|
On August 12 2012 05:28 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 05:12 McBengt wrote:On August 12 2012 05:02 SupLilSon wrote:On August 12 2012 04:48 McBengt wrote:On August 12 2012 04:39 Euronyme wrote:On August 12 2012 04:11 McBengt wrote:On August 12 2012 03:58 SupLilSon wrote:On August 12 2012 03:51 McBengt wrote:On August 12 2012 03:33 D10 wrote:On August 12 2012 02:58 McBengt wrote:
[quote]
Roleplay time. You are a homosexual woman who likes to travel alone and drive cars. Where would you rather live, Norway or Saudi Arabia? Doesnt nordic countries have a big anti immigrant thing going on ? If I was that woman id rather go to Brazil Not Sweden, I say to my great disappointment. Our unswerving determination to adapt to even to most absurd values and most repulsive traditions of foreign countries on the thinly veiled pretext of tolerance and inclusiveness is as ardent as ever. Social friction and segregation are becoming real problems though, we'll see what happens. How do you suffer being on Team Liquid? I don't get it. I've always seen Team Liquid as a pretty multicultural/multiethnic body. Or you can only tolerate infererior non-blond- non-blue eyed races over the internet, but god forbid they try to live in your country? I found it funny that in the Olympics, many of the traditionally White Nordic countries still sent Black athletes to compete. Just something I noticed. Did you somehow extrapolate racist views from what I wrote? My best friend since third grade is from Iran. My coach and several training partners of mine are from Brazil. I worked for for three years with a turkish guy, we still hang out. It has nothing to do with the ethnicity of an individual person, it has to do with my country's lack of testicular fortitude in standing up for the core principles of our society. Some things just aren't desirable in a society that aims for equality. You did say that it was your great disappointment that we don't have a 'big anti immigrant thing going on'. No that was a post I quoted. And my sense of disappointment stems from the aforementioned lack of resolve in the face of oppressive and intolerant elements. But I'm hardly surprised, "racist" is the automatic defense employed these days against people who aren't keen on stoning women to death for having the audacity of being raped. And please stop equating culture with race, it's really annoying and highly disingenuous. I can despise a culture without despising the people who come from that area. You sound like a hardcore Bible Belter from the US. "I don't hate gays, I just hate all the gay things they do." Odd, as I'm a hardline atheist and completely against any form of religious appeasement. And the analogy is completely flawed. Gays are not an ethnic group, nor do they share a common set of values or beliefs. I despise certain people and their actions, if I feel it's warranted. If it's systematic, as in a cultural phenomenon, even more so. Again stop comparing race or sexual preference to culture. The latter is chosen, the former are not. You are born gay, not a misogynist or homophobe. The whole basis for your thinking is wrong.. I'm sorry but culture is not chosen. You are born into a certain culture and it takes enormous effort to completely separate yourself from that, if it's possible at all. Maybe culture and race and ethnicity are exclusive, but that doesn't mean culture is something that is purely chosen, as you seem to believe.
That's a cop out. Many things are hard. A dude at my old job grew up as an openly gay person in Libya. That's hard. He coped.
I was taught that Santa came to visit every year on christmas as a kid. Then I realised it was bullshit. I also used to think girls were icky, because that was the popular opinion of the boys at the time.
I know plenty of people who fled their home countries specifically to escape the prevaling cultural values there, because they found them less than appealing. Just because a choice is hard doesn't make it any less of a choice.
|
On August 12 2012 05:22 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +"Sanctity of human life" is just one of many values that our culture brought forth. It's not a better or worse value than "eating cats is bad" or "hitting your children is bad". I can think of lots of reasons that these values are better than their opposites but that doesn't exactly make them "good" or "bad" - those are human adjectives based on what (hinthinthint) our culture, our majority of people perceives to be "good" or "bad".
