|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 05 2017 13:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 12:54 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2017 12:47 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2017 12:45 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 12:42 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2017 09:37 mozoku wrote:On December 05 2017 09:08 Nevuk wrote:On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:53 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:44 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
The problem is that EU and most of its individual member states lack the conviction to acknowledge that their first duty is to their citizens and to act accordingly. Immigration should never, ever be used as a charity service. If that means thousands of civilians will die, so be it. If the country can't stomach that thought, then it should send in the military. The problem is that the EU failed to act in a co-ordinated way to disperse refugees across the continent, reducing the ability of far-right parties to exploit them for political ends. A state has no 'first duty' - a nation might do, but they are different things. If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. Neither of those possibilities are worth letting people die for. The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me. And this statement... If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour.
...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West.Also, by your logic, Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany would've been denied any form of asylum and left to die in concentration camps. 90% of the Jewish Germans who did not find refuge in another country did, of course, meet this end. Yep. I'm sure china will collapse any day now I am equally puzzled as xDaunt by this statement. If you were unaware, China is a hugely diverse nation, more akin to an old empire than a modern nation state. There are more different ethnic and cultural groups in China than you'll find basically anywhere else (it doesn't hurt they they have so many people in that regard). If someone wishes to argue that multiculturalism is doomed then the existence of China poses a challenge. The obvious point that y'all are missing (and mozoku gets) is that China is acutely aware of its multiculturalism and is actively trying to stamp it out and assimilate as many of the minorities as possible into the Han majority. I don't know why I'm surprised that your takeaway from the ethnic cleansing going on in Tibet is "we could learn a lot from these guys". Cultural Authority is adored by people who want to see white culture dominate. The difference between you and me is that you're not quite honest enough to admit that all of your leftist and liberal values are the products of "white culture."
Well that's new. Anything good that you don't think is a product of "white culture"?
|
On December 05 2017 13:27 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 13:22 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 12:54 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2017 12:47 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2017 12:45 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 12:42 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2017 09:37 mozoku wrote:On December 05 2017 09:08 Nevuk wrote:On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:53 kollin wrote:
[quote]
The problem is that the EU failed to act in a co-ordinated way to disperse refugees across the continent, reducing the ability of far-right parties to exploit them for political ends. A state has no 'first duty' - a nation might do, but they are different things. If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. Neither of those possibilities are worth letting people die for.
The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me. And this statement... If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour.
...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West.Also, by your logic, Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany would've been denied any form of asylum and left to die in concentration camps. 90% of the Jewish Germans who did not find refuge in another country did, of course, meet this end. Yep. I'm sure china will collapse any day now I am equally puzzled as xDaunt by this statement. If you were unaware, China is a hugely diverse nation, more akin to an old empire than a modern nation state. There are more different ethnic and cultural groups in China than you'll find basically anywhere else (it doesn't hurt they they have so many people in that regard). If someone wishes to argue that multiculturalism is doomed then the existence of China poses a challenge. The obvious point that y'all are missing (and mozoku gets) is that China is acutely aware of its multiculturalism and is actively trying to stamp it out and assimilate as many of the minorities as possible into the Han majority. I don't know why I'm surprised that your takeaway from the ethnic cleansing going on in Tibet is "we could learn a lot from these guys". Cultural Authority is adored by people who want to see white culture dominate. The difference between you and me is that you're not quite honest enough to admit that all of your leftist and liberal values are the products of "white culture." Well that's new. Anything good that you don't think is a product of "white culture"?
Trailer parks and corn dogs.
|
On December 05 2017 12:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 09:37 mozoku wrote:On December 05 2017 09:08 Nevuk wrote:On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:53 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:42 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:
Speaking of Germany, did y'all read about how Germany is offering the refugees (who are mostly Muslim) money to leave? Who are y'all trying to kid here with this "unfettered Muslim immigration is good" business? Literally no one said "unfettered" immigration of any kind was good, please find a single example of someone doing so. The refugee crisis in Europe was a failure of the EU to deal with it in a way that was both politically expedient and humanitarian regardless, but keep trying to milk it for a poisonous, nationalist agenda. The problem is that EU and most of its individual member states lack the conviction to acknowledge that their first duty is to their citizens and to act accordingly. Immigration should never, ever be used as a charity service. If that means thousands of civilians will die, so be it. If the country can't stomach that thought, then it should send in the military. The problem is that the EU failed to act in a co-ordinated way to disperse refugees across the continent, reducing the ability of far-right parties to exploit them for political ends. A state has no 'first duty' - a nation might do, but they are different things. If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. Neither of those possibilities are worth letting people die for. The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me. And this statement... If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour.
