Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by on Sunday May 07 2017, @10:42PM   Printer-friendly
from the le-roi-est-mort dept.

Emmanuel Macron has been declared the President of France after early vote counts:

France has a new president. Emmanuel Macron – an independent centrist who has never held elected office – has won a resounding victory over far-right, nationalist Marine Le Pen in the most important French presidential race in decades, according to early vote counts by the French Interior Ministry.

In early returns, Macron had won an estimated 65 percent of the vote to Le Pen's nearly 35 percent, according to the French Interior Ministry. Le Pen has already called to congratulate Macron and conceded defeat to a gathering of her supporters in Paris.

Also at The Guardian (live), Washington Post, NYT, Reuters, and The Local.

From CNBC: Euro hits six-month high on Macron victory

CNN editorial: Why Macron's victory is reassuring ... and yet not

BBC has an article about Macron's potential choice of Prime Minister.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0, Troll) by Ethanol-fueled on Monday May 08 2017, @12:05AM (28 children)

    by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Monday May 08 2017, @12:05AM (#506068) Homepage

    " Being made to feel like an outsider all the time would hardly make a person feel welcome. "

    Oh, things will improve once they get to roll out their independent parallel law system and all women without head-coverings are beaten in the streets. And the no-go zones. Feel bad for urban tourist industries, though -- why would anybody fly all the way out to Paris to live Planet of the Apes? If I wanted to see the streets and sidewalks of my finest city covered with tents, filth, and criminals; then I can simply go a few miles down to East Village and with the added bonus that the vagrants there at least know how to speak my language, won't cut my head off, and I'm a few steps away from a good baseball game.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   -1  
       Troll=8, Insightful=4, Interesting=1, Informative=1, Funny=1, Total=15
    Extra 'Troll' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   0  
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by julian on Monday May 08 2017, @12:39AM (24 children)

    by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 08 2017, @12:39AM (#506086)

    And the no-go zones.

    Do you mean the mythical ones [bloomberg.com] that only exist in the minds of bigoted, terrified, ignoramuses who can be tricked into parroting any fake story if it fits their xenophobia? The world has enough real horror in it to worry about, you don't need to make shit up.

    I think you've been reading too much of The Camp of the Saints [wikipedia.org] and are confusing it with reality.

    Thankfully, the french react with amusement to this hoax,

    "That's pretty funny," says Hait Abbas, a non-practicing Muslim who runs a wine shop in a Paris neighborhood among those identified by Peterson as a no-go zone. Far from being Muslim-dominated, the neighborhood near the Gare du Nord train station bustles with Italian delis, African hair-braiding shops, and Chinese massage parlors. If it's governed by Islamic law, Abbas says, "I guess I better cut my hand off."

    Emphasis mine. Hit him up if you're ever in Paris, I'm sure he can set you straight about more than a few topics on which you are perennially confused.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @01:32AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @01:32AM (#506109)

      The no-go zones are places where the law enforcement will be attacked at all times and crimes go largely unsolved because no one has seen anything.. This enables criminal gangs and drug trade. Ambulance personnel gets stones thrown at them. And normal people may be physically intimidated. Some areas even have their form of patrolling Sharia thugs. This doesn't happen to everyone, everytime. But it has become a regular occurrence that were not there before. The phenomena exist regardless of what people believe.

      Anecdotes will not negate statistical trends. Nor will mainstream media propaganda.

    • (Score: 5, Disagree) by Grishnakh on Monday May 08 2017, @03:16AM (17 children)

      by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday May 08 2017, @03:16AM (#506157)

      "That's pretty funny," says Hait Abbas, a non-practicing Muslim who runs a wine shop in a Paris neighborhood among those identified by Peterson as a no-go zone.