If you have a country or society where the majority has different values it would be pretty damn democratic to not try and take moral highground after applying a different set of rules and values than they do. It is incredibly hard to find out whether a person in a, from our view, horrible situation is fine with it or not. And even IF they say they're fine with it we can argue that they wouldn't be fine with it if they'd knew there was another way. However, the exact same argument can be made from the other side. I'm sorry, but that is complete and utter balls. Suuuuure, that woman over there being stoned because she was raped surely doesn't have any problems with it!
You're missing the point: I think it's wrong. You think it's wrong. However, apperently the thousand of people around her don't think it's wrong.
Somewhere on some arabic forum someone might just say "That is utter and complete balls, those guys over there don't stone a woman after she got raped, how come she doesn't appeal and say she does want to get stoned so she can keep the honor of her family?"
Just because you, me and our entire culture say a certain thing is horrible and has to be forbidden doesn't mean that the entire world agrees. Telling people from a different culture that they're inferior for having different values is way closer to various -isms than you're making it out to be.
|
On August 12 2012 05:22 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +In other words, too few tolerance is nefast, but tolerating everything is equally harmful in the long run. No it isn't. What is harmful however, is your view on this matter. Homosexuals don't harm anyone and therefore homosexuality cannot be wrong. There is not a single rational argument against homosexuality, women voting and working, women dressing up a certain way, etc. If something doesn't harm, it, by definition, cannot be wrong. Plus, I never even said everything should be tolerated. Everything which does not harm should be tolerated.
So that's your apathetic doxa.
"If something doesn't harm, it, by definition, cannot be wrong."
In my last post, I mentionned too much tolerance could be "more harmful on the long term".
What you call "non-violent" stuff can be potentially more harmful on the long term than violent stuffs.
A kid not being kissed by his mother or being raised by 2 homosexuals is far more violent and detrimental for his later psychological life than a couple of slaps in the face.
Words as well can be far more abusive than a simple punch in the face.
Indirect violence is currently the dominating form of violence in our society.
And it's still violence.
User was warned for this post
|
On August 12 2012 05:36 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 05:22 Thorakh wrote:"Sanctity of human life" is just one of many values that our culture brought forth. It's not a better or worse value than "eating cats is bad" or "hitting your children is bad". I can think of lots of reasons that these values are better than their opposites but that doesn't exactly make them "good" or "bad" - those are human adjectives based on what (hinthinthint) our culture, our majority of people perceives to be "good" or "bad".
If you have a country or society where the majority has different values it would be pretty damn democratic to not try and take moral highground after applying a different set of rules and values than they do. It is incredibly hard to find out whether a person in a, from our view, horrible situation is fine with it or not. And even IF they say they're fine with it we can argue that they wouldn't be fine with it if they'd knew there was another way. However, the exact same argument can be made from the other side. I'm sorry, but that is complete and utter balls. Suuuuure, that woman over there being stoned because she was raped surely doesn't have any problems with it! You're missing the point: I think it's wrong. You think it's wrong. However, apperently the thousand of people around her don't think it's wrong. Somewhere on some arabic forum someone might just say "That is utter and complete balls, those guys over there don't stone a woman after she got raped, how come she doesn't appeal and say she does want to get stoned so she can keep the honor of her family?" Just because you, me and our entire culture say a certain thing is horrible and has to be forbidden doesn't mean that the entire world agrees. Telling people from a different culture that they're inferior for having different values is way closer to various -isms than you're making it out to be.
Moral relativism.
It sounds enlightened, but in practice you look on as women are stoned to death.
Some people can accept that, others cannot. I despise and loathe those that can be so uncaring for the sake of a philosphical debate.
I do not just react in rethoric against such injustice, my very core revolts at the sight of such horror. Perhaps a Taliban officer reacts the same when he sees a girl with a mini-skirt.
In that case I say, enjoy the rocket.