...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West.Also, by your logic, Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany would've been denied any form of asylum and left to die in concentration camps. 90% of the Jewish Germans who did not find refuge in another country did, of course, meet this end. Yep. I'm sure china will collapse any day now I am equally puzzled as xDaunt by this statement. If you were unaware, China is a hugely diverse nation, more akin to an old empire than a modern nation state. There are more different ethnic and cultural groups in China than you'll find basically anywhere else (it doesn't hurt they they have so many people in that regard). If someone wishes to argue that multiculturalism is doomed then the existence of China poses a challenge.
This is a gross oversimplification, which is why the statement didn't make any sense. China has many ethnicities, but 90%+ are Han, which isn't nearly as diverse as either you or Nevuk imply. Apart from Hong Kong and Macau, most of modern China has been united since at least the 17th century and, apart from the Uighurs and Tibetans (who still have cultural conflict issues with the Han anyway), most of the ethnicities were united and divided under a single government several times throughout the past 2000 years. Even if they're actually separate ethnicities, it's not like China suddenly united ~50 independent ethnicities in 1949. They've had close continuous interaction for hundreds of years at the least, and thousands at the most.
All of the "recent" additions to China have significant friction with Beijing, and it only gets worse when you start looking outside the country at Japan, Korea, and India (i.e. actually distinct cultures).
Is it even fair to compare multiculturalism in a democracy and multiculturalism under the CCP, who's been number one priority since its birth has been squashing any potential threat to its rule? It's not like the CCP has issues with the Dalai Lama and the Pope for economic reasons.
|
On December 05 2017 12:56 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 12:35 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 11:57 IgnE wrote:On December 05 2017 09:48 Kyadytim wrote:On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:53 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:42 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:
Speaking of Germany, did y'all read about how Germany is offering the refugees (who are mostly Muslim) money to leave? Who are y'all trying to kid here with this "unfettered Muslim immigration is good" business? Literally no one said "unfettered" immigration of any kind was good, please find a single example of someone doing so. The refugee crisis in Europe was a failure of the EU to deal with it in a way that was both politically expedient and humanitarian regardless, but keep trying to milk it for a poisonous, nationalist agenda. The problem is that EU and most of its individual member states lack the conviction to acknowledge that their first duty is to their citizens and to act accordingly. Immigration should never, ever be used as a charity service. If that means thousands of civilians will die, so be it. If the country can't stomach that thought, then it should send in the military. The problem is that the EU failed to act in a co-ordinated way to disperse refugees across the continent, reducing the ability of far-right parties to exploit them for political ends. A state has no 'first duty' - a nation might do, but they are different things. If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. Neither of those possibilities are worth letting people die for. The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me. And this statement... If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. ...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West. Also, by your logic, Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany would've been denied any form of asylum and left to die in concentration camps. 90% of the Jewish Germans who did not find refuge in another country did, of course, meet this end. Yep. You are using one of Vox Day's talking points, which you brought up mid August, argued with everyone who took issue with them, but also claimed you didn't actually believe. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=26692998Are you still trying to argue that you're not some sort of white ethno-nationalist? does foucault strike you as an ethno-nationalist? "politics is war by another means?" does that ring any bells? i feel like most of you are unconsciously reading all of xdaunt's posts as if they were written by darth vader. and/or maybe theres some reading comprehension issues going on. The Darth Vader thing is definitely in play (which I stoke to some extent), but the real problems are the lack of reading comprehension and the resulting high incidence of posters believing that they understand the argument/issue when they really don't. Take Kyadytim's post, for example. He clearly has no idea what he's talking about, but certainly thinks he does. on the cake issue, my question is: why would you want a cake from someone who hates you anyway? maybe i've just heard too many stories from friends in the restaurabt biz about how employees do some fucked up shit to get back at rude and disrespectful customers Heaven forbid we actually focus on practical considerations rather than reflexively resort to using governmental power to fix the perceived injustice! I'm sorry but people really do get your arguments, and aren't impressed. You really aren't nearly as smart as you believe you are, not by a fraction. And the people you disagree with are not nearly as dumb as you think you are. Perhaps if someone is "misunderstanding" your argument, or "misrepresenting" it, it is because you are not nearly as good at writing or expressing your argument as you believe you are? Has that ever crossed your mind, or do you first presume that everyone who disagrees with you is dumb?
