›

Mark Steyn piece in the WSJ Opinion Journal

sabadabadasabadabada 5,966 Posts
edited January 2006 in Strut Central
Im not trying to start a big broo-ha-ha, but did anyone read this piece? Do you think it could be true? He cites to a number of other "end of the world" scenarios that never happened, so why should his be any different? http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007760
«1

  Comments

  • CousinLarryCousinLarry 4,618 Posts
  • sabadabadasabadabada 5,966 Posts
    for reals.

    did you read it cousin lefty?
  • BeardedDBeardedD 770 Posts
    Sorry but we have better things to do than read a 10,000 word essay and have a "debate" with you about it.
  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    "In 1972, in their landmark study "The Limits to Growth," the Club of Rome announced that the world would run out of gold by 1981, of mercury by 1985, tin by 1987, zinc by 1990, petroleum by 1992, and copper, lead and gas by 1993, and common sense by 2006."[/b]


    At least they nailed one of them.
  • sabadabadasabadabada 5,966 Posts
    Sorry but we have better things to do than read a 10,000 word essay and have a "debate" with you about it.

    yeah, im sure you have lots better.
  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    Sorry but we have better things to do than read a 10,000 word essay that doesn't support the SS agenda[/b] and have a "debate" with you about it.

    Motown gets big props for his 10,000 word essays???
  • DJ_EnkiDJ_Enki 6,471 Posts
    At a glance, his reliance on the tired (and completely untrue) trope that being religious is inherently better than being nonreligious mars his thinking considerably. And of course, by "religious," his implication is "Christian, and maybe Jewish,"--I can't image he much cares about Hindus or Buddhists, and he actively hates Islam without really understanding it or being able to parse the extremists from the regular folks.



    He also doesn't seem to understand what "multiculturalism" means as he rails against it and then (poorly) tries to conflate it with terrorism in general and 9/11 in particular.



    And this sentence is absurd, bigoted, and insultingly stupid on the face of it:

    Just as the AIDS pandemic greatly facilitated societal surrender to the gay agenda, so 9/11 is greatly facilitating our surrender to the most extreme aspects of the multicultural agenda.



    I still dare any right-winger to define this "gay agenda" they're so terrified of. None of them can. They just don't like gay people and want their feelings codified into law as much as possible.



    Basically, it's another undistinguished "liberalism aids terrorism and thus will kill every last one of us--even you!" poof pieces that requires monumental leaps of faith to be taken even slightly seriously. Which is to say I'm sure it'll go over like gangbusters with a certain population segment.



  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    Every special interest group, bar none, has an agenda.
  • sabadabadasabadabada 5,966 Posts
    aside from that, the basic premise that the low birth rates in european countries coupled with the need for workers to support the high cost of social benefits lead to the high immigration. And the failure to force assimilation and the militancy of Saudi Wahabiism creating a Eurabia. Do you think thats legit.?
  • DJ_EnkiDJ_Enki 6,471 Posts
    Every special interest group, bar none, has an agenda.

    And what, praytell, is this insidious, evil "gay agenda" that will kill us all? As far as I can tell, it's the desire to be equal Americans. Those bastards! They can't get away with that!
  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    Saba,
    This article, like every other article I've read on the subject, makes some valid points, and contains some absolute bullshit. Problem is that people only want to read those articles that support their personal opinions and don't mind stretching truth and integrity a little as long as it reinforces their feelings.....the right and left are equally guilty of this IMO.
  • RockadelicRockadelic Out Digging 13,993 Posts
    Every special interest group, bar none, has an agenda.

    And what, praytell, is this insidious, evil "gay agenda" that will kill us all? As far as I can tell, it's the desire to be equal Americans. Those bastards! They can't get away with that!

    I didn't say it was evil or would kill anyone....just that they have an agenda...you doubt this??
  • sabadabadasabadabada 5,966 Posts
    I still dare any right-winger to define this "gay agenda" they're so terrified of. None of them can. They just don't like gay people and want their feelings codified into law as much as possible.