Those who throw acid in the faces of little girls because they go to school, are not our equals, and never will be. They can fight for their moral depravity, and we will fight for our enlightened values.
|
On August 12 2012 05:31 Euronyme wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 05:25 McBengt wrote:On August 12 2012 05:13 Euronyme wrote:On August 12 2012 05:06 McBengt wrote:On August 12 2012 04:54 Euronyme wrote:On August 12 2012 04:48 McBengt wrote:On August 12 2012 04:39 Euronyme wrote:On August 12 2012 04:11 McBengt wrote:On August 12 2012 03:58 SupLilSon wrote:On August 12 2012 03:51 McBengt wrote:
[quote]
Not Sweden, I say to my great disappointment. Our unswerving determination to adapt to even to most absurd values and most repulsive traditions of foreign countries on the thinly veiled pretext of tolerance and inclusiveness is as ardent as ever.
Social friction and segregation are becoming real problems though, we'll see what happens. How do you suffer being on Team Liquid? I don't get it. I've always seen Team Liquid as a pretty multicultural/multiethnic body. Or you can only tolerate infererior non-blond- non-blue eyed races over the internet, but god forbid they try to live in your country? I found it funny that in the Olympics, many of the traditionally White Nordic countries still sent Black athletes to compete. Just something I noticed. Did you somehow extrapolate racist views from what I wrote? My best friend since third grade is from Iran. My coach and several training partners of mine are from Brazil. I worked for for three years with a turkish guy, we still hang out. It has nothing to do with the ethnicity of an individual person, it has to do with my country's lack of testicular fortitude in standing up for the core principles of our society. Some things just aren't desirable in a society that aims for equality. You did say that it was your great disappointment that we don't have a 'big anti immigrant thing going on'. No that was a post I quoted. And my sense of disappointment stems from the aforementioned lack of resolve in the face of oppressive and intolerant elements. But I'm hardly surprised, "racist" is the automatic defense employed these days against people who aren't keen on stoning women to death for having the audacity of being raped. And please stop equating culture with race, it's really annoying and highly disingenuous. I can despise a culture without despising the people who come from that area. I'm sorry what? I think pretty much everyone agrees that killing people, let alone stoning them, is a bad thing? You quoted a post saying that there's a lot of 'anti immigrants' in Scandinavia, and answered 'no, to my great disappointment'. I'm not sure what this has to do with women being stoned and raped :/ Edit. Oh right I see. You meant the part about the woman driving safely ^^ I'm a bit slow today. Sorry. Ok, my turn to go "uh what?" Driving safely? Que? If everyone agreed that stoning and killing people is bad we would not be having this conversation. I read the post as anti-immigration, not anti-immigrants, if I was mistaken then I apologise. And really now, you didn't get the point of the stoning and rape analogy? It was made to illustrate the notion that anyone who opposes certain elements of foreign cultures, no matter how despicable, is labeled a racist. There are a sect of hardcore muslims in Sweden who want to practice Sharia law within their own community. Are people who vehemently reject this notion racists? Immigration is fine, but we have got to stop eroding our founding principles to accommodate multiculturalism. I don't see how you have to be anti immigrants because some of them are nut jobs. I mean it's never going to get passed, and I don't think anyone (who actually has a clue about what sharia law is) would call an opposer of that a racist. The post you quoted was literally "Doesnt nordic countries have a big anti immigrant thing going on? If I was that woman id rather go to Brazil" and he in turn replied to a person talking about a gay girl either driving in Saudi Arabia (where it's illegal for women to drive) or Norway. I know, I wrote the post he was quoting. The point of it was that there are places where being a woman or gay is considerable more pleasant than others. And those places are better for it. For the umpteenth and hopefully final time, I am not anti-immigrant. I am against the idea that all ideas are equal, that all belief systems have equal validity. The idea that the earth is flat does not have equal validity with the idea that the earth is round(or slightly oval, as it were). In the same vein, the idea that homosexuality is a sin and should be punishable is not equal to the idea that it is natural and should not be discriminated against, it is inferior. And please, for the love of the FSM, the above example was an analogy, literal interpretation is not advised. So once again please explain why not having a big anti immigrant movement is your great dissapointment? I still don't get that part. You're against the idea that all ideas are equal. Well I'm sure everyone is. I mean everyone's had a bad idea, that can be recognized as bad and there you are. It's not a very revolutionary concept is it?
