As I said in another comment in this thread:

Now if they truly believed that fossil fuels were needed for a sustainable transition - then surely they would give out their trillions of oil and gas revenue to countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh to help them rebuild from the environmental disasters they’re experiencing to deploy more sustainable infrastructure and housing.

As noted above - Norway gets most of it’s renewable energy from it’s geographic location (88% of power coming from hydro) so them being “a few hundred miles south” would mean extreme heats and droughts that are really difficult to deal with even with perfect renewables - all the sun in the world can’t give you free water (yes there’s desalination but hypersaline brine is such a PIA that it’s not a silver bullet) - so while it’s commendable that they’ve gone “fully green” - until they stop making bank on their massive scope 3 fossil fuel emissions - it’s a bit of a misdirection to say they’re helping the global environment.

Now if they truly believed that fossil fuels were needed for a sustainable transition - then surely they would give out their trillions of oil and gas revenue to countries like Pakistan and Bangladesh to help them rebuild from the environmental disasters they’re experiencing to deploy more sustainable infrastructure and housing.

So now that Norway has 99% renewables and will soon reach 99% electric vehicles, they’ll stop drilling oil in the North Sea, right?

They’re best positioned for the Contraction and Convergence strategy so continuing to pump and sell oil is antithetical to their sustainability stance.

Unless they’re creating a walled garden while letting everyone else around them burn - tho let’s hope that’s not the case as once the AMOC collapses and brings the likes of 160km/h bomb cyclones to it’s territories it wouldn’t matter how green they’ve been.

100% agree - I think people shouldn’t use somebody’s inborn body features as an insult.

However, based on OP’s post history I do believe they’re a fragile man that really ought to touch more grass.

I’m not arguing that anti-immigrant division isn’t fueled by the ruling elite to cause class infighting - it is.

I’m arguing that infighting is nonetheless antithetical to class solidarity. Saying nobody listens to working class people about migrants inherently excludes working class migrants. Pretty much nobody is fully native to where they live - everyone has migrated at some point or another.

If you care about class consciousness - then I’d recommend you don’t try and divide us further by claiming Muslims are “diluting the culture” because some (even if currently most) are not tolerant of LGBTQ+ people as if that’s an inherent thing to people practicing Islam - it takes time for people to become more accepting - as if gay people in the UK were accepted by the majority of western Christians 20-30 years ago (and even now trans people are still being demonized) - that’s less than one generation for people living in relatively stable material conditions - just give people time and be nice.

Also, immigration will become more and more common in the coming years whether you like it or not - be it due to aging populations, labour exploitation (from western oligarchs), war (in large part bolstered by the global north’s war machine), climate change (again disproportionately caused by “developed” nations like Germany and the UK) - so crying about how you have a “preference that conservative lslam be prejudiced against at the point of immigration.” - is not just xenophobic but fundamentally unjust - you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

It’s okay to have concerns about religious groups’ acceptance of other people - but the only way to resolve that is by working with them and showcasing how we’re not all that different.

And look you may not identify as racist - but the phrasing you use is indistinguishable from racist rhetoric - and I hope you aren’t offended by being called out for racists remarks - as pretty much everyone has at some point been and said racist things - the point is to recognize it and actively engage in anti-racism whenever that happens.

Saying that people will adopt far-right views when called out for being racist were most likely already sympathetic to those views in the first place. We shouldn’t coddle racist viewpoints out of fear they’ll become more racist.

Integration challenges can be discussed without resorting to racism or xenophobia. Not by using prejudice and exclusion but through understanding and inclusion.

If you don’t know where to start - go to pro-Palestine marches and meet and talk to Muslim people - I can guarantee you’ll see we’re all in this shit together and we’re all just trying to survive.

Because it highlights the ideological continuity between colonial racism and current anti-Muslim sentiment - just with new targets and updated language.

Are you really trying to tell me that Germany exploiting African countries because of “national greatness” is ideologically different to claiming Islam is the bane of Germany’s existence?

How come Germans are okay with immigrants and refugees coming into Germany to work and support their retirement - but are opposed to those people’s cultures? (which ironically seems to be what drives the most technically apt ones away)

Even when research has shown that the influence of religion on integration is often overestimated with regard to people from predominantly Muslim countries of origin." you still get the same old racist views that religion is the problem and if only we could get the “good immigrants” and not the “bad ones” nationalistic (nazi) groups would accept them with open arms.

You can recognize issues with skill and employment of migrants (and advocate for inclusive solutions) without falling back on the anti-muslim dogwhistles.

The problem is moderate politicians persistently ignoring (and patronising) the working class over serious reservations they have over immigration and cultural dilution

Was this problem something German people were concerned with when their government colonized Tanzania and other African counties prior to WW1?

Did they see the forced christianization and emigration to the colonies with the same distaste as their nationalistic descendents do immigration and islam today?

Not to mention the difference between top down colonization and bottom up immigration being fundamentally different. One revolves around cultural amalgamation and the other around forced cultural erasure.

Or do you think this only matters when it happens to white europeans?

So your argument is “people will break the rules so we shouldn’t have any rules because it doesn’t matter”?

This is the classic nazi bar argument - which has been proven time and time again that “free speech absolutism” consistently leads to spaces becoming hostile to marginalized groups

I see you have your heart in the right place but by insisting on everyone having equal rights to say anything - you are inherently favoring the oppressor over the oppressed.

I don’t think we’ll come to an agreement so I’ll stop replying as this feels futile to argue over.

EDIT: Just FYI this is what you’re defending in this instance

So why leave this comment? You yourself identify the social impact of “assigning a label (i.e. how others react to it)” - so for what purpose are you arguing for what labels are to be assigned?

Can you not just accept that the people impacted by this label (and the scientific community) have recognized that this label is harmful to individuals and not feel the need to chime in?

Or do you feel your desire for pedantry is more important than the negative impact such a label can have on marginalized groups?

What’s gained by insisting on potentially harmful labels?

Even by your own admission, labels have social impact. So why are you choosing to argue for harmful ones?

EDIT: If you’re actually arguing for better acceptance of people with mental disorders - I would recommend volunteering at a mental health institution or defending people’s right to self-determination.

This is demonstrably false.

Actually that’s a common misconception - while gender dysphoria is listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) - it’s not actually a mental disorder (similar to how the DSM includes physiological and environmental issues like Insomnia or Social Exclusion) - main reason it’s there is for admin purposes and to facilitate treatment access.

However, a condition like body dysmorphia (think Anorexia Nervosa) is considered a mental disorder because the issue is the mind incorrectly perceiving the body - therefore it can be treated using psychotherapy which enables the mind to correctly perceive the body and prevent harm.

People who experience gender dysphoria on the other hand - actually correctly perceive their body (that’s where the distress comes from) so psychotherapy doesn’t work to alleviate this - as you can’t therapy away an accurate perception (think gay conversion therapy)

Which is why after many decades of research the only treatment that’s been found to work is aligning the body with the mind - as at that point the mind continues perceiving the body correctly but this time it’s congruent with it’s mental model which alleviates the distress.

Hope this helps :)

But it wasn’t reversed and was done without consent exclusively to Inuit girls and women - saying they’ve done worse is such a weak copout - “you see Jim Crow laws aren’t that bad because the axe had been buried so I’d see it as a win to keep things as is since relations between the north and the south haven’t been better since the civil war.”