    I would start with the disproportionate amount of money spent on AIDS research, overturning State sodomy laws, and gay marriage. Not to mention BRAVO TV.
  • GuzzoGuzzo 8,611 Posts
    I still dare any right-winger to define this "gay agenda" they're so terrified of. None of them can. They just don't like gay people and want their feelings codified into law as much as possible.




    I would start with the disproportionate amount of money spent on AIDS research, overturning State sodomy laws, and gay marriage. Not to mention BRAVO TV.



    I would say homophobia is not a left or right issue.



    plenty of "liberals" on this site have been caight with thier slips showing
  • BeardedDBeardedD 770 Posts
    Problem is that people only want to read those articles that support their personal opinions and don't mind stretching truth and integrity a little as long as it reinforces their feelings...

    No, the problem is no one (here) wants to listen to a long winded, reactionary rant disguised as a think piece.

    I can post the entire text of Shakespeare's collected works here and say "DISCUSS, BITCHES" but that doesn't mean anyone owes me a response. I can hold out beef bait and have no one reply but that doesn't necessarily mean everyone at soulstrut thinks with one liberal mind.

    Generalizations that go "right and left are equally guilty" of such and such always seem to come from the right side of the spectrum. Hmmmm
  • CosmoCosmo 9,768 Posts
    I still dare any right-winger to define this "gay agenda" they're so terrified of. None of them can. They just don't like gay people and want their feelings codified into law as much as possible.

    I would start with the disproportionate amount of money spent on AIDS research, overturning State sodomy laws, and gay marriage. Not to mention BRAVO TV.

    Yeah, fuck spending money on AIDS research. And I swear that if people want to have sex in their own home in privacy then they need to be locked up! Who do they think they are? Next thing you know they will be wanting to get married and share the benefits of matrimony.

    You people make me sick.
  • funky16cornersfunky16corners 7,175 Posts
    Every special interest group, bar none, has an agenda.

    And what, praytell, is this insidious, evil "gay agenda" that will kill us all? As far as I can tell, it's the desire to be equal Americans. Those bastards! They can't get away with that!

  • DJ_EnkiDJ_Enki 6,471 Posts
    aside from that, the basic premise that the low birth rates in european countries coupled with the need for workers to support the high cost of social benefits lead to the high immigration. And the failure to force assimilation and the militancy of Saudi Wahabiism creating a Eurabia. Do you think thats legit.?

    Yes and no. I think it's typical for a heavily politicized opinion piece in that it makes Mount Everest out of a clump of sand. Sure, there are lower birth rates (probably because they aren't hampered by ridiculous abstinence-only sex education) and higher immigration. Is this causing Eurabia? Hardly. Steyn just thinks that having Arabic immigrants means terror! Is coming! To your doorstep! It will end Western civilization!

    Basically, you put your finger on the small kernel of truth in this piece; the rest of it is pretty much alarmist bullshit that, again, is argued from incredibly tenuous positions.
  • sabadabadasabadabada 5,966 Posts
    I still dare any right-winger to define this "gay agenda" they're so terrified of. None of them can. They just don't like gay people and want their feelings codified into law as much as possible.

    I would start with the disproportionate amount of money spent on AIDS research, overturning State sodomy laws, and gay marriage. Not to mention BRAVO TV.

    Yeah, fuck spending money on AIDS research. And I swear that if people want to have sex in their own home in privacy then they need to be locked up! Who do they think they are? Next thing you know they will be wanting to get married and share the benefits of matrimony.

    You people make me sick.

    and BRAVO TV, dont forget BRAVO. They ruined a perfectly good channel.
  • funky16cornersfunky16corners 7,175 Posts
    Problem is that people only want to read those articles that support their personal opinions and don't mind stretching truth and integrity a little as long as it reinforces their feelings...

    No, the problem is no one (here) wants to listen to a long winded, reactionary rant disguised as a think piece.

    I can post the entire text of Shakespeare's collected works here and say "DISCUSS, BITCHES" but that doesn't mean anyone owes me a response. I can hold out beef bait[/b] and have no one reply but that doesn't necessarily mean everyone at soulstrut thinks with one liberal mind.