Are you serious now? I feel like I'm being trolled.
I am NOT disappointed at the lack of large racist movements in Sweden, I am in fact rather happy for their absence. I would be happy to see SD kicked out of the parliament as soon as possible. Was that clear enough? My disappointment is towards how immigration is handled and how the uglier sides of it are being swept under the rug in the interest of convenience.
Again, if everyone agreed that not all ideas are equal, this debate would not be taking place. In the US they still can't agree that the idea of evolution is better than creationism, which is like arguing that toilet paper isn't necessarily better than your shirt.
|
On August 12 2012 05:36 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 05:28 SupLilSon wrote:On August 12 2012 05:12 McBengt wrote:On August 12 2012 05:02 SupLilSon wrote:On August 12 2012 04:48 McBengt wrote:On August 12 2012 04:39 Euronyme wrote:On August 12 2012 04:11 McBengt wrote:On August 12 2012 03:58 SupLilSon wrote:On August 12 2012 03:51 McBengt wrote:On August 12 2012 03:33 D10 wrote:
[quote]
Doesnt nordic countries have a big anti immigrant thing going on ? If I was that woman id rather go to Brazil Not Sweden, I say to my great disappointment. Our unswerving determination to adapt to even to most absurd values and most repulsive traditions of foreign countries on the thinly veiled pretext of tolerance and inclusiveness is as ardent as ever. Social friction and segregation are becoming real problems though, we'll see what happens. How do you suffer being on Team Liquid? I don't get it. I've always seen Team Liquid as a pretty multicultural/multiethnic body. Or you can only tolerate infererior non-blond- non-blue eyed races over the internet, but god forbid they try to live in your country? I found it funny that in the Olympics, many of the traditionally White Nordic countries still sent Black athletes to compete. Just something I noticed. Did you somehow extrapolate racist views from what I wrote? My best friend since third grade is from Iran. My coach and several training partners of mine are from Brazil. I worked for for three years with a turkish guy, we still hang out. It has nothing to do with the ethnicity of an individual person, it has to do with my country's lack of testicular fortitude in standing up for the core principles of our society. Some things just aren't desirable in a society that aims for equality. You did say that it was your great disappointment that we don't have a 'big anti immigrant thing going on'. No that was a post I quoted. And my sense of disappointment stems from the aforementioned lack of resolve in the face of oppressive and intolerant elements. But I'm hardly surprised, "racist" is the automatic defense employed these days against people who aren't keen on stoning women to death for having the audacity of being raped. And please stop equating culture with race, it's really annoying and highly disingenuous. I can despise a culture without despising the people who come from that area. You sound like a hardcore Bible Belter from the US. "I don't hate gays, I just hate all the gay things they do." Odd, as I'm a hardline atheist and completely against any form of religious appeasement. And the analogy is completely flawed. Gays are not an ethnic group, nor do they share a common set of values or beliefs. I despise certain people and their actions, if I feel it's warranted. If it's systematic, as in a cultural phenomenon, even more so. Again stop comparing race or sexual preference to culture. The latter is chosen, the former are not. You are born gay, not a misogynist or homophobe. The whole basis for your thinking is wrong.. I'm sorry but culture is not chosen. You are born into a certain culture and it takes enormous effort to completely separate yourself from that, if it's possible at all. Maybe culture and race and ethnicity are exclusive, but that doesn't mean culture is something that is purely chosen, as you seem to believe. That's a cop out. Many things are hard. A dude at my old job grew up as an openly gay person in Libya. That's hard. He coped. I was taught that Santa came to visit every year on christmas as a kid. Then I realised it was bullshit. I also used to think girls were icky, because that was the popular opinion of the boys at the time. I know plenty of people who fled their home countries specifically to escape the prevaling cultural values there, because they found them less than appealing. Just because a choice is hard doesn't make it any less of a choice.
