this post was submitted on 01 Oct 2026
390 points (91.1% liked)
Political Memes
12613 readers
1217 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Let's imagine, purely hypothetically, that there's a minority that has big issues integrating into host society and that some aspects of their culture are not compatible with laws and local way of living.
Is it possible to talk about it in a non-racist way? If yes, how should it be done? Or are we simply required to pretend the issue doesn't exist?
Again, purely hypothetically.
"...there is living amongst us a non-German, foreign race, unwilling and unable to sacrifice its racial characteristics, to deny its feeling, thinking and striving, and which none the less possesses all the political rights that we ourselves have."
It's an odd hypothetical which posits the existence of a group that took the same role that the Jews did for Hitler - unable to assimilate because of cultural incompatibility, lack of loyalty to their nation-state, and this being true as a result of a self-isolation of the members of that community.
Or perhaps its a cheap shot to appeal to literal Nazis. How about the contemporary far-right?
"The Islamic culture is inferior to our Western culture... Mass immigration from Islamic countries means more crime, more terror, more anti-Semitism, and less freedom and democracy. Integration is impossible because Islam is not just a religion, but a totalitarian political ideology."
It's almost as if framing the problem as "the minority has big issues integrating" is in itself a kind of dogwhistle, a poisoning the well toward a racist explanation and therefore racist solution.
So you confirm there is no place for debate because some people cry racism before even seeing any argument. The propaganda post working its wonders here: any criticism makes you a Nazi.
When someone's using a Nazi strategy to talk about a Nazi talking point, it's kinda hard not to notice a pattern and point it out.
Why are you mad people are pointing out that phrasing is making it harder to talk about racism? Do you not like it when people talk about racism or say things are racist? Why is that?
I specifically asked what phrasing would be ok and the other guy started quoting Hitler at me. I really don't know how you can still claim there's a room for debate and people just notice patterns. Everyone is just trying to outleft everyone else. "You can't say that cultural differences are preventing social integration, that's racist!", "OMG, you said 'social integration', that's racist!". It's hilarious to watch.
Except that they didn't say anything racist and just wanted to start a discussion. If you cannot see the difference between an honest debate and literal genocide, maybe you need glasses?
The Godwin point being a meme doesn't mean drifting immediately to Nazism is a valid way of debating.
You have a real hard time with reading comprehension don't you
Ok, I will take that as a "no". In your opinion there's no way to talk about cultural differences that's not literally fascism. Thanks.
What are these "cultural differences" that you can't have a conversation about? Would you care to give us some of your opinions?
Swiss people being way more strict about quiet-hours laws than most other countries. Some people think it's important to respect that and any immigrants should adapt to those laws, even if in their home countries they are not obeyed as strictly. Good thing I know it's fascism now.
There's nothing wrong with having quiet-hours laws and enforcing them. The problem is when the criticism is framed in terms of groups by ethnic or national identity. Either the violations should be enforced, as with any other rule/law, or perhaps there could be some kind of policy change. All of that is worth talking about. My objection is to the idea that its appropriate to frame the problem in essentializing and racialized language. Suppose I have a dispute with my Jewish neighbor. He loves to grill his kosher meat every Saturday with his family. I don't like the smell. Here is one way to frame this dispute: "My neighbor has a custom of grilling meat on Saturdays, but I don't like it because the smell wafts into my house and I'm vegan." Here is another "My JEW neighbor grills his JEW meat every Saturday because Jewish culture is just murderous and doesn't care about animals like I and my culture do. He is such a piece of shit asshole, just like all of THOSE people."
Which one sounds like a fair way to frame a discussion about a conflict between two people? Now obviously your initial comment didn't say anything overtly racist like in my example, which is very extreme. But you framed it as a conflict between some anomalous THEM and the 'local' culture, a.k.a., US. The problem is subtler, but its the same problem.
Haha my comment got removed by /u/cannedtuna@lemmy.world because apparently noticing that different countries have different customs regarding quiet-hours is racist 😂 Looks like someone never traveled to Spain.
Censorship on lemmy is reaching new levels.
Always little hitlers in the comments. Say "romani" and watch you appear like roaches
Yea sure I'm the roach, not the guy in prison with a kid that has an alcohol addiction at age 12
As if every restaurant server in America who's had to deal with white European tourists trying their damndest to get around our alcohol laws so their kids can have beer or wine with dinner are lying.
OP's meme is absolutely true. This is an American boomer grandparent rant about black people with a single word substitution.
Have you tried addressing the issues without generalising their entire culture based on the behaviour of one single group or ignoring the entire history that might explain how it came to this? The social workers certainly seem to manage to do just that.