    Generalizations that go "right and left are equally guilty" of such and such always seem to come from the right side of the spectrum. Hmmmm


    Can one of the photoshop elves plaese create a "beef bait" icon???
  • DJ_EnkiDJ_Enki 6,471 Posts
    I still dare any right-winger to define this "gay agenda" they're so terrified of. None of them can. They just don't like gay people and want their feelings codified into law as much as possible.

    I would start with the disproportionate amount of money spent on AIDS research, overturning State sodomy laws, and gay marriage. Not to mention BRAVO TV.

    Yeah, fuck spending money on AIDS research. And I swear that if people want to have sex in their own home in privacy then they need to be locked up! Who do they think they are? Next thing you know they will be wanting to get married and share the benefits of matrimony.

    Exactly.

    So basically, Rockadelic, I don't deny that gay advocacy groups have an agenda; I think that their agenda is to get what they should already have as Americans: equality. I don't see that as at all bad, much less the insidious force of pure evil that so many alarmist right-wingers see it as.
  • sabadabadasabadabada 5,966 Posts
    aside from that, the basic premise that the low birth rates in european countries coupled with the need for workers to support the high cost of social benefits lead to the high immigration. And the failure to force assimilation and the militancy of Saudi Wahabiism creating a Eurabia. Do you think thats legit.?

    Yes and no. I think it's typical for a heavily politicized opinion piece in that it makes Mount Everest out of a clump of sand. Sure, there are lower birth rates (probably because they aren't hampered by ridiculous abstinence-only sex education) and higher immigration. Is this causing Eurabia? Hardly. Steyn just thinks that having Arabic immigrants means terror! Is coming! To your doorstep! It will end Western civilization!

    Basically, you put your finger on the small kernel of truth in this piece; the rest of it is pretty much alarmist bullshit that, again, is argued from incredibly tenuous positions.

    Yeah. thats kinda what Im thinking. But it seems like the number crunching involved isnt difficult or likely to change drastically. But can you accept part of the argument without accepting all of it, is what Im wondering.
  • nzshadownzshadow 5,518 Posts
    I still dare any right-winger to define this "gay agenda" they're so terrified of. None of them can. They just don't like gay people and want their feelings codified into law as much as possible.

    I would start with the disproportionate amount of money spent on AIDS research, overturning State sodomy laws, and gay marriage. Not to mention BRAVO TV.

    Yeah, fuck spending money on AIDS research. And I swear that if people want to have sex in their own home in privacy then they need to be locked up! Who do they think they are? Next thing you know they will be wanting to get married and share the benefits of matrimony.

    You people make me sick.

  • CosmoCosmo 9,768 Posts
    Beef Bait haha. Yeah, that's exactly what this thread is. I'm not fucking with it.


    PEACE.
  • BigSpliffBigSpliff 3,266 Posts
    aside from that, the basic premise that the low birth rates in european countries coupled with the need for workers to support the high cost of social benefits lead to the high immigration. And the failure to force assimilation and the militancy of Saudi Wahabiism creating a Eurabia. Do you think thats legit.?

    The idea that western governments, through massive legislative efforts, encouraged mass immigration from developing nations, aka former colonies, with the view to making sure their workers would have a healthy and comfortable retirement is laughable.

    "The high cost of social benefits" is just a random sentiment with no reputable thesis to back this up. Look at Sweden's balance of trade, consumer debt, unemployment rate, and life expectancy. Now compare to any model society you care to think of. This is all just armchair Reaganomics repackaged. Think of something new why don't you.

    Tell you what, I'll give you something to ponder: Invading Saudi Arabia - Hot or Not?
  • funky16cornersfunky16corners 7,175 Posts
    aside from that, the basic premise that the low birth rates in european countries coupled with the need for workers to support the high cost of social benefits lead to the high immigration. And the failure to force assimilation and the militancy of Saudi Wahabiism creating a Eurabia. Do you think thats legit.?

    The idea that western governments, through massive legislative efforts, encouraged mass immigration from developing nations, aka former colonies, with the view to making sure their workers would have a healthy and comfortable retirement is laughable.

    "The high cost of social benefits" is just a random sentiment with no reputable thesis to back this up. Look at Sweden's balance of trade, consumer debt, unemployment rate, and life expectancy. Now compare to any model society you care to think of. This is all just armchair Reaganomics repackaged. Think of something new why don't you.

