Hello /pol/,
Today I was hanging out with my friend and we noticed our classmate sitting and waiting for someone. We go to talk to her, turns out she's waiting for her exchange friends. She is in a students' exchange programme about refugees n shiet.
She talks about how they have two Syrian refugees in their group who tell experiences about how they survived bombings, traveled without food, got beaten up (including women) in Croatia, etc.
Her buddies show up and we start a discussion about refugees. I, of course, say that accepting refugees is a bad idea.
I of course go for statistics. "50% of Somalis are on welfare in the Netherlands" I say. And the bluepill strikes me with "But you know that refugees in the Netherlands are not allowed to work for one year upon arrival?"
I don't understand really. This thing sounds really fucking irrational to me that a country would deny labourforce in their own markets and would choose to feed people for free.
So does this meme have any merit? Is it true in any European country? Also, I might be facing the same guy sometime later because my friend said that they might invite me to some sort of a conference or something in a few days.
So give me your best arguments on how to combat the bluepill and what to say in the refugees discussion.
just show them this retard
https://youtu.be/44vzMNG2fZc
>>78169866
I want actual statistics, not a few gemstones lying around on youtube. I also can't show videos in a fucking discussion.
One of their points was "hurr durr it is propaganda against refugees, esp. in Lithuania" so I can't use specific videos to counter their narrative.
>>78170589
You don't need statistics when talking about refugees. If they're actual refugees you're helping them fleeing from the war. Again actual refugees. You'll never persuade someone that helping people in need is wrong. The only thing you can fight against is having too many as too many means less resources per refugee...
Economic migrants on the other hand....
Give me your best arguments against refugees in Europe /pol/
Thank you for your order!
One Bump
The govt is purposely not providing clear figures on migrant crime, and then accussing people of having no data when they try to debate immigration. Technically there has been only one conviction for the cologne sex attacks (IIRC) so statistically that doesn't really register.
If you're having a hard time getting solid facts, data etc is because it's supposed to be that way
>>78169378
The vast majority of people cannot into facts. I would suggest only about 10% of people find facts persuasive. The only way most people become redpilled about refugees is by actual encounters with them.
Think of it this way. The number one indicator of a Trump voter is his location in majority-minority communities. Lily white communities are actually the strongest against Trump, while the South paradoxically is FOR Trump.
So as refugees take up a larger and larger percentage of the population, it will redpill the white community faster and faster, creating a backlash in society.
The 'elites' are unaware of this, however, because they don't have functioning sociology or communication departments to warn them of this phenomenon.
Since you are Lithuinian, unless your government specifically invites refugees, most people will remain 'bluepilled' about refugees in general. Just like New England.
>>78169378
Take them out for the day, drive them to wherever the local refugee population is. Then leave them there. They'll wake up to how terrible they are real quick if they make it out alive
>>78175411
Kek. That's actually the correct answer.
>>78175185
Not really, most people dislike refugees. My friend said she interviewed some people in Vilnius (the capital city) and some people said that they are animals, terrorists and they don't want refugees over there. Most people just straight up don't want them there. That's not the case.
Also, I don't really want to persuade him, I just want to win the argument lol. Besides, I don't think he was that closed, he wasn't that kind of person to call everyone racist. At first he got a bit mad and confronted my other friend and started dealing out "Have you ever met a refugee" but he wasn't exactly "RACIST! RACIST WHITE MALE!" type.
>>78169378
Subtly shame them for their hypocrisy and appeal to emotions.
"We have to help these poor refugees", sounds good, but you have to look at it from another angle.
I'm assuming your country is not a utiopia with no homeless people, children that aren't getting opportunities and impovershed people living paycheck to paycheck?
Ask these people why exactly should you help people from halfway across the world while people are suffering and dying in your literal backyard? It's tragic for the refugees, but there simply isn't enough resources for everyone because, again, you are not a utopian state where nobody living there has problems.
Is it better to bring even more suffering people to make it so instead of fixing the people already suffering you have, everyone is still suffering but slightly less because you've now stretched resources too thin?
They'll probably say something insanely prejudice and stupid like "all homeless people had it coming, (meanwhile all refugees are noble souls)" in which case you go deep on the children lacking benefits or maybe even call them racist for ignoring the immigrants you already have to bring in more. I don't know the situation in your country, you'll have to do this on your own.
>>78175879
Maybe then I'm wrong and I spoke out of turn for Lithuania. What's interesting to me then, is that "Liberal Tolerance" is a political schema that goes over minds, but doesn't survive contact with reality very well.
But if you want to "win the argument," what's important is that you convince him that the community is on your side, and that refugees are against Lithuania, rather than trying to use statistics. I save statistics for bright people.
>>78176248
He already used "Hurr durr you are responsible for this environment where people don't like refugees" or something. He wasn't mad, but this card won't work. I don't want to be talking about my country though, I want to talk about how it is bad for the entirety of the continent to accept refugees.
My own stance is that Syrian refugees are okay and that they are possibly wonderful people having the right to come here, but it's that most refugees aren't really refugees.
Also, the liberal meme isn't really alive here, people aren't going to judge you for the view that you hold here. I can say racist shit and he won't call me racist, he will try to prove me wrong. Give me that statistic for the bright ones lul
>>78176230
If you want me to use these points, how do you prove that refugees are bad for an "utopian" country such as Canada?