      I have to point out that this is impossible. There's no such thing as a "non-practicing Muslim"; that's like a "non-practicing Catholic". Either you are or you aren't. It's not like being Jewish. If you aren't practicing the religion, then you aren't part of the religion any more. I was raised Catholic. I don't practice any more (since college), and guess what? I'm not Catholic now, I'm agnostic. It's even moreso for Muslims, because the word itself means "submission" (to Allah). If you aren't practicing, then you obviously aren't submitting to some deity, so the word doesn't describe you. Just because Islam came from the Middle East alongside Judaism doesn't mean it works the same way; with Jews, you can be "ethnically Jewish" but not part of the religion. Not with Islam, and not with Christianity either, or really any other religion on the planet.

      This Hait guy isn't a Muslim. He should be identified by his nationality (e.g. "Moroccan"), or by his ancestry (e.g. "Moroccan-French"), as those are things that will correctly describe him. If he isn't actively participating in and following a religion, then using a religious label for him (other than "agnostic" or "atheist") is simply incorrect.

      • (Score: 2) by julian on Monday May 08 2017, @03:46AM (5 children)

        by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 08 2017, @03:46AM (#506165)

        He can identify with the Islamic culture he comes from without believing the supernatural aspects, and if he wants to still call himself a Muslim that's up to him. It's not clear if this particular man describes himself that way, or if the author of the piece did, but people who do identify that way exist.

        In comparison, I'm an atheist, but I celebrate Christmas and Easter. I have identifications with the Christian religion because the Christian religion informed the development of Western culture generally. One difference with Islam is that their current cultures are more closely tied to their religion; similar to how Christianity was more central to daily life in Europe hundreds of years ago.

        There is even a body of philosophical thought called Christian atheism [wikipedia.org].

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Monday May 08 2017, @04:48AM (4 children)

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday May 08 2017, @04:48AM (#506182)

          In comparison, I'm an atheist, but I celebrate Christmas and Easter.

          So what? Lots of people celebrate Halloween by wearing slutty outfits but that doesn't make them religious. Christmas and Easter aren't religious either: Christmas was originally called Saturnalia, and is one of many winter-solstice festivals that pretty much every culture has. The gift-giving came from the Roman Saturnalia, and the fir tree came from Germanic pagan traditions. The Christians merely stole the holiday and renamed it. Easter has nothing to do with Christianity: its the name of a goddess of fertility, and the rabbit symbolism comes from that since rabbits are infamous for being fertile. Again, the Christians stole the holiday and appropriated it to get people to convert, except here they couldn't even be bothered to come up with a new name. I celebrate Christmas too because I think pagan holidays are fun (hence the decorated tree) and I think the Roman tradition of gift-giving is nice; I sure as hell don't tie it to Christianity in any way.

          because the Christian religion informed the development of Western culture generally.

          Bullshit. The Greeks and Romans created Western culture. Next time you go to court for something, notice that all the names for everything are in Latin: the mechanics of our legal system come directly from Roman jurisprudence, and the foundations of philosophy and medicine come from ancient Greece. When the Christians took over, Rome soon fell and we had the Dark Ages and 1000 years of backwards feudalism instead of civilization.

          similar to how Christianity was more central to daily life in Europe hundreds of years ago.

          Like when they burned people at the stake for heresy?

          There is even a body of philosophical thought called Christian atheism.

          That just strikes me as people clinging to churches because of tradition and wanting to be part of some community, and trying to rationalize their position. If you want to create a philosophy club, great, but being a regular member of a church which has particular beliefs they profess and evangelize, and refusing to accept these, seems insincere to me. If you don't agree with them, you should leave and form your own group, rather than being a fraud.

          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by julian on Monday May 08 2017, @05:50AM

            by julian (6003) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 08 2017, @05:50AM (#506202)

            Nowhere did I imply that the history of Western culture began with Christianity. Obviously Greek and Roman influences predated it--and I agree that Christianity was not an improvement, especially for science and philosophy.

            The rest of that seems to be you getting angry at how some people choose to use language and define their terms. I'm perfectly happy with Christian atheism as an idea, it seems perfectly coherent to me even if I don't agree with it (Jesus was not a great moral teacher). And likewise I don't see any paradox in considering oneself to be a cultural or non-practicing Christian/Muslim/Hindu/etc. These phrases accurately track people's experiences and conceptions of themselves so I find them useful.