I don't really need to presume anything because I can very readily differentiate between the posters who demonstrably understand my arguments and those who don't. Let's take Igne as an example. He and I are at polar opposites of the political spectrum on almost every issue. He's probably the smartest remaining leftist poster in the thread. I don't think that I have ever seen an instance where he misrepresented or demonstrated a misunderstanding of my posting. There have been countless occasions where he demonstrated perfect comprehension when other leftists failed. I'll be the first to admit that my communication has been less than perfect at times, but seeing posters like Igne consistently comprehend my points where others fall short tells me all that I need to know about what the real problem is.
|
United States42008 Posts
On December 05 2017 13:22 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 12:54 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2017 12:47 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2017 12:45 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 12:42 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2017 09:37 mozoku wrote:On December 05 2017 09:08 Nevuk wrote:On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:53 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:44 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
The problem is that EU and most of its individual member states lack the conviction to acknowledge that their first duty is to their citizens and to act accordingly. Immigration should never, ever be used as a charity service. If that means thousands of civilians will die, so be it. If the country can't stomach that thought, then it should send in the military. The problem is that the EU failed to act in a co-ordinated way to disperse refugees across the continent, reducing the ability of far-right parties to exploit them for political ends. A state has no 'first duty' - a nation might do, but they are different things. If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. Neither of those possibilities are worth letting people die for. The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me. And this statement... If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour.
...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West.Also, by your logic, Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany would've been denied any form of asylum and left to die in concentration camps. 90% of the Jewish Germans who did not find refuge in another country did, of course, meet this end. Yep. I'm sure china will collapse any day now I am equally puzzled as xDaunt by this statement. If you were unaware, China is a hugely diverse nation, more akin to an old empire than a modern nation state. There are more different ethnic and cultural groups in China than you'll find basically anywhere else (it doesn't hurt they they have so many people in that regard). If someone wishes to argue that multiculturalism is doomed then the existence of China poses a challenge. The obvious point that y'all are missing (and mozoku gets) is that China is acutely aware of its multiculturalism and is actively trying to stamp it out and assimilate as many of the minorities as possible into the Han majority. I don't know why I'm surprised that your takeaway from the ethnic cleansing going on in Tibet is "we could learn a lot from these guys". Cultural Authority is adored by people who want to see white culture dominate. The difference between you and me is that you're not quite honest enough to admit that all of your leftist and liberal values are the products of "white culture."
I view the ascendancy of northern Europe as a recent development that was not the result of some racial destiny due to inherent superiority. The fact that a bunch of white people famously built a civilization around a thing does not make it an intrinsically white thing. I'm honestly not sure how you white supremacists reconcile it all. Sure, you get to take credit for a lot of modern science and civilization but you also have to take credit for the sister fuckers in rural Alabama. Doesn't it get tiresome trying to decide which things are a component of your superior racial identity and which things are incidental?
The weird thing is that if I say slavery you'll immediately leap to "what about Arab slavery?" but if I say science you'll be silent on Arab science.
|
On December 05 2017 13:26 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 13:22 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 12:54 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2017 12:47 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2017 12:45 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 12:42 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2017 09:37 mozoku wrote:On December 05 2017 09:08 Nevuk wrote:On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:53 kollin wrote:
[quote]
The problem is that the EU failed to act in a co-ordinated way to disperse refugees across the continent, reducing the ability of far-right parties to exploit them for political ends. A state has no 'first duty' - a nation might do, but they are different things. If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. Neither of those possibilities are worth letting people die for.