I haven't tried anything yet, I'm just asking.
I don't understand this part. Let's say I'm (hypothetically) talking about difference in how they dress and that the minority simply dresses differently. Is saying "people from culture X traditionally wear Y" OK? Of course not every single person from culture X will wear Y but there are cultures that traditionally dress differently, right? Is that generalization or description of a culture?
So if someone provides historical context for behavior they are criticizing it's not racist? Not sure if that's enough. What if someone says "minority X was marginalized by the government for so long they are uneducated and more likely to commit crimes now". Would that be OK?
Sure you are.
Saying "people traditionally wear x" is a whole lot different than saying "they're all criminals". You're conflating a cultural practice with a claim about criminal behaviour. Seems like a very dishonest argument, tbh.
You're missing the point. There are a lot of contextual things that need to be considered, historical context is one of them. Socioeconomic is a different one, which might be based on historical context. It doesn't mean you have to provide that every time you address some issue.
It doesn't even matter which group it is, because having to live with marginalisation, exclusion, poverty, lack of access to education or other socioeconomic conditions are associated with a greater exposure to conditions associated with crime. That's not unique to a particular group. You'll see that in a lot of minorities who get treated like second-class humans.
In case of the Romani, there are still people around who remember the mistreatment they received from the respective governments. For example, Slovakia forcibly sterilised Romani women well into the 90s, with some cases being documented even until the 2000s. That memory is still alive, and can explain why some Roma distrust government agencies. If i come to your house and kill your dog, you wouldn't want me around either...
Yes, there are practices among some Roma communities that are harmful, but those are also challenged by Roma themselves. There are Romani organisations out there who fight for change in those communities. Those actually do ask the question why these practices occur, how widespread they actually are and what can be reasonably done to reduce that from happening. That's a whole lot more useful than some performative bullshit talk about "their culture".
So, TL;DR would be "treat the reason for the issue, not the ethnicity of the people having it".
EDIT: And it seems some people do not understand nuance, and keep on dogwhistling
So you basically admit that there are problematic behavior in some Romani groups, and that's (one of) the reason for the integration difficulty. So much so that Romani people themselves are trying to change it.
Contrary to most comments here crying racism, you won't find many commenters here saying it's the Romani ethnicity that's the issue, it's the behavior that has gotten them a bad reputation.
Yes, it's fanny how people just use codewords and claim that everyone speaking normally is straight out racist.
"No, Roma culture is not preventing social integration, that's racist thing to say! Some... practices among... some Roma.... communities are... harmful. (ufff, racism avoided)"
You came up with some vague "hypotheticals", kept throwing more "hypothetical claims" around and now you pretend like you "won" some discussion by treating my explanation as a concession. That is exactly the kind of dishonest argumentative pattern i'm talking about.
Here's some dude who shared some of the usual comments that come up in many European reddit subs, once the word "roma" is mentioned: https://piefed.social/post/2439917#comment_13134574
Maybe that'll help you to understand why your "hypothetical" nonsense sounds like a bunch of dogwhistles.
Yes, me asking generally about language used when discussing social integration is the issue, not you imagining what people are really trying to say. And of course other people saying racist stuff means that everyone is racist. I take personal responsibility for all racist comments on reddit, no issues on my side here.
Why so aggressive? Why do you assume that I wanted to say anything else than "there are practices among some Roma communities that are harmful"?
Look at other comments. Many people here think that expecting Roma communities to change their behavior is racist in itself. Why would you assume everyone is to the right of you when you're clearly to the right of many people on lemmy?
What makes you think that people should integrate into your society instead of the other way around? What makes you think geographical areas must determine cultural norms?
These are rhetorical questions, I don't want a response. I want you to think about how racist you're being.
We can take an example. Female genital mutilation. Why do I think muslim west Africans moving to my country should stop female genital mutilation in my country instead of my culture starting practicing female genital mutilation? That's quite clear. I think it's an immoral practice. Doesn't matter which culture is doing it. Not every cultural difference is a neutral thing. My culture for sure also has negative traits in it. I would also condemn child marriage, purity culture, strict family patriarchy, and clan honor culture. If someone is from a culture that sees gay people as an abomination to god I would condemn that as well.
Did you just wanna talk about genital mutilation? Nobody brought that up.
I think it's a good example because I believe the entirety of Lemmy can agree that that specific cultural tradition is a bad one, thus proving that not every cultural difference is good. No amount of historical context can justify it.