          • (Score: 2) by AthanasiusKircher on Monday May 08 2017, @12:06PM (2 children)

            by AthanasiusKircher (5291) on Monday May 08 2017, @12:06PM (#506302) Journal

            I celebrate Christmas too because I think pagan holidays are fun (hence the decorated tree) and I think the Roman tradition of gift-giving is nice; I sure as hell don't tie it to Christianity in any way.

            That's good for you. It's your perspective. I'm not sure why you're so angry that someone else has a different one. I'm well-aware of the origins of Christmas, but most people don't know that much about it. Yet a LOT of people "celebrate" it some way even if they aren't really a "practicing" Christian in any other sense. They may or may not claim to be "Christian" overall, but they think of the holiday as Christian. What you have here is a version of the "etymological fallacy": just because Christmas may have relationships to various pagan festivals in its origins doesn't make it ONLY a pagan festival.

            There is even a body of philosophical thought called Christian atheism.

            That just strikes me as people clinging to churches because of tradition and wanting to be part of some community, and trying to rationalize their position. If you want to create a philosophy club, great, but being a regular member of a church which has particular beliefs they profess and evangelize, and refusing to accept these, seems insincere to me. If you don't agree with them, you should leave and form your own group, rather than being a fraud.

            I'm shocked anyone modded this "informative" when by the end you clearly have either gone into pure "rant" mode or are just trolling.

            The reality of the world is that almost every Christian denomination has "particular beliefs they profess," often in a detailed catechism or official set of doctrine somewhere. And yet, in most denominations, it's likely that a very large portion (perhaps most for Catholics) "practicing" members of that denomination don't believe in ALL of them. I mean, ask your average Catholic on the street -- do they REALLY believe that the bread IS the "body of Christ" during the Eucharist? I mean do you absolutely believe that it's transformed that way? And a lot will hedge a bit and spout some stuff that isn't really Catholic doctrine, but a lot will also just say they never understood that, and they view it more as a "memorial" to Last Supper tradition.

            By your definition, these people "should leave" and form their own group, since they are "frauds." The Eucharistic doctrine is essential to Catholic belief, but how many Catholics REALLY believe it? And let's not even get into polls of Catholics on church doctrine on controversial political issues like contraceptives or abortion. This is a "No true Scotsman" fallacy. Or perhaps No true Irishman [irishtimes.com], for among Irish Catholics (according to that article), 8% don't believe in God, 15% don't believe Jesus is the Son of God, 18% don't believe God created man, and a full two-thirds say that transubstantiation doesn't occur and the mass is more of a symbolic remembrance. Even among regular mass goers, only half believe in this core tenet of transubstantiation. (To be fair, these sorts of polls depend on the place -- in Latin America, belief in transubstantiation is still quite strong, but not in the traditional Catholic bastion of Ireland.)

            What your definition ends up with is saying that there's like 5 guys in Minnesota somewhere who are "actually" Lutherans (or whatever), because they really believe EVERYTHING their church says literally, without question. And Catholics and Lutherans, etc. are actual denominations with statements of faith and such that all must subscribe to. The "bar" is a lot lower for just claiming to be a "Christian." Who adjudicates that, exactly?

            If somebody wants to call themselves a "Christian atheist," why should I have a problem with it? In fact, since you say you're agnostic and have left your church, I would think you should actually be in favor of such a thing, because it's actually HONEST ("I don't believe in God, but I still want to follow some moral tenets of Christianity" or whatever) rather than the loads of "practicing Christians" who actually don't believe what their faith claims.

            • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Monday May 08 2017, @04:46PM

              by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 08 2017, @04:46PM (#506424) Journal

              If you think that """every Christian denomination has "particular beliefs they profess," """, please explain modern Unitarianism. Or, it has been reported, Anglicanism. I can't find the quote I'm looking for but to paraphrase it "a religion so inoffensive that it interferes neither with a man's beliefs nor with his actions". (That certainly hasn't been the case at all times for either of them. Unitarianism used to be rather stricter than average, and Anglicanism used to have rigidly prescribed rituals, at least for the clergy.