The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me. And this statement... If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour.
...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West.Also, by your logic, Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany would've been denied any form of asylum and left to die in concentration camps. 90% of the Jewish Germans who did not find refuge in another country did, of course, meet this end. Yep. I'm sure china will collapse any day now I am equally puzzled as xDaunt by this statement. If you were unaware, China is a hugely diverse nation, more akin to an old empire than a modern nation state. There are more different ethnic and cultural groups in China than you'll find basically anywhere else (it doesn't hurt they they have so many people in that regard). If someone wishes to argue that multiculturalism is doomed then the existence of China poses a challenge. The obvious point that y'all are missing (and mozoku gets) is that China is acutely aware of its multiculturalism and is actively trying to stamp it out and assimilate as many of the minorities as possible into the Han majority. I don't know why I'm surprised that your takeaway from the ethnic cleansing going on in Tibet is "we could learn a lot from these guys". Cultural Authority is adored by people who want to see white culture dominate. The difference between you and me is that you're not quite honest enough to admit that all of your leftist and liberal values are the products of "white culture." I'm fully aware of where my culture and values came from. I'm just not naive, arrogant or foolish enough to believe they are superior to the point of dominance must be obtained. Or that other cultures do not share similar values. I don't subscribe to your myopic views and redressed jingoism.
Do you really not have the conviction to say that your culture is superior to a culture that encourages the abuse (or worse) of women and gays?
|
United States42008 Posts
On December 05 2017 13:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 13:26 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2017 13:22 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 12:54 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2017 12:47 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2017 12:45 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 12:42 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2017 09:37 mozoku wrote:On December 05 2017 09:08 Nevuk wrote:On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me.
And this statement...
[quote]
...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West.
[quote]
Yep. I'm sure china will collapse any day now I am equally puzzled as xDaunt by this statement. If you were unaware, China is a hugely diverse nation, more akin to an old empire than a modern nation state. There are more different ethnic and cultural groups in China than you'll find basically anywhere else (it doesn't hurt they they have so many people in that regard). If someone wishes to argue that multiculturalism is doomed then the existence of China poses a challenge. The obvious point that y'all are missing (and mozoku gets) is that China is acutely aware of its multiculturalism and is actively trying to stamp it out and assimilate as many of the minorities as possible into the Han majority. I don't know why I'm surprised that your takeaway from the ethnic cleansing going on in Tibet is "we could learn a lot from these guys". Cultural Authority is adored by people who want to see white culture dominate. The difference between you and me is that you're not quite honest enough to admit that all of your leftist and liberal values are the products of "white culture." I'm fully aware of where my culture and values came from. I'm just not naive, arrogant or foolish enough to believe they are superior to the point of dominance must be obtained. Or that other cultures do not share similar values. I don't subscribe to your myopic views and redressed jingoism. Do you really not have the conviction to say that your culture is superior to a culture that encourages the abuse (or worse) of women and gays?
I'll happily say that. I just don't see why we have to turn it into racial supremacism. Especially given how unclean our own white hands are.
Secular humanism and political pluralism are values that speak for themselves and are self evidently good. I don't need to tie them into some fucked up racial narrative to argue that they are good because they're part of "white culture". The virtue is obvious and undeniable. And if I see something from a non white culture that I also think is self evidently good then yeah, I'll support that too.
Trying to turn it into white supremacism is messy as fuck. How the hell am I meant to take credit for the achievements of Alan Turing by insisting that we're brethren within the broader white master race without taking credit for his treatment? I can't insist that by virtue of my pale skin I'm somehow vaguely more responsible for the computer than a black guy without also having to be vaguely more responsible for driving the guy who founded computing to suicide. It's just hard work.
Also you and your white nationalist friends aren't really in much of a position to build your moral arguments on your progressive views regarding women and gays.
|
On December 05 2017 13:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 13:26 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2017 13:22 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 12:54 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2017 12:47 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2017 12:45 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 12:42 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2017 09:37 mozoku wrote:On December 05 2017 09:08 Nevuk wrote:On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me.
