[Pants-of-dog]

Are we?

Yes, you guys were discussing the secret agenda revealed by this supposedly deliberate confusion of refugees and immigrants.

It's more correct to see them as economic migrants, as they were safe and had no reason to leave other than wanting to improve their economic circumstances.

Living in an overcrowded refugee camp with no job is not safe.

Here is the first article that came up in a quick Google search:
https://www.theguardian.com/global-deve ... eece-italy

This is, of course, above and beyond those criteria that already define them as refugees.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Yes, you guys were discussing the secret agenda revealed by this supposedly deliberate confusion of refugees and immigrants.

The conflation is deliberate and is influenced by the ideology of those who are reporting. It's part of the transition from factual and objective to contextual and interpretative journalism which has been going on for a long time. Invariably, the latter will depend more on the editors' and journalists' belief system, ethics and sensibilities. Perhaps you could say that the agenda is educating the public, according to these people's predominant world view, rather than just telling them what happened. This is not a secret, it's actually rather blatant.

Living in an overcrowded refugee camp with no job is not safe.

Here is the first article that came up in a quick Google search:
https://www.theguardian.com/global-deve ... eece-italy

This is, of course, above and beyond those criteria that already define them as refugees.

They are safe with respect to the refugee definition which is what we happen to be talking about.

If you and Godstud want to talk about something else go ahead - I'm not following this diversion.

[Albert]

With all the weekend's excitement I did not get a chance to post this. So this happened on the weekend in Hungary.

Thousands of Hungarians Protest Against Newly Elected Leader By HELENE BIENVENU and MARC SANTORA
APRIL 14, 2018



BUDAPEST, Hungary — Thousands of Hungarians took to the streets on Saturday, calling for Prime Minister Viktor Orban to step down just days after he was elected to a third consecutive term in office.



The protests, held in Budapest and several other cities, are unlikely to prompt the newly elected government to change course, but they reflect the deep divisions in this Central European country that has been at the forefront of a regional drift away from liberal Western values.

“Democracy is just inconceivable without the rule of law and free media,” said one protester, Levente Biro, 24. “We’ll march as long as needed.”

The demonstrations came a week after Mr. Orban and his Fidesz party secured a convincing victory in national elections, their power seemingly on the ascent. The political opposition is in disarray, civil society is under attack and the news media is almost fully under the control of the state.

Before the election, Mr. Orban promised that he would get even with all those who opposed him. “We will seek moral, legal and political recourse after the elections,” Mr. Orban told supporters.

So when a pro-government magazine, Figyelo, published a list of 200 Orban critics on Thursday, it was viewed as an ominous sign that he intended to make good on his threat.

The magazine labeled the people on the list — which included journalists and advocates at nongovernmental organizations — as “mercenaries” who were working to bring down the government. Many of them, it said, were under the command of the billionaire philanthropist George Soros.

Mr. Soros, a business magnate whose foundation funds pro-democracy groups, was born in Hungary and survived the Nazi occupation of Budapest before moving to England in 1947 and later settling in the United States.

Mr. Orban viciously attacked Mr. Soros throughout the campaign, and linked him to a central campaign tactic: stoking fear of immigrants and refugees, especially those from Muslim countries.

Mr. Soros, he said repeatedly, posed a threat to the country’s Christian identity and his goal was to “sweep away governments which represent national interests, including ours.”

Having won two-thirds of the seats in the Parliament — and with it, the ability to change the Constitution — Mr. Orban has promised to introduce a series of bills, labeled “Stop Soros” legislation, that would allow the government to penalize organizations supporting migrants.

The list published this past week also included a number of academics who teach at the Central European University in Budapest, which was founded by Mr. Soros.

In a statement, the university’s president, Michael Ignatieff, said that the list was “a flagrant attempt at intimidation that is dangerous for academic freedom and therefore for all of Hungarian academic life.”

The entire staffs of several nongovernmental organizations — including the Hungarian Civil Liberties Union, Amnesty International’s Hungarian section and the Hungarian Helsinki Committee — were also named on the Figyelo list.