              --
              Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @01:54AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 09 2017, @01:54AM (#506706)

              I'm not sure why you're so angry that someone else has a different one. I'm well-aware of the origins of Christmas, but most people don't know that much about it.

              Begun, this Soylent War on Christmas has!

      • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @06:57AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @06:57AM (#506223)

        "non-practicing Muslim" has a specific meaning - it means someone who doesn't practice Salah 5 times a day [wikipedia.org]. It means nothing else. Most Muslims are non-practicing because it is very difficult thing to observe. It is very much against Sharia.

        Not getting involved in any debate - just putting some definitions out there to help. Hence posting AC.

        Also, know from this, that lack of knowledge cannot be compensated by engaging in debate. Putting theory above practice got us into dark ages...

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by arslan on Monday May 08 2017, @07:32AM (1 child)

        by arslan (3462) on Monday May 08 2017, @07:32AM (#506230)

        I have to point out that this is impossible. There's no such thing as a "non-practicing Muslim"; that's like a "non-practicing Catholic". Either you are or you aren't. It's not like being Jewish. If you aren't practicing the religion, then you aren't part of the religion any more.

        I don't think that is accurate, please provide a citation. I grew up in a predominantly Muslim country but officially a secular country (non-Islamic state officially) and there are "non-practicing Muslims". In general they do what most non-pious folks would do, avoid going to the mosque regularly, don't or minimally observe Ramadan (although they try to do it inconspicuously as much as possible for obvious reasons) and some I've observed even eat pork. Given it is not officially an Islamic state (though there are Syariah courts for muslims but not over non-muslims) the policing is pretty laxed especially in the major metropolition cities where population is too large for the syariah folks to police and the mosques to keep attendance tally. Lots gamble and have pre-marital coitus as well.

        In small villages, yea no way one can get away with it but in the big cities with large urban sprawl and overpopulation anything goes. There's a least a couple of countries in South east asia that are like this.

        So unless, your comment is specifically about France, which I can't really comment on, your claim surely is not accurate as a generalization.

        • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday May 08 2017, @02:55PM

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday May 08 2017, @02:55PM (#506371)

          It sounds to me like all those "non-practicing Muslims" you speak of only claim to be Muslims because of social pressure, not because they actually believe it. If you're going to break all the laws (eat pork, have pre-marital coitus, not attend Mosque), then what's the point of claiming you're an adherent of the religion? Simple: social pressure. You don't want to anger your parents, or it'll negatively affect your job or housing, or you'll lose your friends, etc. So that means that you're really a fraud. If you don't believe in a religion, then don't claim to be an adherent. Of course, if that's going to seriously affect your quality of life (or even quantity), then it does make good sense to falsely claim to be a follower, but at least acknowledge to yourself that you're really a fraud, and hopefully work towards changing your society so that that social pressure is gone and people have the freedom to be non-adherents if they choose.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @01:37PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @01:37PM (#506339)

        Actually, it might interest you to learn that it is no longer possible to leave the Catholic church. At least formally [wikipedia.org].

        You can of course claim to not be catholic, but you could still be listed as being one in various countries and church records.

        Though I agree somewhat with your sentiment and it may often not make sense to name such people by their link to a religion they hardly care about, I think the world is not black and white. Many people feel somewhat attached to their original religion, without following it to the letter (or in fact, much at all). This is a well recognized phenomenon [wikipedia.org], at least for Catholics. But I see no real reason why it could not be applied to other religions.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @02:17PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @02:17PM (#506355)

        I love it when a genuinely insightful comment is modded troll. Going for the +5 Troll rating.

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday May 08 2017, @03:12PM (4 children)

        by Thexalon (636) on Monday May 08 2017, @03:12PM (#506379)

        There's no such thing as a "non-practicing Muslim"; that's like a "non-practicing Catholic". Either you are or you aren't.