And this statement...
[quote]
...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West.
[quote]
Yep. I'm sure china will collapse any day now I am equally puzzled as xDaunt by this statement. If you were unaware, China is a hugely diverse nation, more akin to an old empire than a modern nation state. There are more different ethnic and cultural groups in China than you'll find basically anywhere else (it doesn't hurt they they have so many people in that regard). If someone wishes to argue that multiculturalism is doomed then the existence of China poses a challenge. The obvious point that y'all are missing (and mozoku gets) is that China is acutely aware of its multiculturalism and is actively trying to stamp it out and assimilate as many of the minorities as possible into the Han majority. I don't know why I'm surprised that your takeaway from the ethnic cleansing going on in Tibet is "we could learn a lot from these guys". Cultural Authority is adored by people who want to see white culture dominate. The difference between you and me is that you're not quite honest enough to admit that all of your leftist and liberal values are the products of "white culture." I'm fully aware of where my culture and values came from. I'm just not naive, arrogant or foolish enough to believe they are superior to the point of dominance must be obtained. Or that other cultures do not share similar values. I don't subscribe to your myopic views and redressed jingoism. Do you really not have the conviction to say that your culture is superior to a culture that encourages the abuse (or worse) of women and gays?
Which culture are we talking here? Because I believe it has been demonstrated beyond doubt that white christian culture encourages this as much as any other culture, the only difference being that we have laws that sometimes stop it. Your party is currently literally officially endorsing a child molester and calling him a "good christian." The president, who you voted for, was literally accused of I believe anally raping a 12 year old girl? And fully admitted to sexually assaulting countless women.
|
On December 05 2017 12:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
That Christians are being discriminated against and that he objects on the grounds of his strong belief in the freedom of religion.
There's nothing invalid about his argument. The free exercise clause isn't something he made up. And it's very clear that rather militant LGBTQ entities are actively setting up Christians for these types of cake shop lawsuits. The problem with y'all on the left is that you are so self-confident in the correctness of your beliefs on these issues that you are unable to comprehend what the countervailing argument might be or that it might be legitimate. That SCOTUS took the case and framed the issue the way that it did demonstrates just how badly misplaced that self-confidence is.
|
This discussion is in the same vein as my anti capitalism rant. Western culture did many great things, but it has some glaring flaws that need to be fixed, starting with world views that don't belong in today's multicultural society and ending with abolishing racist, sexist people at power (or where the line will eventually be drawn).
However, it needs to be done correctly. Things like cultural appropriation are bridge too far for me, because it's basically saying you can't touch the culture based on your heritage. Part of being a multicultural society is assimilation and acceptance of all cultures, not further divide based on who started what and where.
|
United States42008 Posts
On December 05 2017 13:42 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 12:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
That Christians are being discriminated against and that he objects on the grounds of his strong belief in the freedom of religion. There's nothing invalid about his argument. The free exercise clause isn't something he made up. And it's very clear that rather militant LGBTQ entities are actively setting up Christians for these types of cake shop lawsuits. The problem with y'all on the left is that you are so self-confident in the correctness of your beliefs on these issues that you are unable to comprehend what the countervailing argument might be or that it might be legitimate. That SCOTUS took the case and framed the issue the way that it did demonstrates just how badly misplaced that self-confidence is.
Rosa Parks actively set up the bus incident that kicked off the boycott.
That said, taking a stand against civil rights activists for actively setting up legal battles is absolutely a stance I expect you to have.
|
The Ray Moore situation is quite dangerous, but not for the reason you imply.
If Ray Moore is elected, it might destabilize the rape culture on Capital Hill by shining a light on it. But if Moore gets impeached for old conduct, he's taking at least a few sitting congressmen with him.
If Ray Moore is not elected, I expect to see false sexual harassment allegations against literally hundreds of congresspeople in the run-up to the 2018 elections. It doesn't matter at that point whether anything said about Moore is true; false allegations are cheap, offices are valuable, and the tactic has been normalized.