Yes, because your weak anectdotal evidence makes it true. All those women in the middle east and Africa suffering genital mutilation and opression are just taking it because they choose to. Yea, everyone get's to choose their culture. You act as if culture is as easy to shed and identify as a shirt.
|
On August 12 2012 05:45 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 05:31 Euronyme wrote:On August 12 2012 05:25 McBengt wrote:On August 12 2012 05:13 Euronyme wrote:On August 12 2012 05:06 McBengt wrote:On August 12 2012 04:54 Euronyme wrote:On August 12 2012 04:48 McBengt wrote:On August 12 2012 04:39 Euronyme wrote:On August 12 2012 04:11 McBengt wrote:On August 12 2012 03:58 SupLilSon wrote:
[quote]
How do you suffer being on Team Liquid? I don't get it. I've always seen Team Liquid as a pretty multicultural/multiethnic body. Or you can only tolerate infererior non-blond- non-blue eyed races over the internet, but god forbid they try to live in your country? I found it funny that in the Olympics, many of the traditionally White Nordic countries still sent Black athletes to compete. Just something I noticed. Did you somehow extrapolate racist views from what I wrote? My best friend since third grade is from Iran. My coach and several training partners of mine are from Brazil. I worked for for three years with a turkish guy, we still hang out. It has nothing to do with the ethnicity of an individual person, it has to do with my country's lack of testicular fortitude in standing up for the core principles of our society. Some things just aren't desirable in a society that aims for equality. You did say that it was your great disappointment that we don't have a 'big anti immigrant thing going on'. No that was a post I quoted. And my sense of disappointment stems from the aforementioned lack of resolve in the face of oppressive and intolerant elements. But I'm hardly surprised, "racist" is the automatic defense employed these days against people who aren't keen on stoning women to death for having the audacity of being raped. And please stop equating culture with race, it's really annoying and highly disingenuous. I can despise a culture without despising the people who come from that area. I'm sorry what? I think pretty much everyone agrees that killing people, let alone stoning them, is a bad thing? You quoted a post saying that there's a lot of 'anti immigrants' in Scandinavia, and answered 'no, to my great disappointment'. I'm not sure what this has to do with women being stoned and raped :/ Edit. Oh right I see. You meant the part about the woman driving safely ^^ I'm a bit slow today. Sorry. Ok, my turn to go "uh what?" Driving safely? Que? If everyone agreed that stoning and killing people is bad we would not be having this conversation. I read the post as anti-immigration, not anti-immigrants, if I was mistaken then I apologise. And really now, you didn't get the point of the stoning and rape analogy? It was made to illustrate the notion that anyone who opposes certain elements of foreign cultures, no matter how despicable, is labeled a racist. There are a sect of hardcore muslims in Sweden who want to practice Sharia law within their own community. Are people who vehemently reject this notion racists? Immigration is fine, but we have got to stop eroding our founding principles to accommodate multiculturalism. I don't see how you have to be anti immigrants because some of them are nut jobs. I mean it's never going to get passed, and I don't think anyone (who actually has a clue about what sharia law is) would call an opposer of that a racist. The post you quoted was literally "Doesnt nordic countries have a big anti immigrant thing going on? If I was that woman id rather go to Brazil" and he in turn replied to a person talking about a gay girl either driving in Saudi Arabia (where it's illegal for women to drive) or Norway. I know, I wrote the post he was quoting. The point of it was that there are places where being a woman or gay is considerable more pleasant than others. And those places are better for it. For the umpteenth and hopefully final time, I am not anti-immigrant. I am against the idea that all ideas are equal, that all belief systems have equal validity. The idea that the earth is flat does not have equal validity with the idea that the earth is round(or slightly oval, as it were). In the same vein, the idea that homosexuality is a sin and should be punishable is not equal to the idea that it is natural and should not be discriminated against, it is inferior. And please, for the love of the FSM, the above example was an analogy, literal interpretation is not advised. So once again please explain why not having a big anti immigrant movement is your great dissapointment? I still don't get that part. You're against the idea that all ideas are equal. Well I'm sure everyone is. I mean everyone's had a bad idea, that can be recognized as bad and there you are. It's not a very revolutionary concept is it? Are you serious now? I feel like I'm being trolled. I am NOT disappointed at the lack of large racist movements in Sweden, I am in fact rather happy for their absence. I would be happy to see SD kicked out of the parliament as soon as possible. Was that clear enough? My disappointment is towards how immigration is handled and how the uglier sides of it are being swept under the rug in the interest of convenience. Again, if everyone agreed that not all ideas are equal, this debate would not be taking place. In the US they still can't agree that the idea of evolution is better than creationism, which is like arguing that toilet paper isn't necessarily better than your shirt.
