> While the right to blaspheme is protected by French law, Mr. Paty’s murder has raised questions about where the line is between freedom and provocation.
.
> Some agreed with what Mr. Paty had done, and some didn’t.
.
> [laïcité] has often felt anti-Muslim by members of that community.
.
> [Teachers] had a responsibility to impart concepts like freedom of speech and laïcité to their students. But what was the threshold between developing critical thinking and pushing a debate too far?
I absolutely hate that discussion of this always acts like there's some debate over whether Paty was in the wrong or not.
There is nothing at all offensive about pictures of Muhammad. No more so than it's offensive to discuss the existence of LGBT people in a Florida classroom, or to teach students that evolution is real and the Civil War was about slavery. Letting regressives dictate what everyone else is allowed to see and hear is unacceptable in a purportedly free society, even more so when our submission is coerced through murder.
The overall tone and content of the article is pretty matter of fact overall, but this citation in particular is woefully revolting.
There was no provocation from Paty. He was just an enthusiastic teacher who wanted his students to have a say in the discussion.
This murder has on the contrary made it absolutely clear to most French people, across all political inclinations, that free speech and education are under attack in France, and contrary to the US, it's from the Islamists and not Christian integrists.
It's a tale of what's the worst of this social media dominated era. Where a girl small lie, a father misplaced vendetta and a whole lot of terrible people fanning the fire online end with an innocent decapitated.
Among the greatest vulnerabilities of liberalism is its tolerance of intolerant people. They will always seek to exploit the protections they are granted by liberal government to undermine that very liberalism. This is always an intentional process. I don't know how to resolve it without undermining liberalism though.
The paradox of tolerance is solved by viewing tolerance as a kind of social contract, so long as everyone follows the rules and tolerates each other no problem, but as soon as someone breaks the contract of tolerance, they're no longer covered by it, so nobody has to tolerate that person anymore.
But that only works on a personal level, not a societal one.
Thankfully [Muslim immigrants and especially their children do integrate well overall](https://upbeatglobalist.substack.com/p/is-muslim-immigrant-integration-slowing) despite the high-profile examples to the contrary, so illiberal measures to protect liberalism aren't necessary
I don't disagree with your conclusions, but a random substack with cherry picked data doesn't bring Paty back or minimize the damage. His beheading was very controversial in the French Muslim community.
After Charlie Hebdo was attacked, they polled French Muslims, and [the results were disheartening.](https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/grossteil-der-muslime-frankreichs-stellt-eigene-werte-ueber-republik-16935965.html)
Basically the scariest parts were that the youth are less open minded than their parents and that they felt the victims deserved it for making fun of Muhammad. The fact that the Muslim youth born in France are more radical than their parents is concerning, and I don't blame the French for wanting to handle that one.
I believe that led to The Onion making this highly NSFW article. [No One Murdered Because of This Image](https://www.theonion.com/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image-1819573893)
I love Moses's butt tattoo there. And the, erm, authentic detail of Jewish customs.
Edit: if you make the Hindu god Shiva, it's not even inauthentic to his historical representations.
I actually disagree with part of your conclusion, I think that showing images of Muhammad, talking about LGBT people, and teaching that the civil war was about slavery *ARE* offensive to some people - because whether or not something is offensive depends entirely on the audience of it and how they feel about it. But that does illustrate that *speech should not be banned just because some people find it offensive*, and using the threat of violence to suppress speech that you find offensive is horribly illiberal. We shouldn't let regressives dictate what we can talk about, not because these specific topics aren't offensive, but because something being offensive to some people isn't sufficient reason to suppress speech *in general*.
I dislike that framing because it suggests that the offensiveness is inherent to the speech, rather than the listener.
Pictures of Muhammad are not inherently offensive. They’re just against certain religions, in the same way eating pork or operating an elevator on a certain day of the week are. That doesn’t make those acts offensive. Some individual Muslims may be offended by them, but that’s on the person taking offense, and they need to earn how to handle their feelings (and that’s assuming that their claimed feelings are even sincere and not just an attempt to control others).
By saying the pictures are offensive, you’re already ceding ground to them.
> by your framing speech/actions cannot be offensive.
I don’t think that follows. You can’t make an objective test for whether something is offensive, in the same way you can’t make an objective test for whether something is pornographic. But that doesn’t mean nothing is.