I suspect this is EU orchestrated. EU has a history of undermining democratic process when it does not favour them. It will only they who will be brazen enough to organize protest when 50% of people had voted for Orban. Whoever went to that protest is a tool, I'm sorry to say, I have no other words to describe people like that.

I do not believe Hungarians democratic system is compromised like it is in Russia or other dysfunctional democracies, so I do consider the Hungarian election results as legitimate.

Btw, interesting to see Michael Ignatieff's name in the article. He rant for Prime Minter position in Canadian 2011 election for the Liberal party. He was the leader of the party from 2008-2011. Looks like he works for Soros now, no surprise I guess. Perhaps this shows just how all these liberal progressives are a connected global community.

[Pants-of-dog]

The conflation is deliberate and is influenced by the ideology of those who are reporting. It's part of the transition from factual and objective to contextual and interpretative journalism which has been going on for a long time. Invariably, the latter will depend more on the editors' and journalists' belief system, ethics and sensibilities. Perhaps you could say that the agenda is educating the public, according to these people's predominant world view, rather than just telling them what happened. This is not a secret, it's actually rather blatant.

Why are people deliberately conflating terms?

What is the goal of this supposed agenda?

If the goal is to educate the public, why is that bad?

Is there any evidence that this agenda exists?

They are safe with respect to the refugee definition which is what we happen to be talking about.

If you and Godstud want to talk about something else go ahead - I'm not following this diversion.

Not necessarily. If they were safe in the refugee sense, they could return to their homes. They cannot.

[Rugoz]

I suspect this is EU orchestrated.

You conspiracy theorists are so ridiculous.


In any case, Hungary's electoral law might be tailor-made for Fidesz, but it's fundamentally no different from other majoritarian systems. Institutions that work well in some countries might not work well in others. It's a question of political culture, among politicians AND voters.

I do not believe Hungarians democratic system is compromised like it is in Russia or other dysfunctional democracies, so I do consider the Hungarian election results as legitimate.

I would agree, for the moment.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

Why are people deliberately conflating terms?

What is the goal of this supposed agenda?

If the goal is to educate the public, why is that bad?

Is there any evidence that this agenda exists?

The reason for the conflation is to muddy the waters between the two categories. In the context of the refugee crisis, everybody was called a refugee and even the suggestion that they might not be was regarded as offensive. Of course at the same time they were supposed to pay for Europeans' pensions, which makes no sense as a refugee's status is temporary, and an economic boom due to all the highly skilled and educated among them. The reporting was narrowed down to either untrue positive effects or attempts to elicit compassion. This also includes the images which were not a true representation of the people on the move, as they were showing a disproportionate number of women and small children. In the US, it's used, among other things, so that people are able to talk about illegal immigrants as if they are legal. Since people are usually opposed to illegal immigration it's an attempt to circumvent an anticipated negative response. The same is true for the use of "undocumented" instead of illegal immigrant and at least in one case I came across the use of "undocumented citizen".

As for educating people, this seems to be one of your deliberately obtuse questions. There's obviously a difference between what and how a left wing person teaches compared with a right winger.

The evidence is in the news - what gets reported and how - and I've given some examples above.

Not necessarily. If they were safe in the refugee sense, they could return to their homes. They cannot.

No. They are, as you have pointed out in this thread, on the move because they are looking for economic opportunities rather than fleeing for their lives. They set off from and passed through many safe countries. And that doesn't include the many people who were never refugees to begin with.

[Albert]

:lol: You conspiracy theorists are so ridiculous.

It is know that NGOs and different social organizations, groups for human right for example, are used to promote western interests. These groups will organized protest with western money funneled to them, coupled with western backed media outlets this can pose a serious threat to a democratic process. This is how the west managed to overthrow Ukrainian elected government by utilizing such organizations.

This is also why Orban like Putin is persecuting such insidious groups.

