTheFarSouth[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]franklindeer 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TheRavenousRabbit 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]franklindeer 1 point2 points3 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]TheRavenousRabbit 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]FromTheFarSouth[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]FromTheFarSouth[S] 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ee4m 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago* (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain -2 points-1 points0 points 10 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]franklindeer 0 points1 point2 points 10 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]ThePigmanAgain -1 points0 points1 point 10 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	Misandry and xenophobia meet in one place: Male asylum seekers banned from German swimming pool
Author	FromTheFarSouth
Upvotes	0
Comments	44
Date	February 2, 2016 6:03 AM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/43symj/misandry_and_xenophobia_meet_in_one_place_male/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/misandry-and-xenophobia-meet-in-one-place-male.957157 https://theredarchive.com/post/957157

Comments