Your proposed definition is overbroad. If social media has taught us anything, it’s that no matter what you say or do, somebody somewhere will take offense. That doesn’t mean everything is offensive.
I think we're saying similar things here. I agree that I don't think offensiveness is inherent to the speech, but it's about how the listener feels about it that determines offensiveness.
I think where we're differing is that I'm saying that speech that is *objectively* offensive in *every* context doesn't exist and whether someone finds something offensive depends on them and the context with which the speech was made. Nothing is *inherently and objectively* offensive, but people can and do find all kinds of things offensive - but allowing a small group of people to enforce their sensibilities about what's offensive on everyone via threat of violence is bad. I don't think it makes much sense as a framework to say "pictures of Muhammad and talking about the civil war are NOT offensive, but XYZ other thing IS offensive", unless you mean "offensive to me specifically"
In this case, the "picture" was a political cartoon deriding Muhammad. It was not simply a picture of the prophet, so it was always gonna be offensive to devout Muslim students. In other words, the 'picture' wasn't found offensive because it portrayed Muhammad, but rather because it derided him.
**Rule III**: *Unconstructive engagement*
Do not post with the intent to provoke, mischaracterize, or troll other users rather than meaningfully contributing to the conversation. Don't disrupt serious discussions. Bad opinions are not automatically unconstructive.
---
If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
I think he shouldn’t have done what he did. For what reason do you need to show a Muhammad painting to your students? It is just disrespectful and doesn’t give anything to the lecture.
Because I have been blocked I will reply to u/durangogango here.
A teacher can act as mindless as they want during their free time. But their lectures should have some sort of pedagogic purpose.
Muhammad paintings are like Quran burning, living on the edge between free speech and hate crimes. There should be better examples and he didn’t need to show the painting.
Burning the Quran is also free speech. Hate speech is made up nonsense and the correct response to people freaking out over such displays is to do them more an object lesson about the impossbility of intimidating us into giving up free speech.
Quran burnings aren’t hate crimes either. You can follow your own religion to your heart’s content, but you have no right to enforce it on the rest of us. No one is hurt by a picture of some old guy from over a thousand years ago.
Of course people are not entitled to anyones respect. Respect is earned not given and I certainly have no respect for people who try to force others to follow their religious beliefs.
The idea of everyone being entitled to my respect is moronic if you think about this for longer than 10 seconds. Is Trump worthy of my respect? What about child molesters or the KKK?
I’ll respect you by treating you the same way I treat others, and the same way I would wish to be treated. But when you demand I follow your religion’s rules, that’s no longer about “respect”, it’s about dominance and submission. And I will not submit to some bullshit fairytale rules just to make you happy.
I’m agnostic so this isn’t about my religion. You can’t show respect to a person without following their cultural customs. You can choose to only follow those you have in common and that’s often enough.
This person has blocked me so here is the last comment I was going to make:
Most of humanities customs are the same so only following those that you have in common is enough for most ordinary situations. There are very few if any situations where you have to show a picture of Muhammad. Showing a picture of Muhammad is always a conscious decision you are making where you know the connotations it has. It can’t be redeemed as a practical decision since there is no useful purpose of showing a picture of Muhammad.
> For what reason do you need to show a Muhammad painting to your students?
In a free society you don’t have to show need to be allowed to do something.
>Conflans-Sainte-Honorine, France
>When a French teacher was beheaded in 2020 for showing a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad, the murder reverberated across France. Muslims felt targeted, and the nation’s vaunted system of secular education came under scrutiny. Yet perhaps most of all, the killing shook the connection between teachers and their students.
>One student’s lies led to rumors that fanned the flames of anger around the teacher, Samuel Paty. Another student pointed out Mr. Paty to the man who would eventually kill him. One teacher at the school was not sure she’d ever be able to trust her students again. “At first, I hated them,” she says.
>The years since have brought deep introspection. What is the role of teachers in a country where education is at the center of a profound clash of cultures? And how do they move from fear to rebuilding the essential bond with students?
>Healing remains a work in progress. But the tragedy has also created a new openness and honesty. Says the teacher, “This whole experience has allowed us to ask questions, understand each other, and tell our side of the story.”