[Pants-of-dog]

The reason for the conflation is to muddy the waters between the two categories. In the context of the refugee crisis, everybody was called a refugee and even the suggestion that they might not be was regarded as offensive. Of course at the same time they were supposed to pay for Europeans' pensions, which makes no sense as a refugee's status is temporary, and an economic boom due to all the highly skilled and educated among them. The reporting was narrowed down to either untrue positive effects or attempts to elicit compassion. This also includes the images which were not a true representation of the people on the move, as they were showing a disproportionate number of women and small children. In the US, it's used, among other things, so that people are able to talk about illegal immigrants as if they are legal. Since people are usually opposed to illegal immigration it's an attempt to circumvent an anticipated negative response. The same is true for the use of "undocumented" instead of illegal immigrant and at least in one case I came across the use of "undocumented citizen".

As for educating people, this seems to be one of your deliberately obtuse questions. There's obviously a difference between what and how a left wing person teaches compared with a right winger.

The evidence is in the news - what gets reported and how - and I've given some examples above.

But you give no reason why the press would conspire together to confuse everyone. The press does all this for refugees, or economic migrants if you prefer, but there seems to be no reason why they would do so. There is no profit for them.

This is what I mean by you and @foxdemon discussing some secret and nefarious agenda.

No. They are, as you have pointed out in this thread, on the move because they are looking for economic opportunities rather than fleeing for their lives. They set off from and passed through many safe countries. And that doesn't include the many people who were never refugees to begin with.

The majority of people who came to Europe during the recent migrant crisis were from countries with war. For many of them, they could not return during said crisis.

It is a fact that they fit the definition of refugee, and it is also a fact that they fit the definition of economic migrant. To me, this seems like a simple statement of fact, and requires no weird agenda with no apparent motive.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

But you give no reason why the press would conspire together to confuse everyone. The press does all this for refugees, or economic migrants if you prefer, but there seems to be no reason why they would do so. There is no profit for them.

I explained this. It is their world view, ethics and sensibilities that make them act similarly and agree on what should be reported and how, which is why I brought up their political alignment in my first post. It's not usually a conspiracy although sometimes they may at least attempt to coordinate a response, as evidenced by the article I quoted in the SJW thread. Perhaps they actually succeed more often than we think, but a conspiracy or something nefarious is certainly not necessary.

The majority of people who came to Europe during the recent migrant crisis were from countries with war. For many of them, they could not return during said crisis.

It is a fact that they fit the definition of refugee, and it is also a fact that they fit the definition of economic migrant. To me, this seems like a simple statement of fact, and requires no weird agenda with no apparent motive.

They used to be refugees and then became economic migrants. The concept of safe countries was created to respond to the negative consequences of this lack of distinction. It's why Canada has an agreement with the US to enable it to send what are actually economic migrants back to the US. Instead of dealing with the underlying issue that it is ludicrous to consider a person who resides in a safe country and sets out to better his economic situation a refugee, we just build layers upon layers of law on top.

[Rugoz]

It is know that NGOs and different social organizations, groups for human right for example, are used to promote western interests. These groups will organized protest with western money funneled to them, coupled with western backed media outlets this can pose a serious threat to a democratic process. This is how the west managed to overthrow Ukrainian elected government by utilizing such organizations.

This is also why Orban like Putin is persecuting such insidious groups.

What utter nonsense.

NGOs and "social organizations" promoting values inherently tied to democracy (such as the rule of law, human rights or the free press) are not a threat to the democratic process, to the contrary, they protect and nurture it.

That's the very reason Putin and Orban are persecuting such groups, or are you suddenly claiming that Putin is a democrat.

[Pants-of-dog]

I explained this. It is their world view, ethics and sensibilities that make them act similarly and agree on what should be reported and how, which is why I brought up their political alignment in my first post. It's not usually a conspiracy although sometimes they may at least attempt to coordinate a response, as evidenced by the article I quoted in the SJW thread. Perhaps they actually succeed more often than we think, but a conspiracy or something nefarious is certainly not necessary.

This is a vague answer.

I asked how they profit from this supoosed attempt to confuse everyone, and you reply with “world view, ethics, and sensibilities”.

Do you think that most journalists have a world view, ethic responsibility, or sensibility that benefits from refugee crises?

