Forgive my skepticism, but I have been battle-hardened by some pretty bad horror stories.
I work at a Big 4, we see a lot of fresh graduates coming in every weeks or so.
To give you an idea of how bad it can be: a group of technical recruiters took the decision to "tweak" one of the interview questions we are asking during on-sites. They thought the change was benign when in fact it made the problem NP-hard, which is you know... pretty "tough" to solve under 45 minutes (or without a lab, a research team and 20 years). Of course, all of them were baffled by the fact that none of the candidates were performing well on this "trivial" question.
It took us three engineers, and two interviewees to make them acknowledge, and understand their mistake.
I remember an IRC channel about security in the early 2000s. Somehow we started discussing government surveillance, and someone mentioned ECHELON. People's reactions were interesting: most people immediately dismissed it as being "impossible", or "another conspiracy theory".
How quickly we forget. Long before that, back in the USENET days, it was a common joke to include a .sig line "for the ECHELON line reader" with a list of words that the presumed NSA computer would match against, like "KGB nuclear anthrax bioweapon" etc. The joke being that if everyone would include these, they would end up having to analyze the entire newsgroup feed.
Yeah. The worst part, though, is that a lot of the same people now did a 180 and reside firmly in the "I have nothing to hide" camp. They jumped from dismissing global surveillance as too far-fetched and intrusive for reality straight to dismissing it as a triviality not worthy of further though.
These people have no imagination, that's the problem. They could not imagine the possibilities, which were easily guessable at the time if you knew anything about technology. Now, they cannot imagine the consequences, which are easily guessable if you know anything about people and intelligence agencies.
That's what happens when the ones in charge have a deep understanding of the human mind and how trivial it is to shape it and the ideas/values it contains.
As I said in another thread, unrelated, things like propaganda and by association advertising are unethical at best, it's subversion/coercion on a massive scale, it truly shapes people in something they are not.
And they count on the fact that people reject the fact that they are easily manipulated (applies for me too).
> The bigger problem is that average Joe doesn't give a sht. As long as the refugee/immigrant is not there, to get his job* he doesn't care. When he finally arrives and takes his job, instead of getting mad to the people who is exploiting the situation, he gets mad to the immigrant who can barely speak the language.
I think you dramatically underestimate the place cultural differences are taking in the growing frustration of the people of Europe. Three things:
* - Because racial statistics are forbidden in Europe, whenever someone complains that element from a certain group are causing problems their opinion is immediately dismissed as being racist. If you spend even a week in Paris, chances it will be hard for you to stay neutral and support that Muslims/Gipsies aren't committing more crimes than any other groups combined.
The problem is, people aren't oblivious to what happen around them. When some of your relatives/friends gets assaulted in the subway once by someone from north-african ancestry, it is a coincidence. Twice, it was bad luck. Third, something is going on.
* - More people complain that they do not want such a steady, and large immigraiton flow. Politicians, because they are either powerless or stubborn ignore the people -> Far right politicians, who have put secure borders and immigration quota at the DNA of their programs are on the rise.
I don't know much about France, but in Denmark people definitely notice some groups' criminality more than others. There are basically two main groups that contribute a disproportionate amount of Denmark's crime: 1) poor immigrants, and 2) poor Danes. The media seems to like railing against #1 a lot more than #2, though. It's no longer politically incorrect to stereotype immigrants in general, but it's still taboo to stereotype poor, uneducated Danes; you'll be accused of being just an elite Copenhagener who looks down on "white trash".
Much of Denmark's violence (though there isn't a lot of violence) comes precisely where these two groups meet each other and get into fights, over for example controlling the drug trade. Shootouts between biker gangs (who are almost exclusively Danish) and immigrant gangs (who are obviously not) are some of the few times you will find an actual shooting in Denmark. If gangs of Danes are fighting gangs of immigrants over control of an illegal business, I personally blame both groups, not only the immigrants.
Criminality isn't tied to race, or religion but to an individual's socio-economic background. Poor people are more likely to commit crimes than other. Maybe cultural factors can come into play, but probably in less significant proportions.
I do not think however that it is realistic to expect to integrate culturally AND economically that many people at once.
If I am right, it means that crimes committed by immigrants will rise even more (not because they are immigrants, but because they are poorer) causing even more frustration until we reach a breaking point, where people say "enough!".