>>78177298
Canada is not a utopian country by any means. massive homeless problem, massive housing bubble that means nobody can afford a house, prices are going up and the dollar is going down so people will cross the board into america just to buy groceries, every single part of the country is in huge debt besides the one that's literally on fire, retarded school boards that never have any money and a PM that seems to actively not want to address any of these issues because he'd rather pose in pictures with brown people.
>>78177200
IDK. Those two are very powerful appeals that you can smack people with.
>"Your either with us or against us."
>"They hate us for our Freedom."
Nevertheless, I feel like you've kind of pigenholed yourself by your stance. When you took that position, the burden of proof is to show how each instance of person wasn't really a "refugee," which is near impossible because I can simply change the definition of a legitimate refugee at will. So as someone playing the Red Team, you've given up full control over the debate.
I can see why you are coming to pol to ask for advice. But I can't help you if you adopt the position that "some refugees are OK" and then "Other refugees aren't OK" because I'll just force you to redefine all refugees are OK.
If you can, I feel like you should change your stance that all refugees don't belong in Europe, they should go to rich oil countries where they can function properly.
>>78178066
>Nevertheless, I feel like you've kind of pigenholed yourself by your stance. When you took that position, the burden of proof is to show how each instance of person wasn't really a "refugee," which is near impossible because I can simply change the definition of a legitimate refugee at will. So as someone playing the Red Team, you've given up full control over the debate.
No, what I want to say is that the whole process of letting in refugees is a trojan horse - while some refugees are indeed in grave need of help, the ABSOLUTE MAJORITY are not. That's why the entire process of accepting refugees shouldn't be a thing - it's a trojan horse. Keep in mind that this discussion took place after like 24 hours of a conference where syrian refugees have prepared a speech how both of them work in Germany and how they survived a lot of shit, etc. Can't tell them that their friends' pain shouldn't be rewarded
>>78169378
>And the bluepill strikes me with "But you know that refugees in the Netherlands are not allowed to work for one year upon arrival?"
You could counter with "they stay on welfare even after getting the refugee status (i.e. after they can apply for jobs)". Try to be more subtle (don't lash out that they are all lazy niggers etc.). Just that they will have big problems with integration, with language and our customs (which is actually true).
Show them that multiculturalism failed even in very affluent and tolerant Western Europe. Tell them that Arabs and Africans don't integrate even in very tolerant countries, which had experience with multiculturalism (like the former colonial empires - Great Britain and France). And we have had no experience with that before. If multiculti failed in these rich and tolerant countries - what are the chances that these people will successfully integrate in Lithuania?!
N.B. Not a few individuals (your opponents might try to mention some anecdotal examples), but as a community.
You can mention that the Baltic States are not in the position to take refugees yet, we don't even have a welfare net for our own citizens, we are, in fact, barely making our ends meet. We have to rebuild our country first, before we become a welfare state. If we start to spend money now (money, which we don't have in the first place!) then we will squander our resources, get in debt and won't be in a position to really help anyone.
You can mention that our own countrymen are forced to seek jobs abroad.
At this point they will most likely counter you with something like
>oh, anon, but if other countries took our people, aren't we obliged to do the same
Sure, maybe, but AFTER our country(-ies) will become prosperous. Right now we won't be able to help anyone properly, because we are still poor.
That's just what came to my mind now, i'm sure there's more you can add yourself.
>>78179153
Alright. Your friend may turn around and state that he doesn't believe the threat of Islam to be real. So educate him about Islam more so than refugees... I attached a handy fact graph that may work out.
Also. Listen to this guy.
>>78179466
>>78169378
You could argue that people caring for the well-being of refugees should support financing camps across the middle east to accommodate them and their families rather than trick them in making a costly and dangerous journey to a country where they probably won't ever find a job.
It's cheaper to feed and house them over there,
screened refugees with the qualifications to find work over here can be selected a granted a work visas and flown over on a case by case basis.
The current status quo only benefits human traffickers and comes at a great social cost both for the refugees and native populations of host countries. Supporting it is worse than doing nothing, it is virtue signalling costing hundred of lives every month.
>>78169378
Remind me what country Netherlands or Lithuania immediately borders that has a war. These are not refugees. End of discussion.
>>78169378
I am so split on this situation. I don't know whether to feel bad for these countries accepting these mass refugees or to shun them off watch them burn over the next 30 years. My biggest fear right now is my country turning into a "Diversity in the name of death".
>>78179466
> You could counter with "they stay on welfare even after getting the refugee status (i.e. after they can apply for jobs)"
Yeah, but there is no proof for that. He can say "They apply" and I can say "They don't." and then noone wins.
>Show them that multiculturalism failed even in very affluent and tolerant Western Europe.
Yes I know, I wanted to mention that, but I once again had no statistics for, let's say, Malmo demographics or any other stuff to say "ha niggers live in ghettos and do nothing." Also wanted to say how they attacked a disabled person during filming of a documentary, but that is also "propaganda" in their eyes possibly.
Thank you for your arguments, they do make sense and they are correct and I agree with them myself. Thanks.
>>78179815
Thanks for reminding me about the existance of this graph. This is one of my favourite graphs of all time. Beautiful shit.
>>78180038
Alternatively, you could argue that sandniggers are savages and their brand of Islam is poison. People from honor based, low-trust societies cannot integrate successfully in law-based, high trust societies.
http://www.meforum.org/441/why-arabs-lose-wars
Importing them by the tens or hundred of thousands every year can only dilute, if not destroy, what makes us great. Everything of value has been invented or enabled by white people. Our cultures are the shit, we have the duty to protect and preserve what makes us outperform other every other known civilizations if we want the word to keep progressing.