On December 05 2017 13:42 hunts wrote:Your party is currently literally officially endorsing a child molester and calling him a "good christian."
It's possible to be a Christian in good standing having molested a child. This has everything to do with practicing repentance and forgiveness, and nothing to do with approval of child molesting in general.
That said, someone who is still molesting children would not be in good standing, nor for a long time afterwards. But all the allegations I've seen against Ray Moore specifically are in the distant past.
|
On December 05 2017 13:35 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 13:26 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2017 13:22 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 12:54 Plansix wrote:On December 05 2017 12:47 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2017 12:45 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 12:42 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2017 09:37 mozoku wrote:On December 05 2017 09:08 Nevuk wrote:On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me.
And this statement...
[quote]
...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West.
[quote]
Yep. I'm sure china will collapse any day now I am equally puzzled as xDaunt by this statement. If you were unaware, China is a hugely diverse nation, more akin to an old empire than a modern nation state. There are more different ethnic and cultural groups in China than you'll find basically anywhere else (it doesn't hurt they they have so many people in that regard). If someone wishes to argue that multiculturalism is doomed then the existence of China poses a challenge. The obvious point that y'all are missing (and mozoku gets) is that China is acutely aware of its multiculturalism and is actively trying to stamp it out and assimilate as many of the minorities as possible into the Han majority. I don't know why I'm surprised that your takeaway from the ethnic cleansing going on in Tibet is "we could learn a lot from these guys". Cultural Authority is adored by people who want to see white culture dominate. The difference between you and me is that you're not quite honest enough to admit that all of your leftist and liberal values are the products of "white culture." I'm fully aware of where my culture and values came from. I'm just not naive, arrogant or foolish enough to believe they are superior to the point of dominance must be obtained. Or that other cultures do not share similar values. I don't subscribe to your myopic views and redressed jingoism. Do you really not have the conviction to say that your culture is superior to a culture that encourages the abuse (or worse) of women and gays?
Sounds like our culture 100 years ago. Or like 50 years ago when marital rape was legal. Or the 1980s, when sexual harassment wasn't even a real thing. You're jingoism gets in the way of you realizing we only started to treat women like full people in the last generation or so.
And now we are going to elect Moore, who believe women shouldn't hold public office and sexually harasses teen girls. And wants to ban Muslims from holding office. And he was a judge.
So yeah, I'm not as sold on the superior of your white ass culture being superior. And I don't sign on to this ethno state bullshit you seem to have bought into.
|
On December 05 2017 13:57 Buckyman wrote:
The Ray Moore situation is quite dangerous, but not for the reason you imply.
If Ray Moore is elected, it might destabilize the rape culture on Capital Hill by shining a light on it. But if Moore gets impeached for old conduct, he's taking at least a few sitting congressmen with him.
If Ray Moore is not elected, I expect to see false sexual harassment allegations against literally hundreds of congresspeople in the run-up to the 2018 elections. It doesn't matter at that point whether anything said about Moore is true; false allegations are cheap, offices are valuable, and the tactic has been normalized.
I have more faith in people in not making mass false sexual harassment allegations then you. Or at least in people willing to investigate their claims before demanding people step down. Ray Moore wasn't accused with circumstantial no collaborating evidence.
|
On December 05 2017 13:33 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 12:42 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2017 09:37 mozoku wrote:On December 05 2017 09:08 Nevuk wrote:On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:53 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:42 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:
Speaking of Germany, did y'all read about how Germany is offering the refugees (who are mostly Muslim) money to leave? Who are y'all trying to kid here with this "unfettered Muslim immigration is good" business? Literally no one said "unfettered" immigration of any kind was good, please find a single example of someone doing so. The refugee crisis in Europe was a failure of the EU to deal with it in a way that was both politically expedient and humanitarian regardless, but keep trying to milk it for a poisonous, nationalist agenda. The problem is that EU and most of its individual member states lack the conviction to acknowledge that their first duty is to their citizens and to act accordingly. Immigration should never, ever be used as a charity service. If that means thousands of civilians will die, so be it. If the country can't stomach that thought, then it should send in the military. The problem is that the EU failed to act in a co-ordinated way to disperse refugees across the continent, reducing the ability of far-right parties to exploit them for political ends. A state has no 'first duty' - a nation might do, but they are different things. If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. Neither of those possibilities are worth letting people die for. The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me. And this statement... If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour.