Oh I just assumed your post had any correlation with the post you quoted. OK fair enough, I guess we agree then.
|
On August 12 2012 05:44 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 05:36 r.Evo wrote:On August 12 2012 05:22 Thorakh wrote:"Sanctity of human life" is just one of many values that our culture brought forth. It's not a better or worse value than "eating cats is bad" or "hitting your children is bad". I can think of lots of reasons that these values are better than their opposites but that doesn't exactly make them "good" or "bad" - those are human adjectives based on what (hinthinthint) our culture, our majority of people perceives to be "good" or "bad".
If you have a country or society where the majority has different values it would be pretty damn democratic to not try and take moral highground after applying a different set of rules and values than they do. It is incredibly hard to find out whether a person in a, from our view, horrible situation is fine with it or not. And even IF they say they're fine with it we can argue that they wouldn't be fine with it if they'd knew there was another way. However, the exact same argument can be made from the other side. I'm sorry, but that is complete and utter balls. Suuuuure, that woman over there being stoned because she was raped surely doesn't have any problems with it! You're missing the point: I think it's wrong. You think it's wrong. However, apperently the thousand of people around her don't think it's wrong. Somewhere on some arabic forum someone might just say "That is utter and complete balls, those guys over there don't stone a woman after she got raped, how come she doesn't appeal and say she does want to get stoned so she can keep the honor of her family?" Just because you, me and our entire culture say a certain thing is horrible and has to be forbidden doesn't mean that the entire world agrees. Telling people from a different culture that they're inferior for having different values is way closer to various -isms than you're making it out to be. Moral relativism. It sounds enlightened, but in practice you look on as women are stoned to death. Some people can accept that, others cannot. I despise and loathe those that can be so uncaring for the sake of a philosphical debate. I do not just react in rethoric against such injustice, my very core revolts at the sight of such horror. Perhaps a Taliban officer reacts the same when he sees a girl with a mini-skirt. In that case I say, enjoy the rocket. Those who throw acid in the faces of little girls because they go to school, are not our equals, and never will be. They can fight for their moral depravity, and we will fight for our enlightened values.
See, that's pretty much my point. That makes both you and me culturalists. If you bring things down to their core (in these cases values) a religous fanatic, a racist or a culturalist share the same violent and primal basis. Also we're at the point where we can confidently say that there are things which should not be tolerated. Fits quite well in the other "tolerance is awesome!" debate going on atm.