They used to be refugees and then became economic migrants. The concept of safe countries was created to respond to the negative consequences of this lack of distinction. It's why Canada has an agreement with the US to enable it to send what are actually economic migrants back to the US. Instead of dealing with the underlying issue that it is ludicrous to consider a person who resides in a safe country and sets out to better his economic situation a refugee, we just build layers upon layers of law on top.

Sure.

And as I said, you can point out they were refugees and then migrants without needing some sort of vague agenda. Which you did.

[Albert]

What utter nonsense.

NGOs and "social organizations" promoting values inherently tied to democracy (such as the rule of law, human rights or the free press) are not a threat to the democratic process, to the contrary, they protect and nurture it.

That's the very reason Putin and Orban are persecuting such groups, or are you suddenly claiming that Putin is a democrat.

Poor Rugoz, there there.

[Kaiserschmarrn]

This is a vague answer.

It's doubtful that anything I say will satisfy you.

I asked how they profit from this supoosed attempt to confuse everyone, and you reply with “world view, ethics, and sensibilities”.

Do you think that most journalists have a world view, ethic responsibility, or sensibility that benefits from refugee crises?

I don't know where you are going with this exactly, but you seem to have a rebuttal in store that requires me to say something specific in response to these questions.

Why don't we cut this short and instead of going back and forth you just make the case?

Sure.

And as I said, you can point out they were refugees and then migrants without needing some sort of vague agenda. Which you did.

I never claimed that every person who does this has an agenda.

[One Degree]

@Pants-of-dog
Immigration increase labor, which decreases wages, which increases profits. If you can include illegal immigrants, then the profits are even greater because many of your expenses disappear for them. This is the main reason behind your ‘humanitarian’ cause.

[Godstud]

So @One Degree you're against Capitalism? Are you some kinda Socialist, now? According to you, there's no middle ground. You're not a Capitalist, so that means you're Socialist. It's like being Liberal or Conservative. Same thing...

[One Degree]

So @One Degree you're against Capitalism? Are you some kinda Socialist, now?

I have always viewed my own community as having a great deal of community ownership. As owners, they can compete against other communities in a capitalist system. I am only opposed to universal socialism, or universal any ideology.

[Godstud]

You're a socialist then. You can't be a capitalist, or you'd support immigration. You're a godammned Commie!!!

(This is what happens when you only believe there is black and white when it comes to most things... you get silliness)

[One Degree]

You're a socialist then. You can't be a capitalist, or you'd support immigration. You're a godammned Commie!!!

(This is what happens when you only believe there is black and white when it comes to most things... you get silliness)

Quasi commie. I don’t believe in joint ownership of everything and I prefer it be something like ‘actual shares’ everyone gets. But, I am off topic with my nonsense again.

[Pants-of-dog]

It's doubtful that anything I say will satisfy you.

I don't know where you are going with this exactly, but you seem to have a rebuttal in store that requires me to say something specific in response to these questions.

Why don't we cut this short and instead of going back and forth you just make the case?

My point is very simple.

You are arguing that journalists have an agenda.

I am pointing out that they have no reason or motive for this agenda.

It seems odd to argue that people will engage in long term, complicated, difficult efforts for no apparent reason.

I never claimed that every person who does this has an agenda.

Why would anyone need an agenda to point out that the migrants are both economic migrants and refugees?

@Pants-of-dog
Immigration increase labor, which decreases wages, which increases profits. If you can include illegal immigrants, then the profits are even greater because many of your expenses disappear for them. This is the main reason behind your ‘humanitarian’ cause.

Oh, the journalists are in a secret conspiracy with the capitalists to use migrants as cheap workers. I see.

I am sure @Kaiserschmarrn appreciates your support.

[One Degree]

Oh, the journalists are in a secret conspiracy with the capitalists to use migrants as cheap workers. I see.

I am sure @Kaiserschmarrn appreciates your support.

@Pants-of-dog
No, the capitalists bought the companies the journalist work for. Thank you Bill Clinton.

@Kaiserschmarrn Has no need of my support.