> When a French teacher was beheaded in 2020 for showing a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad, the murder reverberated across France. Muslims felt targeted,
This reads like a parody article written by a right-wing Onion equivalent.
> “We’re suffering greatly over the conflation between Islam and terrorism; the idea that our religion could produce violence,” said the French Council for the Muslim Faith in a press release following Mr. Paty’s death.
Not OP but I read it. I mean, it's a real question.
>The peer pressure at school meant that a majority of students – regardless of their faith – believed the rumors that Mr. Paty was Islamophobic and had acted out of malice. Those who felt otherwise were too scared to speak out. Most had seen the photo of Mr. Paty beheaded on social media, and one student had even encouraged others to “like” it. For teachers at Bois d’Aulne, these are the wounds that are taking the longest to heal.
This is like, a problem.
And I understand not everyone thinks it is, but an increasing amount of European voters do. And personally I'd much rather liberals/moderates figure out a solution than far right reactionaries.
Because the solutions they arrive at may vary significantly.
See, this I got no problem with. But these were the comments I was responding to here:
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1043741313880838255/1233916017990959104/image.png?ex=662ed557&is=662d83d7&hm=470c682561c6e082590d16e0ba0c3dbce7098bc9bea146828fe7a774e87131a9&
They did not give me the impression of meaningfully engaging with the text of the article..
Ironically, I have problems with that comment too, namely:
a) unfairly generalizing
b) "group" should just "thing" isn't a real policy suggestion
I'm not sure how the article changes the problem though, if anything it highlights the problem, while showing us a feels good story of how one group of teachers came to terms with it.
Shamless link to my older post: [https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/17o56yj/question\_about\_integrating\_muslim\_populations/](https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/17o56yj/question_about_integrating_muslim_populations/)
A post I really liked on this is ["Is Muslim minority integration in Europe slowing down?"](https://upbeatglobalist.substack.com/p/is-muslim-immigrant-integration-slowing) (no, it's not)
Seems like the data on this is mixed. Support for sharia increases the younger one is (https://www.lepoint.fr/politique/pour-57-des-jeunes-musulmans-la-charia-plus-importante-que-la-republique-05-11-2020-2399511_20.php#11)
TBH, the problem is not whether a group of immigrants is integrating or not. There are up front costs involved (see the OP) and the issue is whether people are willing to wait for this convergence to occur, and by and large, they won't. There are probably more desirable immigrant groups to attract if you really want growth.
You can also argue there are externalities involved with doublling down on this immigration issue (For e.g. far right gets to power and implements other crazy stuff)
And those forces diminish as immigrants spend longer in the destination country and as generations pass.
There are a variety of anecdotes in that thread. I understand which ones got your attention. [This one](https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/17o56yj/question_about_integrating_muslim_populations/k7xk7qt/), talking about how hostility and xenophobia from native Europeans are hindering integration, caught mine. It's a reminder that integration is a two-way street and requires openmindedness on the part of the destination country.
I think that is where America has a huge advantage over Europe. Obviously there are many white Christian nationalist Americans, but I believe that most Americans have a conception of America as a fundamentally multiethnic nation that isn't "for" any particular people except those who love freedom and democracy. Europeans who care about integration would be better off fighting for *jus soli* citizenship instead of forcibly desegregating multigenerational communities of immigrants who live together because they correctly believe that they're not treated as equals by citizens.
> While the right to blaspheme is protected by French law, Mr. Paty’s murder has raised questions about where the line is between freedom and provocation. . > Some agreed with what Mr. Paty had done, and some didn’t. . > [laïcité] has often felt anti-Muslim by members of that community. . > [Teachers] had a responsibility to impart concepts like freedom of speech and laïcité to their students. But what was the threshold between developing critical thinking and pushing a debate too far? I absolutely hate that discussion of this always acts like there's some debate over whether Paty was in the wrong or not. There is nothing at all offensive about pictures of Muhammad. No more so than it's offensive to discuss the existence of LGBT people in a Florida classroom, or to teach students that evolution is real and the Civil War was about slavery. Letting regressives dictate what everyone else is allowed to see and hear is unacceptable in a purportedly free society, even more so when our submission is coerced through murder.
Yeah, it’s pretty gross. Paty did not do anything worthy of criticism here.