Welp, sorry for driving this so far - the original statement this started with was pretty much "fighting for your culture has nothing to do with fighting for your religion or similar stuff". I'm pretty intolerant when it comes to hypocrisy based on where you're coming from.
|
On August 12 2012 05:47 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 05:36 McBengt wrote:On August 12 2012 05:28 SupLilSon wrote:On August 12 2012 05:12 McBengt wrote:On August 12 2012 05:02 SupLilSon wrote:On August 12 2012 04:48 McBengt wrote:On August 12 2012 04:39 Euronyme wrote:On August 12 2012 04:11 McBengt wrote:On August 12 2012 03:58 SupLilSon wrote:On August 12 2012 03:51 McBengt wrote:
[quote]
Not Sweden, I say to my great disappointment. Our unswerving determination to adapt to even to most absurd values and most repulsive traditions of foreign countries on the thinly veiled pretext of tolerance and inclusiveness is as ardent as ever.
Social friction and segregation are becoming real problems though, we'll see what happens. How do you suffer being on Team Liquid? I don't get it. I've always seen Team Liquid as a pretty multicultural/multiethnic body. Or you can only tolerate infererior non-blond- non-blue eyed races over the internet, but god forbid they try to live in your country? I found it funny that in the Olympics, many of the traditionally White Nordic countries still sent Black athletes to compete. Just something I noticed. Did you somehow extrapolate racist views from what I wrote? My best friend since third grade is from Iran. My coach and several training partners of mine are from Brazil. I worked for for three years with a turkish guy, we still hang out. It has nothing to do with the ethnicity of an individual person, it has to do with my country's lack of testicular fortitude in standing up for the core principles of our society. Some things just aren't desirable in a society that aims for equality. You did say that it was your great disappointment that we don't have a 'big anti immigrant thing going on'. No that was a post I quoted. And my sense of disappointment stems from the aforementioned lack of resolve in the face of oppressive and intolerant elements. But I'm hardly surprised, "racist" is the automatic defense employed these days against people who aren't keen on stoning women to death for having the audacity of being raped. And please stop equating culture with race, it's really annoying and highly disingenuous. I can despise a culture without despising the people who come from that area. You sound like a hardcore Bible Belter from the US. "I don't hate gays, I just hate all the gay things they do." Odd, as I'm a hardline atheist and completely against any form of religious appeasement. And the analogy is completely flawed. Gays are not an ethnic group, nor do they share a common set of values or beliefs. I despise certain people and their actions, if I feel it's warranted. If it's systematic, as in a cultural phenomenon, even more so. Again stop comparing race or sexual preference to culture. The latter is chosen, the former are not. You are born gay, not a misogynist or homophobe. The whole basis for your thinking is wrong.. I'm sorry but culture is not chosen. You are born into a certain culture and it takes enormous effort to completely separate yourself from that, if it's possible at all. Maybe culture and race and ethnicity are exclusive, but that doesn't mean culture is something that is purely chosen, as you seem to believe. That's a cop out. Many things are hard. A dude at my old job grew up as an openly gay person in Libya. That's hard. He coped. I was taught that Santa came to visit every year on christmas as a kid. Then I realised it was bullshit. I also used to think girls were icky, because that was the popular opinion of the boys at the time. I know plenty of people who fled their home countries specifically to escape the prevaling cultural values there, because they found them less than appealing. Just because a choice is hard doesn't make it any less of a choice. Yes, because your weak anectdotal evidence makes it true. All those women in the middle east and Africa suffering genital mutilation and opression are just taking it because they choose to. Yea, everyone get's to choose their culture.
Of course they didn't, but odds are they have never known anything else, and thus have no base for comparison. We have a quite a few of those women in Sweden. I would imagine they are quite happy about some of the changes compared to their homeland.
