Yes you should. You have an expressed interest in moving to a new place, learn the laws. Fit in, adapt. None of this hyper religious dogmatic bs. I too am an immigrant.
Not really. If their culture has parts about it you disagree with, you don’t need to adopt those parts.
Ex: If I move to Russia, I don’t have to become a bigot.
This will only make sense if you’re mentally an adult. If you’re still a child mentally, then going along with what other people do just to please them is the only thing that will make sense to you.
Ex: If I move to Russia, I don’t have to become a bigot.
You kinda do though. If you were to move to Russia and loudly voice liberal opinions you will not have a good time. You might not have to adopt the local culture as your own but you can not go against it.
I mean it’s the whole tolerant paradox right. Why should we tolerate absolute douche nozzles to stay? To make things clear I absolutely despise the far right rise going on in Europe, and speaking from a Swedish perspective I feel part of it started with the rise of the right wing Swedish Democrats. But a big reason they got so much air time is because they were the only ones who talked about immigration at all, so they could entirely steer the conversation. Had the other parties actually come up with reasonable polices around immigration in the first place I don’t think SD would be as popular as they are now.
When you view things in the context of a social agreement, there is no longer any paradox.
If these people have broken the social agreement to be tolerant, they have then intentionally and explicitly removed themselves from that agreement, thereby opening themselves up to intolerance thanks to their intentional and explicit rejection of said tolerance.
It’s much the same way as outlawing worked in the old days - in the absence of a police force, you willingly agreed to follow laws that had been laid down. If you openly broke those laws in clear defiance of them, you could be removed from their protections. Ergo, you became “outside the law”, allowing anyone to harm or even kill you without legal censure.
Because if you clearly don’t want to be a part of an agreement, why should you have any right to benefit from it’s protections?
Just human decency, when you move to a new country you adopt their cultural ettiquette and obey their laws. If you move anywhere and tgink you can just be a terrible person while waiting for citizenship, then you don’t represent the country. Its like probation at a job
Not really. If their culture has parts about it you disagree with, you don’t need to adopt those parts.
Ex: If I move to Russia, I don’t have to become a bigot.
This will only make sense if you’re mentally an adult. If you’re still a child mentally, then going along with what other people do just to please them is the only thing that will make sense to you.
You shouldn’t face special punishments just because you’re an immigrant.
This anti-immigration dogwhistling needs to stop. It’s unbecoming for people who aren’t members of the alt-right.
Yes you should. You have an expressed interest in moving to a new place, learn the laws. Fit in, adapt. None of this hyper religious dogmatic bs. I too am an immigrant.
Not really. If their culture has parts about it you disagree with, you don’t need to adopt those parts.
Ex: If I move to Russia, I don’t have to become a bigot.
This will only make sense if you’re mentally an adult. If you’re still a child mentally, then going along with what other people do just to please them is the only thing that will make sense to you.
Assimilate or leave if your culture is intolerant.
Tolerance has a limit
You kinda do though. If you were to move to Russia and loudly voice liberal opinions you will not have a good time. You might not have to adopt the local culture as your own but you can not go against it.
I mean it’s the whole tolerant paradox right. Why should we tolerate absolute douche nozzles to stay? To make things clear I absolutely despise the far right rise going on in Europe, and speaking from a Swedish perspective I feel part of it started with the rise of the right wing Swedish Democrats. But a big reason they got so much air time is because they were the only ones who talked about immigration at all, so they could entirely steer the conversation. Had the other parties actually come up with reasonable polices around immigration in the first place I don’t think SD would be as popular as they are now.
When you view things in the context of a social agreement, there is no longer any paradox.
If these people have broken the social agreement to be tolerant, they have then intentionally and explicitly removed themselves from that agreement, thereby opening themselves up to intolerance thanks to their intentional and explicit rejection of said tolerance.
It’s much the same way as outlawing worked in the old days - in the absence of a police force, you willingly agreed to follow laws that had been laid down. If you openly broke those laws in clear defiance of them, you could be removed from their protections. Ergo, you became “outside the law”, allowing anyone to harm or even kill you without legal censure.
Because if you clearly don’t want to be a part of an agreement, why should you have any right to benefit from it’s protections?
Everyone should be able to decide what country they swear allegiance to.
The only thing we do not tolerate is intolerance.
Just human decency, when you move to a new country you adopt their cultural ettiquette and obey their laws. If you move anywhere and tgink you can just be a terrible person while waiting for citizenship, then you don’t represent the country. Its like probation at a job
Not really. If their culture has parts about it you disagree with, you don’t need to adopt those parts.
Ex: If I move to Russia, I don’t have to become a bigot.
This will only make sense if you’re mentally an adult. If you’re still a child mentally, then going along with what other people do just to please them is the only thing that will make sense to you.