...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West.Also, by your logic, Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany would've been denied any form of asylum and left to die in concentration camps. 90% of the Jewish Germans who did not find refuge in another country did, of course, meet this end. Yep. I'm sure china will collapse any day now I am equally puzzled as xDaunt by this statement. If you were unaware, China is a hugely diverse nation, more akin to an old empire than a modern nation state. There are more different ethnic and cultural groups in China than you'll find basically anywhere else (it doesn't hurt they they have so many people in that regard). If someone wishes to argue that multiculturalism is doomed then the existence of China poses a challenge. This is a gross oversimplification, which is why the statement didn't make any sense. China has many ethnicities, but 90%+ are Han, which isn't nearly as diverse as either you or Nevuk imply. Apart from Hong Kong and Macau, most of modern China has been united since at least the 17th century and, apart from the Uighurs and Tibetans (who still have cultural conflict issues with the Han anyway), most of the ethnicities were united and divided under a single government several times throughout the past 2000 years. Even if they're actually separate ethnicities, it's not like China suddenly united ~50 independent ethnicities in 1949. They've had close continuous interaction for hundreds of years at the least, and thousands at the most. All of the "recent" additions to China have significant friction with Beijing, and it only gets worse when you start looking outside the country at Japan, Korea, and India (i.e. actually distinct cultures). Is it even fair to compare multiculturalism in a democracy and multiculturalism under the CCP, who's been number one priority since its birth has been squashing any potential threat to its rule? It's not like the CCP has issues with the Dalai Lama and the Pope for economic reasons.
I actually misread what xDaunt was trying to say. I thought he was saying that ethnically mixed areas will inevitably collapse, rather than that should. China keeps trying to fall apart but it has stuck together for a long time.
|
False sexual harassment and rape claims don't normally hold up under scrutiny and there has been little evidence credible claims stop elected offices. It's not a big worry.
|
On December 05 2017 14:05 Nevuk wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 13:33 mozoku wrote:On December 05 2017 12:42 KwarK wrote:On December 05 2017 09:37 mozoku wrote:On December 05 2017 09:08 Nevuk wrote:On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:53 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:42 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:
Speaking of Germany, did y'all read about how Germany is offering the refugees (who are mostly Muslim) money to leave? Who are y'all trying to kid here with this "unfettered Muslim immigration is good" business? Literally no one said "unfettered" immigration of any kind was good, please find a single example of someone doing so. The refugee crisis in Europe was a failure of the EU to deal with it in a way that was both politically expedient and humanitarian regardless, but keep trying to milk it for a poisonous, nationalist agenda. The problem is that EU and most of its individual member states lack the conviction to acknowledge that their first duty is to their citizens and to act accordingly. Immigration should never, ever be used as a charity service. If that means thousands of civilians will die, so be it. If the country can't stomach that thought, then it should send in the military. The problem is that the EU failed to act in a co-ordinated way to disperse refugees across the continent, reducing the ability of far-right parties to exploit them for political ends. A state has no 'first duty' - a nation might do, but they are different things. If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. Neither of those possibilities are worth letting people die for. The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me. And this statement... If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour.