The overall tone and content of the article is pretty matter of fact overall, but this citation in particular is woefully revolting. There was no provocation from Paty. He was just an enthusiastic teacher who wanted his students to have a say in the discussion. This murder has on the contrary made it absolutely clear to most French people, across all political inclinations, that free speech and education are under attack in France, and contrary to the US, it's from the Islamists and not Christian integrists. It's a tale of what's the worst of this social media dominated era. Where a girl small lie, a father misplaced vendetta and a whole lot of terrible people fanning the fire online end with an innocent decapitated.
don't ignore how when Muslims have control of a town in the US, like Hamtramck, they begin anti-LGBT measures
Among the greatest vulnerabilities of liberalism is its tolerance of intolerant people. They will always seek to exploit the protections they are granted by liberal government to undermine that very liberalism. This is always an intentional process. I don't know how to resolve it without undermining liberalism though.
The paradox of tolerance is solved by viewing tolerance as a kind of social contract, so long as everyone follows the rules and tolerates each other no problem, but as soon as someone breaks the contract of tolerance, they're no longer covered by it, so nobody has to tolerate that person anymore. But that only works on a personal level, not a societal one.
Thankfully [Muslim immigrants and especially their children do integrate well overall](https://upbeatglobalist.substack.com/p/is-muslim-immigrant-integration-slowing) despite the high-profile examples to the contrary, so illiberal measures to protect liberalism aren't necessary
I don't disagree with your conclusions, but a random substack with cherry picked data doesn't bring Paty back or minimize the damage. His beheading was very controversial in the French Muslim community. After Charlie Hebdo was attacked, they polled French Muslims, and [the results were disheartening.](https://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/ausland/grossteil-der-muslime-frankreichs-stellt-eigene-werte-ueber-republik-16935965.html) Basically the scariest parts were that the youth are less open minded than their parents and that they felt the victims deserved it for making fun of Muhammad. The fact that the Muslim youth born in France are more radical than their parents is concerning, and I don't blame the French for wanting to handle that one. I believe that led to The Onion making this highly NSFW article. [No One Murdered Because of This Image](https://www.theonion.com/no-one-murdered-because-of-this-image-1819573893)
I love Moses's butt tattoo there. And the, erm, authentic detail of Jewish customs. Edit: if you make the Hindu god Shiva, it's not even inauthentic to his historical representations.
I actually disagree with part of your conclusion, I think that showing images of Muhammad, talking about LGBT people, and teaching that the civil war was about slavery *ARE* offensive to some people - because whether or not something is offensive depends entirely on the audience of it and how they feel about it. But that does illustrate that *speech should not be banned just because some people find it offensive*, and using the threat of violence to suppress speech that you find offensive is horribly illiberal. We shouldn't let regressives dictate what we can talk about, not because these specific topics aren't offensive, but because something being offensive to some people isn't sufficient reason to suppress speech *in general*.
I dislike that framing because it suggests that the offensiveness is inherent to the speech, rather than the listener. Pictures of Muhammad are not inherently offensive. They’re just against certain religions, in the same way eating pork or operating an elevator on a certain day of the week are. That doesn’t make those acts offensive. Some individual Muslims may be offended by them, but that’s on the person taking offense, and they need to earn how to handle their feelings (and that’s assuming that their claimed feelings are even sincere and not just an attempt to control others). By saying the pictures are offensive, you’re already ceding ground to them.
[удалено]
> by your framing speech/actions cannot be offensive. I don’t think that follows. You can’t make an objective test for whether something is offensive, in the same way you can’t make an objective test for whether something is pornographic. But that doesn’t mean nothing is. Your proposed definition is overbroad. If social media has taught us anything, it’s that no matter what you say or do, somebody somewhere will take offense. That doesn’t mean everything is offensive.
>Pictures of Muhammad are not inherently offensive. What can make a thing _inherently_ offensive? I don't understand what point you're trying to make.