        On the contrary, both of those exist. I've worked with people and befriended people that would be accurately described as non-practicing Muslims and non-practicing Catholics. And they aren't all that different from each other:

        - A "non-practicing" or "lapsed" Catholic is somebody who went through all the Catholic stuff growing up: Baptism, First Communion, Confirmation. It wouldn't be surprising if they had a Catholic wedding too, and when the time comes they might have a Catholic priest in to handle Last Rites and the funeral. But they don't go to church regularly, don't do confession, use birth control, and if you ask them about it they'll say something like "It was important to my grandfather that I do all this, but I don't really believe it."

        - A "non-practicing Muslim" is much the same way: They've said the bit about "There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet" at some point. They do the prayers or visit a mosque when they're around somebody else who cares about doing them, and will know how to do the prayers properly. But they aren't going on a hajj anytime soon, they aren't waking up at 5 AM for morning prayers, don't typically go to the mosque on Fridays, will have a beer after work, and may eat lunch during Ramadan. If you ask them their religious affiliation, they'll say "Muslim", but will pretty freely admit that they don't follow all the rules and it's not all that important to them.

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
        • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday May 08 2017, @03:59PM (2 children)

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday May 08 2017, @03:59PM (#506404)

          Yep, both those people are frauds. They're lying to others and to themselves about what they really are. If it was important to your long-dead grandfather that you be part of some religion, but you don't care about it yourself, then why would you bother? I'm sure if I could resurrect my grandfather and ask him if it's OK for me to be in an interracial relationship, he'd say NO, but why would I hold myself to the opinion of a racist like that? If I go back farther, I'll surely have direct descendants who think slavery is great, but I sure as hell don't want to maintain or promote that horrible tradition either, just because some ancestors thought it was a great thing.

          • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Monday May 08 2017, @06:04PM (1 child)

            by Thexalon (636) on Monday May 08 2017, @06:04PM (#506473)

            They're substantially different from someone who doesn't identify at all with those religions, though.

            If I'm sitting through a Catholic service, I only vaguely know what's going on, and can't fully participate in it because I've never done the things required to take Communion. Whereas my non-practicing Catholic friends can and do know exactly what's going on and can fully participate if they so choose, and certainly are familiar with the culture and in-jokes and such.

            Religious belief and behavior is analog, not digital, and trying to treat it as a binary is not a worthwhile activity. There are always varying degrees of strictness in every faith tradition, and regardless of the official rules written down somewhere, in practice nobody expects strict religiosity from most of the people who say they're in a particular faith tradition.

            --
            The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
            • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Monday May 08 2017, @06:36PM

              by Grishnakh (2831) on Monday May 08 2017, @06:36PM (#506488)

              Whereas my non-practicing Catholic friends can and do know exactly what's going on and can fully participate if they so choose, and certainly are familiar with the culture and in-jokes and such.

              Yes, I'm the same way, because I was raised Catholic. If you insist on calling me a "non-practicing Catholic", however, I'm going to be extremely offended and probably rudely insult you to your face. I've explicitly rejected that religion and just because I happen to know all the rites doesn't mean I want be forever stuck with that label. Anyone who chooses to read about it can learn all the same things, probably even better than me since they have more interest in knowing it now, unlike me who only knows it from childhood.

              Religious belief and behavior is analog, not digital, and trying to treat it as a binary is not a worthwhile activity.

              It *is* binary: either you believe or you don't believe. If you think it's bullshit, then you're not a believer, and it's wrong to conflate you with the other believers of that faith. Moreover, it gives undue power to that group, because it allows them to unfairly inflate their numbers with people who aren't actually members and don't participate. It's no different than allowing Microsoft to count most Linux users as "Windows users" just because their PC happened to have Windows pre-installed when they bought it, even though they wiped the HD and installed an OS of their choosing afterwards.

              in practice nobody expects strict religiosity from most of the people who say they're in a particular faith tradition.