...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West.Also, by your logic, Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany would've been denied any form of asylum and left to die in concentration camps. 90% of the Jewish Germans who did not find refuge in another country did, of course, meet this end. Yep. I'm sure china will collapse any day now I am equally puzzled as xDaunt by this statement. If you were unaware, China is a hugely diverse nation, more akin to an old empire than a modern nation state. There are more different ethnic and cultural groups in China than you'll find basically anywhere else (it doesn't hurt they they have so many people in that regard). If someone wishes to argue that multiculturalism is doomed then the existence of China poses a challenge. This is a gross oversimplification, which is why the statement didn't make any sense. China has many ethnicities, but 90%+ are Han, which isn't nearly as diverse as either you or Nevuk imply. Apart from Hong Kong and Macau, most of modern China has been united since at least the 17th century and, apart from the Uighurs and Tibetans (who still have cultural conflict issues with the Han anyway), most of the ethnicities were united and divided under a single government several times throughout the past 2000 years. Even if they're actually separate ethnicities, it's not like China suddenly united ~50 independent ethnicities in 1949. They've had close continuous interaction for hundreds of years at the least, and thousands at the most. All of the "recent" additions to China have significant friction with Beijing, and it only gets worse when you start looking outside the country at Japan, Korea, and India (i.e. actually distinct cultures). Is it even fair to compare multiculturalism in a democracy and multiculturalism under the CCP, who's been number one priority since its birth has been squashing any potential threat to its rule? It's not like the CCP has issues with the Dalai Lama and the Pope for economic reasons. China keeps trying to fall apart but it has stuck together for a long time.
It has succeeded in falling apart many times. It's been alternating between divided and united for the last 2000+ years.
Regardless though, this isn't very relevant to the present conversation anymore.
|
On December 05 2017 13:44 Uldridge wrote:
This discussion is in the same vein as my anti capitalism rant. Western culture did many great things, but it has some glaring flaws that need to be fixed, starting with world views that don't belong in today's multicultural society and ending with abolishing racist, sexist people at power (or where the line will eventually be drawn).
However, it needs to be done correctly. Things like cultural appropriation are bridge too far for me, because it's basically saying you can't touch the culture based on your heritage. Part of being a multicultural society is assimilation and acceptance of all cultures, not further divide based on who started what and where.
"The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalisation of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground – what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?
We see then: the means of production and of exchange, on whose foundation the bourgeoisie built itself up, were generated in feudal society. At a certain stage in the development of these means of production and of exchange, the conditions under which feudal society produced and exchanged, the feudal organisation of agriculture and manufacturing industry, in one word, the feudal relations of property became no longer compatible with the already developed productive forces; they became so many fetters. They had to be burst asunder; they were burst asunder.
Into their place stepped free competition, accompanied by a social and political constitution adapted in it, and the economic and political sway of the bourgeois class."
|
On December 05 2017 13:57 Buckyman wrote:The Ray Moore situation is quite dangerous, but not for the reason you imply. If Ray Moore is elected, it might destabilize the rape culture on Capital Hill by shining a light on it. But if Moore gets impeached for old conduct, he's taking at least a few sitting congressmen with him. If Ray Moore is not elected, I expect to see false sexual harassment allegations against literally hundreds of congresspeople in the run-up to the 2018 elections. It doesn't matter at that point whether anything said about Moore is true; false allegations are cheap, offices are valuable, and the tactic has been normalized. Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 13:42 hunts wrote:Your party is currently literally officially endorsing a child molester and calling him a "good christian." It's possible to be a Christian in good standing having molested a child. This has everything to do with practicing repentance and forgiveness, and nothing to do with approval of child molesting in general. That said, someone who is still molesting children would not be in good standing, nor for a long time afterwards. But all the allegations I've seen against Ray Moore specifically are in the distant past.
The repentence angle takes owning up to the act and ceasing the behavior. Moore denies it all. You can’t repent from a deed while contesting its authenticity. It appears extremely unlikely these are all false, and this is including the fact that it didn’t come out until after two state offices and a primary.
|
On December 05 2017 13:42 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 12:53 GreenHorizons wrote:
That Christians are being discriminated against and that he objects on the grounds of his strong belief in the freedom of religion. There's nothing invalid about his argument. The free exercise clause isn't something he made up. And it's very clear that rather militant LGBTQ entities are actively setting up Christians for these types of cake shop lawsuits. The problem with y'all on the left is that you are so self-confident in the correctness of your beliefs on these issues that you are unable to comprehend what the countervailing argument might be or that it might be legitimate. That SCOTUS took the case and framed the issue the way that it did demonstrates just how badly misplaced that self-confidence is.
It's not about whether it exists, it's about whether his objection is actually based on it or if he merely uses it as a mask.
Considering Republicans are supporting and he is accepting of a Senator who is expressly against said clause it's flatly insincere.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