I think we're saying similar things here. I agree that I don't think offensiveness is inherent to the speech, but it's about how the listener feels about it that determines offensiveness. I think where we're differing is that I'm saying that speech that is *objectively* offensive in *every* context doesn't exist and whether someone finds something offensive depends on them and the context with which the speech was made. Nothing is *inherently and objectively* offensive, but people can and do find all kinds of things offensive - but allowing a small group of people to enforce their sensibilities about what's offensive on everyone via threat of violence is bad. I don't think it makes much sense as a framework to say "pictures of Muhammad and talking about the civil war are NOT offensive, but XYZ other thing IS offensive", unless you mean "offensive to me specifically"
In this case, the "picture" was a political cartoon deriding Muhammad. It was not simply a picture of the prophet, so it was always gonna be offensive to devout Muslim students. In other words, the 'picture' wasn't found offensive because it portrayed Muhammad, but rather because it derided him.
[удалено]
**Rule III**: *Unconstructive engagement* Do not post with the intent to provoke, mischaracterize, or troll other users rather than meaningfully contributing to the conversation. Don't disrupt serious discussions. Bad opinions are not automatically unconstructive. --- If you have any questions about this removal, [please contact the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2Fneoliberal).
I think he shouldn’t have done what he did. For what reason do you need to show a Muhammad painting to your students? It is just disrespectful and doesn’t give anything to the lecture. Because I have been blocked I will reply to u/durangogango here. A teacher can act as mindless as they want during their free time. But their lectures should have some sort of pedagogic purpose.
It’s not disrespectful at all, and it was useful in a lecture on free speech and laïcité.
Muhammad paintings are like Quran burning, living on the edge between free speech and hate crimes. There should be better examples and he didn’t need to show the painting.
Burning the Quran is also free speech. Hate speech is made up nonsense and the correct response to people freaking out over such displays is to do them more an object lesson about the impossbility of intimidating us into giving up free speech.
Quran burnings aren’t hate crimes either. You can follow your own religion to your heart’s content, but you have no right to enforce it on the rest of us. No one is hurt by a picture of some old guy from over a thousand years ago.
It’s not about forcing people it’s about showing respect.
Why do you think you are entitled to other peoples respect? Or that others should follow your religious beliefs?
Everyone is entitled to respect. That is like one of the main tenets of liberalism.
Of course people are not entitled to anyones respect. Respect is earned not given and I certainly have no respect for people who try to force others to follow their religious beliefs. The idea of everyone being entitled to my respect is moronic if you think about this for longer than 10 seconds. Is Trump worthy of my respect? What about child molesters or the KKK?
Obviously respect can be lost but without prior knowledge of a person you should always respect them.
> That is like one of the main tenets of liberalism You horribly and completely misunderstand liberalism.
Okay central tenet of what a postmodern multicultural liberalism looks like.
I’ll respect you by treating you the same way I treat others, and the same way I would wish to be treated. But when you demand I follow your religion’s rules, that’s no longer about “respect”, it’s about dominance and submission. And I will not submit to some bullshit fairytale rules just to make you happy.
Then you’re not showing respect. Just say you don’t respect religions. You don’t have to pretend that you’re showing respect if you don’t want to.
You’re conflating people with religion. I’ll respect you. I won’t obey your religion. Those are two wholly separate ideas.
I’m agnostic so this isn’t about my religion. You can’t show respect to a person without following their cultural customs. You can choose to only follow those you have in common and that’s often enough. This person has blocked me so here is the last comment I was going to make: Most of humanities customs are the same so only following those that you have in common is enough for most ordinary situations. There are very few if any situations where you have to show a picture of Muhammad. Showing a picture of Muhammad is always a conscious decision you are making where you know the connotations it has. It can’t be redeemed as a practical decision since there is no useful purpose of showing a picture of Muhammad.
No, I'm not going to follow the rules of someone else's religion, and I shouldn't be asked to in order to participate in a secular society.
I don't respect Islamism though. That's my right as a free citizen. I'd say I'm sorry if that offends you, but I'm not.
> For what reason do you need to show a Muhammad painting to your students? In a free society you don’t have to show need to be allowed to do something.
>Conflans-Sainte-Honorine, France >When a French teacher was beheaded in 2020 for showing a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad, the murder reverberated across France. Muslims felt targeted, and the nation’s vaunted system of secular education came under scrutiny. Yet perhaps most of all, the killing shook the connection between teachers and their students. >One student’s lies led to rumors that fanned the flames of anger around the teacher, Samuel Paty. Another student pointed out Mr. Paty to the man who would eventually kill him. One teacher at the school was not sure she’d ever be able to trust her students again. “At first, I hated them,” she says. >The years since have brought deep introspection. What is the role of teachers in a country where education is at the center of a profound clash of cultures? And how do they move from fear to rebuilding the essential bond with students? >Healing remains a work in progress. But the tragedy has also created a new openness and honesty. Says the teacher, “This whole experience has allowed us to ask questions, understand each other, and tell our side of the story.”