So by that logic, Mexico City locals have no right to expect anyone to adapt to them? Plenty of people there are annoyed at foreigners who move in, never bother learning Spanish, and act like the neighborhood should work around them. Most people would call that a fair complaint. And before you say it's just about money, picture a broke backpacker doing the exact same thing. Same complaint, right?
If that's fair, then expecting newcomers to adapt isn't racist in itself. The real debate is about what's reasonable to expect, not whether it's allowed.
These are rhetorical questions, I don't want a response. I want you to think about how consistent you're being.
Lmao yes exactly, you know the Spanish stole mexico city right? But we should stop anyone from speaking other languages there, sure. No fucks given for the indigenous cultures that persist to this day
Fucking racist morons, the lot of you
Yeah, that extremist position is not even worth addressing. According to it recognizing any cultural differences is racist in itself. Japanese person telling to you take off your shoes? Racist. Swiss neighbor telling you to turn down your TV after 22:00? Racist.
"Integrating into local culture" is a non-issue; their culture is local culture. Any concrete problems (which there are, to be clear) need to be addressed as such, not as a duty to conform to the whims of the majority, before you can get anything done.
More practically, though, the problem with that framing is that places where Roma aren't rendered second class citizens don't, in fact, have that problem. America in particular renders the culture explanation completely untenable. You should really start here.
That's an interesting idea. So you think participating in public education and learning local language for example is a "non-issue"? I think current situation in Sweden shows how important it is. Learning language is crucial to later job opportunities. No to mention respect for the law. Different cultures tolerate different behaviors and adapting to that is a matter of respect for your neighbors, not "conforming to their whims".
Yes I do, more or less. Children have the right to an education, but as long as it's up to a minimum standard I don't care very much who gives it, and as for the local language, well, up to them really but I strongly doubt that, for example, Hungarian Roma can't speak Hungarian as a rule.
The only thing Sweden is showing in 2026 is what a country where the fascists are winning looks like.
Sure, some amount of adaptation is necessary, but that goes both ways. Roma communities have frankly seen nothing but misery from their neighbors, so suddenly expecting "respect" is both unrealistic and frankly arrogant. As I said and you ignored, stop putting them in ghettos first.
Racist!
But seriously, I didn't even mention Roma. Those are universal issues that affect British people in Spain the same way they affect Polish people in Switzerland. Saying that it's not important to learn local language shows how out of touch you are. Kids don't decide those things on their own. If parents don't make sure they learn the language they will have hugely limited opportunities when they grow up and risk social exclusion. This is another way ghettos form you're totally oblivious to.
Social Democrats governed in Sweden for the last decade and as a result of their policies "Almost one in four 15-year-olds who completed the PISA international survey in 2022 did not achieve the lowest proficiency level on the reading scale for continued learning.". This didn't happen because fascists won last elections. It's because people like you who don't understand how reality works promote their failed understanding of what "tolerance" is.
Kids learn their host country's language basically by default, so this is a non-issue. Language education is by and large an adult problem.
Your association of me with the Social Democrats with tolerance with bad education policy is such an intricate web of non-sequiturs that I have no idea what you're talking about. Why should this be relevant to the conversation?
I'm gonna need a source on that, but also the kind of ghettos relevant here (aka the kind Europeans keep putting Roma) in is created by social ostracization and state policy.
You need a source about how lack of education and basic language skills limits job opportunities and causes social exclusion? Gee, I don't know if I can find any. Give me couple of days for an in depth research. I'll get back to you.
Yeah, I might start my exploring why the laws of the place developed in a way that was strictly incompatible with the culture of groups of people who live there, and why the laws perhaps cannot be adapted to bend to the needs of people instead of the other way around.
Oh, so you think it was wrong for Spain to raise minimum age to get married to 16 years? They should have left it at 14? Even though Committee on the Rights of the Child recommended raising it? Is UN racist now? They should lower the age again so people from some minority groups can get back to marrying their kids at 14?
You're right, it's very curious why the laws in Europe developed in a way that don't let kids to get married. Why can't they bend those rules? Is it because of racism?
The question is making category. You think that they is one people and another, one legit and one not. This is a not facts, this a nationalist point of view. So yes, it is racist.
People that decide collectively the way they are living is democracy. One way of living that has to be enforce to everyone is supremacism. Is fun that you think that way about the romani, because those culture presence is way older in their territories that every States in Europe. So if you think that the first have the right to decide, European States Shall adapt to Romani People.
PS: it's not a coincidence that nazi was antisemitic and antitziganist. Those cultures presence demonstrate that the nationality is social construct, and not a "biological truth".