    Tell you what, I'll give you something to ponder: Invading Saudi Arabia - Hot or Not?

    Sooooo HOT! My brain is on fire....
  • DJ_EnkiDJ_Enki 6,471 Posts
    aside from that, the basic premise that the low birth rates in european countries coupled with the need for workers to support the high cost of social benefits lead to the high immigration. And the failure to force assimilation and the militancy of Saudi Wahabiism creating a Eurabia. Do you think thats legit.?

    Yes and no. I think it's typical for a heavily politicized opinion piece in that it makes Mount Everest out of a clump of sand. Sure, there are lower birth rates (probably because they aren't hampered by ridiculous abstinence-only sex education) and higher immigration. Is this causing Eurabia? Hardly. Steyn just thinks that having Arabic immigrants means terror! Is coming! To your doorstep! It will end Western civilization!

    Basically, you put your finger on the small kernel of truth in this piece; the rest of it is pretty much alarmist bullshit that, again, is argued from incredibly tenuous positions.

    Yeah. thats kinda what Im thinking. But it seems like the number crunching involved isnt difficult or likely to change drastically. But can you accept part of the argument without accepting all of it, is what Im wondering.

    Sure I can. I accept the kernel of truth mentioned above; what I don't accept is Steyn's analysis, such as it is, and opining about said kernel for the reasons I stated earlier in this thread. He takes some pieces of info supported by data (Europe has a low birth rate and increased immigration), and from that he spins this bizarre and unsubstantiated web in which Europe quickly becomes the Islamic Terrorist Republic of Europe, thereby destroying anything and everything good Westerners (which, by definition, cannot include liberals, as their "multiculturalism" is implicit support for the establishment of the Islamic Terrorist Republic of Europe) hold dear. Considering all the muted bigotry, ideological blinders, and logical fallacies contained in the piece, it's hard to take it seriously.
  • sabadabadasabadabada 5,966 Posts
    aside from that, the basic premise that the low birth rates in european countries coupled with the need for workers to support the high cost of social benefits lead to the high immigration. And the failure to force assimilation and the militancy of Saudi Wahabiism creating a Eurabia. Do you think thats legit.?

    The idea that western governments, through massive legislative efforts, encouraged mass immigration from developing nations, aka former colonies, with the view to making sure their workers would have a healthy and comfortable retirement is laughable.

    "The high cost of social benefits" is just a random sentiment with no reputable thesis to back this up. Look at Sweden's balance of trade, consumer debt, unemployment rate, and life expectancy. Now compare to any model society you care to think of. This is all just armchair Reaganomics repackaged. Think of something new why don't you.

    Tell you what, I'll give you something to ponder: Invading Saudi Arabia - Hot or Not?


    but isnt that the point. aren't taxes in sweeden through the roof?



    not yet. Iran first.
  • JoeMojoJoeMojo 720 Posts
    Mark Steyn = the poor man's Samuel Huntington.

    What does this have to do with records?
  • BigSpliffBigSpliff 3,266 Posts
    aside from that, the basic premise that the low birth rates in european countries coupled with the need for workers to support the high cost of social benefits lead to the high immigration. And the failure to force assimilation and the militancy of Saudi Wahabiism creating a Eurabia. Do you think thats legit.?

    The idea that western governments, through massive legislative efforts, encouraged mass immigration from developing nations, aka former colonies, with the view to making sure their workers would have a healthy and comfortable retirement is laughable.

    "The high cost of social benefits" is just a random sentiment with no reputable thesis to back this up. Look at Sweden's balance of trade, consumer debt, unemployment rate, and life expectancy. Now compare to any model society you care to think of. This is all just armchair Reaganomics repackaged. Think of something new why don't you.

    Tell you what, I'll give you something to ponder: Invading Saudi Arabia - Hot or Not?


    but isnt that the point. aren't taxes in sweeden through the roof?



    not yet. Iran first.

    You're thinking of Switzerland.

    Before I became Me, Inc. I paid more taxes in NYC than most of my friends back in the UK made. USA is a low tax country? Not nearly... unless you want to live in Tornado Alley.
Sign In or Register to comment.