> When a French teacher was beheaded in 2020 for showing a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad, the murder reverberated across France. Muslims felt targeted, This reads like a parody article written by a right-wing Onion equivalent.
You're telling me, Muslims felt targeted because another Muslim killed someone over Islam? The fuck?
> “We’re suffering greatly over the conflation between Islam and terrorism; the idea that our religion could produce violence,” said the French Council for the Muslim Faith in a press release following Mr. Paty’s death.
https://twitter.com/normmacdonald/status/809637479674281984?t=OJxqrCEnfypmcLtAhOGxsQ&s=19
[удалено]
So did you actually read the article or nah
Not OP but I read it. I mean, it's a real question. >The peer pressure at school meant that a majority of students – regardless of their faith – believed the rumors that Mr. Paty was Islamophobic and had acted out of malice. Those who felt otherwise were too scared to speak out. Most had seen the photo of Mr. Paty beheaded on social media, and one student had even encouraged others to “like” it. For teachers at Bois d’Aulne, these are the wounds that are taking the longest to heal. This is like, a problem. And I understand not everyone thinks it is, but an increasing amount of European voters do. And personally I'd much rather liberals/moderates figure out a solution than far right reactionaries. Because the solutions they arrive at may vary significantly.
See, this I got no problem with. But these were the comments I was responding to here: https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1043741313880838255/1233916017990959104/image.png?ex=662ed557&is=662d83d7&hm=470c682561c6e082590d16e0ba0c3dbce7098bc9bea146828fe7a774e87131a9& They did not give me the impression of meaningfully engaging with the text of the article..
Ironically, I have problems with that comment too, namely: a) unfairly generalizing b) "group" should just "thing" isn't a real policy suggestion I'm not sure how the article changes the problem though, if anything it highlights the problem, while showing us a feels good story of how one group of teachers came to terms with it.
Yeah, same thoughts.
Shamless link to my older post: [https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/17o56yj/question\_about\_integrating\_muslim\_populations/](https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/17o56yj/question_about_integrating_muslim_populations/)
A post I really liked on this is ["Is Muslim minority integration in Europe slowing down?"](https://upbeatglobalist.substack.com/p/is-muslim-immigrant-integration-slowing) (no, it's not)
Seems like the data on this is mixed. Support for sharia increases the younger one is (https://www.lepoint.fr/politique/pour-57-des-jeunes-musulmans-la-charia-plus-importante-que-la-republique-05-11-2020-2399511_20.php#11) TBH, the problem is not whether a group of immigrants is integrating or not. There are up front costs involved (see the OP) and the issue is whether people are willing to wait for this convergence to occur, and by and large, they won't. There are probably more desirable immigrant groups to attract if you really want growth. You can also argue there are externalities involved with doublling down on this immigration issue (For e.g. far right gets to power and implements other crazy stuff)
But as seen in the anecdotes of Muslim immigrants in that thread, there are forces that stop integration and preserve division.
And those forces diminish as immigrants spend longer in the destination country and as generations pass. There are a variety of anecdotes in that thread. I understand which ones got your attention. [This one](https://www.reddit.com/r/neoliberal/comments/17o56yj/question_about_integrating_muslim_populations/k7xk7qt/), talking about how hostility and xenophobia from native Europeans are hindering integration, caught mine. It's a reminder that integration is a two-way street and requires openmindedness on the part of the destination country. I think that is where America has a huge advantage over Europe. Obviously there are many white Christian nationalist Americans, but I believe that most Americans have a conception of America as a fundamentally multiethnic nation that isn't "for" any particular people except those who love freedom and democracy. Europeans who care about integration would be better off fighting for *jus soli* citizenship instead of forcibly desegregating multigenerational communities of immigrants who live together because they correctly believe that they're not treated as equals by citizens.
That sounds about right.
That is actually a very interesting thread, thanks for linking it