              Oh please. There's a big difference between expecting an adherent to strictly live by every rule, and know all the ins and outs of a religion, and actually believing in the fundamental tenets of that religion. It's entirely normal for adherents to not know all the minutiae; that's the job of their clergy. But it is entirely reasonable to expect them all to actually believe in the fundamental dogma that is central to that religion (i.e., that Jesus is a deity if you're a Christian, that there's an actual God if you're a believer in any Abrahamic religion, etc.). It's also entirely reasonable to expect them to continue to participate to some extent, even if it's not extremely regular. Someone who hasn't been involved in a church in any way in decades cannot be rightfully considered a member of some organized religion; that's just lunacy. It is possible to observe a faith on your own without being part of a particular organization (I've known Christians who've decided they hate going to church because of all the other people there), but that's different because people like that still believe in the fundamental dogmas, even if they don't participate locally with others. Participating without believing even the most fundamental dogmas means you're just a fraud, taking advantage of it for social purposes, perhaps to use it as a social club, or because it helps you get brownie points in your community or something (like politicians who go to a church regularly so they can look like "upstanding community members" even though they don't believe any of it and act completely contrary to the teachings).

        • (Score: 1) by purple_cobra on Tuesday May 09 2017, @02:07PM

          by purple_cobra (1435) on Tuesday May 09 2017, @02:07PM (#506910)

          There's always lapsed Catholics [youtube.com].

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @05:55PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @05:55PM (#506465)

        Someday language might evolve to be exactly what you want. Until then, the rest of us will read and understand his meaning, but feel free to remain willfully confused.

        -A non-practicing Catholic

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @06:10AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @06:10AM (#506206)

      If they're so 'mythical' would you mind going on a stroll as an openly gay man? You may just find yourself 'enriched'.

    • (Score: 1, Troll) by VLM on Monday May 08 2017, @12:15PM (3 children)

      by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Monday May 08 2017, @12:15PM (#506307)

      bustles with Italian delis, African hair-braiding shops, and Chinese massage parlors ..... Hit him up if you're ever in Paris

      Why would I ever want to go to Paris if its basically downtown USA? Its not like there's any French people in Paris anymore. I'd like to experience Parisian/French culture, but all I'm gonna get if I go to France is Italian food, African barbershops, Chinese bordellos and endless Muslim terror attacks.

      I'm not sure ethnic food is worth stacks of filled body bags. Every time I'd buy a kebob from a street vendor in the USA I get to wonder about the tradeoff of food poisoning, but in France I'd get to wonder about the tradeoff of dead little kids knifed or crushed under trucks (and probably food poisoning too).

      Multiculturalism = worship of destruction

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @12:58PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @12:58PM (#506326)

        And every time you masturbate God kills a kitten.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday May 08 2017, @04:19PM (1 child)

        by Thexalon (636) on Monday May 08 2017, @04:19PM (#506415)

        endless Muslim terror attacks

        Since 2000, a total of 247 people, or less than 20 people a year, have been killed by terrorists in France. That's considerably fewer than have been killed in the US by terrorists in the same period, even factoring in the population difference.

        And of course you'd experience French and Parisian culture in Paris. Major European cities aren't all that different from New York: There's a distinctive local culture, but also subcultures from all corners of the world. For example, in Germany, beer and brats is easy to find, even though you can also enjoy sushi or Turkish falafel if you'd like.

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @08:54PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @08:54PM (#506573)

          Terrorism is NOT normal. Japan has none.

          Japan has about two dozen refugees. Japan has roughly a thousand muslims, and the government monitors them all. Japan stopped bringing people in after a few rapes; the safety of Japan takes priority over being nice to non-Japanese.

          The kids are safe. They walk alone for miles at preschool age. Aside from photos and minor touching, the women are safe. (no real harm)

          Meanwhile, in the multi-cultural world, we are not safe. It's not just big terrorist productions; regular immigrant crime matters too.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @01:48AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @01:48AM (#506116)

    I've asked this before but you never seem interested in responding. What is WRONG with you?

    For all the tough guy talk you act like a scared little kid.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @02:34AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @02:34AM (#506139)

      Malformed brain. [google.com]
      (It's true of the entire Reactionary genre.)

      -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @03:18AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday May 08 2017, @03:18AM (#506158)

    Just like Dearborn, MI! OMGFREAKOUT! The Moooooooooooooslims are coming! The Moooooooooooooooslims are coming!