DahGangalang

What do you do for music instead?

I think this is largely a consequence of the rate of change.

Going from 50 generations back to 40 generation back (call it 750 AD to 1000 AD) very little would have changed for people, especially those limited in their means of transportation. I think this is largely, if not exactly, true of any generational gap (the exceptions I feel can be found at those bridging the rise and fall of empires)

Meanwhile, 10 generations ago (call it like 1750) wouldn't recognize the world today. Hell, 2-3 generations ago (thinking of those born ~1925-1950) barely recognize the world of today.

The way I see it, the rate of change we experience in the world today is simply beyond the rate of change we were bred for over the bulk of humanity's history.

With that perspective in mind, it feels wrong to hold it against people to resist parts of that change.

Yeah, in my ideal world, we'd all get along and be able to deal with these things in a civilized manner, but that feels super dismissive of the Human Condition and the real lived experience of people in the real world.

Looping back to the point I want to make: coming at people hard for having a negative reaction to a changing world doesn't make their acceptance of the changing world any better.

Boy, I sure do hate that analogy.

But it is the reason I'm registered with a major party vs the one I actually like; I can always have a voice in the one I like, and I want to be able to have my microscopic amount of influence on a larger party. It's as much of a "have your cake and eat it too" in the less-than-optimal environment of American Politics as I can get.

American here to confirm that @JoBo is basically right.

Some of the smaller parties have "Open Primaries" (which is to say that you can vote for who gets to represent the party in the real election, regardless of your party registration), but the big two (Democrats and Republicans) have "Closed Primaries" which means that if you want to vote for who will be the Dem/Rep candidate in the main election, you have to be a registered member of that party.

That's fair. I can see how I read more malice into your comment than was intended. I'd like to apologize for that.

I do want (for the sake of clarity) to say that I agree the flow of muslims to EU/US cities is not a problem. The notion of any western nation implementing Sharia Law (or any approximation) is wild at best.

I do think that the way you accused him of needlessly fear mongering doesn't placate or soften the guys opinions. I think flat accusations like that are part of what pushes guys who do believe "Sharia Law will come by having Muslims around" into more extremist positions. Whether you intended it or not, I'm sure it was received as a belittling comment what will only serve to alienate the guy.

That does beg the question: what is the correct way to handle comments like this guy's, to which I don't have a good response. I do appreciate you rolling out actually data. But watching the polarization of beliefs and politcal positions, I feel the part folling the link to statistics isn't helping.

I suppose, the point I mean to make is that belittling this guy does nothing to solve the problem.

I don't want to get in the middle of a flame war, but as someone who's seen the culture of his small town shift over the last couple decades, I can't help but have some sympathy for those who worry about this happening in their local (Admittedly, in my case, it's watching a town where the suburban drops off to rural slowly be subsumed by city sprawl, so this might be a false equivalance).

But I think the real issue is that that's not an evenly distributed 11%. People will naturally bunch up in groups along cultural lines. I could see a city developing a single Arab/Muslim neighborhood over the course of a decade being of no note, but it sounds like some are developing multiple over just a couple years.

I have no real data to back that notion up, but from what I hear from Europeans, that's the general feel. I think that's the real issue: things are changing and they feel like they're changing fast, and that's freaking people out. Telling people who feel that way they're crazy only "others" them and I feel that's really how the situation gets worse.

But also, the towns the guy above mentioned feel like bigger cities (I'm American and haven't been to Europe, so I also might lack perspective), and so I do feel like they're overstating the point.

This, but unironically.

If I had the means to pirate my internet connection, I'd do it in a heart beat.

The real superior option (except when naming files)

If it wasn't for the 5 ish messaging apps I have to maintain and my recent move to a new city (need maps), I'd try to avoid that one too.

Yeah, like, since when does Microsoft put out something both functional and cool, ya know?

I mean, yes, technically that isn't wrong.

But let's be real, to say (or imply) that all regions operate at the same level of "capitalism" is a disingenuous argument. It seems that if the housing issue in the US were this truly the fault of capitalism, then one would expect that more leftist variations to produce better results for solving homelessness.

While not familiar with the data on this, it's my understanding that large cities in left leaning states tend to do worse at finding/providing long term housing to unhoused people.

I'm open to looking at contrary data, but that's really what it'd take to sway my opinion on the matter.