> The problem is, people aren't oblivious to what happen around them. When some of your relatives/friends gets assaulted in the subway once by someone from north-african ancestry, it is a coincidence. Twice, it was bad luck. Third, something is going on.
I might have done so in my post unintentionally, but I agree with everything you wrote.
> France is openly against Muslims (due to the recent events, Charlie Hedbo, etc.).
What?
There is certainly a growing anti-islamism (political movement who supports using the Qran (Muslim's sacred book) as a social and political framework), and lots of frustrations the infamous binationals from Algeria (holders of french and Algerian citizenships) that decided to massacre people for drawings.
There has been also some shock to see lots of support for Charlie Hebdo's terrorists among muslim communities online. During the aftermath of the event, a hashtag on twitter was among the top of the country (#Che - in Arabic "Che" means "you deserved it").
I would not call France "anti-Muslim", especially when 10% of the population is of Arabic descent, and Muslim. Seriously, the US has barely 1% of its population that is muslim. France has no lessons to receive to anyone concerning how it handles its muslim majority. The cultural pressure is unparalleled.
Disclosure: French expat of Algerian descent - immigrated to France in the 90s.
I do deny that there are rising tensions. However, before I continue, I would like to highlight that those numbers are coming from a non-gov that have a pretty infamous record, as well as strong ties with Islam fundamentalism circles.
- Their definition of "hate-crime" is pretty blurry. For example, in 2007 a civil employee asked a muslim woman who was fully veiled to take off her niqab in order to verify her identity. This was considered a "hate crime". There is a plethora of similar stories.
- They do not disclose their methodology or data.
- They hold some seriously backward views on society. For example, they consider any feminist organization to be "islamophobic" de facto. There have been plenty of controversies raised by their leadership for being openly antisemite. Accusing the government "of favoring the jews".
Now, even ignoring the fact that those numbers are almost certainly made up. I do not think you can really generalize that to the whole country. It is really confusing for an outsider, but refugees, educated muslims and muslims living in the suburbs are pretty much very distinct groups in the eyes of most people.
No one is pissed at someone for being a muslim, what generates anger and frustration are the ones who:
- commit crimes
- try to pull their religion on everyone else.
I would not say that France is openly against muslims. There isn't one muslim community. Plenty of people from north-african ancestry, who happen to have been raised by a muslim family are doing just fine. I have friends, lived in a nice neighborhood in Paris. I was invited by my neighbors, and so on.
I am now living in SF, it's a bit different although I haven't had any major issues. I got some stares from time to time, but it's probably because I walk funny.
My family also emigrated to the West in the 90s, fleeing war and misery. I empathize with the refugees, but I do not think that Europe should let such a steady flow of people into its territory.
Far right is rising all over Europe, for a reason. A significant number of Europeans do not recognize the country they have been growing up in. The cultural/demographic pressure is a real issue that is fueling far-right politicians' anti-migrants rhetoric.
In 2014, France alone has welcomed as many new immigrants on its territory as Canada. It is just not sustainable, and the longer we wait to face this sad reality the harsher the far right burst will be. Politicians need to listen to their citizens before they actually start to feel helpless/pissed off and vote for populist freaks.
As a French living in the US, I share your sentiment. Western Europe's quality of life is ridiculously high, I am not sure if that is reflected very much in the way we measure QoL but that's my experience.
I thought that public transportations in Paris sucked, that was before I had to ride BART. Same goes for homelessness, crimes etc... I love SF, there is a ton of amazing places to hang out at etc.. but damn, I do miss Paris.
Forgive my skepticism, but I have been battle-hardened by some pretty bad horror stories.
I work at a Big 4, we see a lot of fresh graduates coming in every weeks or so.
To give you an idea of how bad it can be: a group of technical recruiters took the decision to "tweak" one of the interview questions we are asking during on-sites. They thought the change was benign when in fact it made the problem NP-hard, which is you know... pretty "tough" to solve under 45 minutes (or without a lab, a research team and 20 years). Of course, all of them were baffled by the fact that none of the candidates were performing well on this "trivial" question.
It took us three engineers, and two interviewees to make them acknowledge, and understand their mistake.
A big waste of time for everyone.