Hacker News Reader

Comment by ardit33 | Hacker News Reader

Albanian here. What the article omits, or misses is that most refugees during the Kosovo war were Albanians as well. Same language, same culture.

We had a large house and my parents hosted 7 people (two families), during that time. One of the families were actually long/distant cousins.

Now, this is not the same as hosting Syrians refugees. I think very few Albanian families are willing to host them in their own homes. Albania itself is a very tolerant country (religious wise, as most people are not religious themselves or are atheists), and we think of having a large amount of people coming from arab countries as a regress in the freedom and quality of life. They are a lot more conservative, and coming from a completely different culture which will not be compatible with a tolerant one like Albania's.

I think few Albanians would want to put up with that. Very limited numbers yes, massive 100k+ numbers, no way.

View on HN

Since Iran was mentioned in the article, it should be noted that Iran hosts 900,000 registered (& estimated 3 million in total) Afghan refugees: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghans_in_Iran

Albania itself is a very tolerant country (religious wise ... we think of having a large amount of people coming from arab countries as a regress in the freedom and quality of life. ... which will not be compatible with a tolerant one like Albania's.

An atheist or otherwise "religion tolerant" mentality implies compatibility with anyone.

It looks like you're "tolerant" only with atheists or somewhat less religious people. More importantly those people ran away from war risking their lives, religion and culture is of no importance to them when looking for shelter and food.

> It looks like you're "tolerant" only with atheists or somewhat less religious people.

Which totally makes sense given the paradox of tolerance: "Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Interesting point on tolerance, though I can't see how it applies to albanian hospitality and war refugees.

My original point was that we may have cultural differences but we're all human with the same basic needs, and that it should be easier for an atheist to help any man regardless of religion or whatever.

EDIT: s/would/should

> An atheist or otherwise "religion tolerant" mentality implies compatibility with anyone.

You're referring to ethical relativism. Do you really expect me to be chill with female genital mutilation because I believe there is not a god? This makes no sense.

> It looks like you're "tolerant" only with atheists or somewhat less religious people.

Tolerance always has boundaries, and one's beliefs are irrelevant to judging others' actions. Are you really that surprised to find someone isn't literally endlessly tolerant?

I expect anyone to be compatible with war refugees, you paraphrased my words by taking them out of the original context to that of gender discrimination. Does it make sense to deny food or shelter to a family because of their country or religion?

If I took your phrase out of context, I apologize. I didn't see any context that would add to the phrase and I most likely misunderstood.

Being an atheist implies a religious belief. It does not imply anything about how you view or judge other people, especially not about how you view or judge their actions.

I did not interpret the top-level commenter as saying that Albanians were not compatible with the refugees because of their religion, I interpreted it to mean that at the sheer volume of refugees coming through, tolerance will be strained in spite of a normally tolerant culture. In particular, I interpreted that to be a cultural issue. While culture includes religious culture, there are many other aspects you may not be comfortable with (such as female genital mutilation, which I provide as an obviously controversial, but culturally grounded, example of western intolerance).

> Does it make sense to deny food or shelter to a family because of their country or religion?

Of course not, but I don't see that happening here, or even generally argued for in this HN discussion. Xenophobia is a powerful force we're all familiar with on some level, and reducing it to a matter of country or religion isn't helping to understand the problems and fix them.

Agreed on most things you said, but: Being an atheist implies a religious belief.

If I get this right, you're saying that's how religious people perceive atheists; on terms of believing, they just don't. Which is wrong, e.g I as an atheist refuse to believe, I solely rely on facts and proof.

Back on topic: Being an atheist implies a religious belief. It does not imply anything about how you view or judge other people, especially not about how you view or judge their actions.

Let's agree for a moment that it does not imply anything about how you view or judge other people, but as I said in another comment it should be easier for an atheist to not judge a refugee by his religion; his mind is free of all that.

It's an honest sentiment, at least. As much as I crave diversity and tolerance in my society, the simple fact is that the Arab world scares the shit out of me. All I see come out of there is hatred and violence, and nothing beautiful (art, science, etc). Official governments rarely condemn acts of terrorism, and too often encourage them. I believe it is justifiable to say to a refugee from a place that has harmed our people, "We're sorry for your predicament, but your countrymen and government have committed too many atrocities against us, and we don't want large numbers of you here, mainly because we don't want our culture to become like the one you are escaping."

The way they're portrayed by the media all over the world is mainly the reason we're all scared of them. A group of fanatics does not make a whole nation or a religion bad (though I don't endorse nationalism or religion - as an atheist myself).

The media didn't kill people at Charlie Hebdo. They didn't kill people in Orlando. The media didn't kill people in San Bernadino. They didn't kill people in Paris. They didn't issue fatwas to murder Norweigian cartoonists. The media didn't deny the holocaust or call for the total annihilation of Israel and it's people. The media doesn't run or finance Boko Haram or the Taliban. The media didn't shelter and fund Osama bin Laden and al Queda. The media doesn't launch rockets at civilian populations, and the media doesn't behead people.

It's not racist. The US police force is similarly scary. I'm scared of them not because of the media. It's because they kill people, and beat them up, and take people's money, and they get away with it. The media didn't do any of those things.

I don't believe all arabs are bad or police are bad. I know muslims who are great people, and I know there are good police out there too. But the harm that police and Muslims do is real, and is not because of the media.

My worldview is inclusive, and I believe in diversity, and in egalitarianism. But there are groups that are horrible. Nazis, The Children of God, Scientology, al Queda, ISIS, the Taliban, Boko Haram because I know what they've done, and the people they've hurt. Muslims are associated with a great deal of harm, maybe that's unfair, but that association is not the media's fault.

Clearly it's the media's fault when all the terrorist's attacks you meticulously mentioned where in Europe or the Americas[1]. Scroll down to the map "The Geography of Terrorism" for proof.

Your world view is inclusive but you failed to include that the dead from terrorrists were about 90% muslims. You're not racist and you don't believe all arabs are bad, yet you speak of the harm the Muslims are associated with.

Muslims are just another a false category for people by religion, they're humans like the rest of us and as I said before a group of fanatics does not make nation or religion bad[2].

We think we're not racist but we ignorantly are, and it's our fault by not educating properly around the facts.

[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/the-scale-of-t...

[2]: http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/dear-west-muslim-s-resp...

EDIT: grammar

EDIT 2: re-reading this now, it's not very clear as to why the media coverage on terrorist attacks is at fault, so I'm giving a few more links:

"Days Before Brussels, There Were 2 Devastating Terror Attacks the Media Ignored" http://usuncut.com/world/brussels-media-ankara-turkey/

"Media coverage of terrorism ‘leads to further violence" https://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/aug/01/media-coverage...

"Disparity in Media Coverage of Terrorist Attacks Around the World" http://www.rcssmideast.org/en/Article/10788/Disparity-in-Med...

"Why is the American media mostly ignoring two other terror attacks that happened this month?" http://fusion.net/story/283391/why-is-the-american-media-mos...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com