I am talking about people in a position to actually understand and evaluate their own culture from a wider perspective. People that have, say, left home and traveled abroad, maybe seeking asylum in another country? Culture is not fixed, it can be changed or completely discarded if the will is strong enough. You just have to know that there are alternatives to begin with.
|
On August 12 2012 05:42 SiroKO wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 05:22 Thorakh wrote:In other words, too few tolerance is nefast, but tolerating everything is equally harmful in the long run. No it isn't. What is harmful however, is your view on this matter. Homosexuals don't harm anyone and therefore homosexuality cannot be wrong. There is not a single rational argument against homosexuality, women voting and working, women dressing up a certain way, etc. If something doesn't harm, it, by definition, cannot be wrong. Plus, I never even said everything should be tolerated. Everything which does not harm should be tolerated. So that's your apathetic doxa. "If something doesn't harm, it, by definition, cannot be wrong." In my last post, I mentionned too much tolerance could be "more harmful on the long term". What you call "non-violent" stuff can be potentially more harmful on the long term than violent stuffs. A kid not being kissed by his mother or being raised by 2 homosexuals is far more violent and detrimental for his later psychological life than a couple of slaps in the face. Words as well can be far more abusive than a simple punch in the face. Indirect violence is currently the dominating form of violence in our society. And it's still violence.
If I look at my local area (about 700k people total, not too dense, immigrants are mostly turkish and russian people in well... mostly their own areas) I actually think that the whole "we shoud all be tolerant"-ordeal makes the situation worse.
Being "tolerant" is equal to "well, they're around, I don't like it, but what can I do?" around here. When you ask the same "tolerant" people if they ever bought at a turkish supermarket you get "Why would I buy there?" as an answer. It kind of has become a politically correct form of racism/anti-multiculturalism to say "Oh, no, I tolerate those people".
Acceptance would be a much cooler thing.
|
On August 12 2012 05:30 Thorakh wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 05:28 SupLilSon wrote:On August 12 2012 05:12 McBengt wrote:On August 12 2012 05:02 SupLilSon wrote:On August 12 2012 04:48 McBengt wrote:On August 12 2012 04:39 Euronyme wrote:On August 12 2012 04:11 McBengt wrote:On August 12 2012 03:58 SupLilSon wrote:On August 12 2012 03:51 McBengt wrote:On August 12 2012 03:33 D10 wrote:
[quote]
Doesnt nordic countries have a big anti immigrant thing going on ? If I was that woman id rather go to Brazil Not Sweden, I say to my great disappointment. Our unswerving determination to adapt to even to most absurd values and most repulsive traditions of foreign countries on the thinly veiled pretext of tolerance and inclusiveness is as ardent as ever. Social friction and segregation are becoming real problems though, we'll see what happens. How do you suffer being on Team Liquid? I don't get it. I've always seen Team Liquid as a pretty multicultural/multiethnic body. Or you can only tolerate infererior non-blond- non-blue eyed races over the internet, but god forbid they try to live in your country? I found it funny that in the Olympics, many of the traditionally White Nordic countries still sent Black athletes to compete. Just something I noticed. Did you somehow extrapolate racist views from what I wrote? My best friend since third grade is from Iran. My coach and several training partners of mine are from Brazil. I worked for for three years with a turkish guy, we still hang out. It has nothing to do with the ethnicity of an individual person, it has to do with my country's lack of testicular fortitude in standing up for the core principles of our society. Some things just aren't desirable in a society that aims for equality. You did say that it was your great disappointment that we don't have a 'big anti immigrant thing going on'. No that was a post I quoted. And my sense of disappointment stems from the aforementioned lack of resolve in the face of oppressive and intolerant elements. But I'm hardly surprised, "racist" is the automatic defense employed these days against people who aren't keen on stoning women to death for having the audacity of being raped. And please stop equating culture with race, it's really annoying and highly disingenuous. I can despise a culture without despising the people who come from that area. You sound like a hardcore Bible Belter from the US. "I don't hate gays, I just hate all the gay things they do." Odd, as I'm a hardline atheist and completely against any form of religious appeasement. And the analogy is completely flawed. Gays are not an ethnic group, nor do they share a common set of values or beliefs. I despise certain people and their actions, if I feel it's warranted. If it's systematic, as in a cultural phenomenon, even more so. Again stop comparing race or sexual preference to culture. The latter is chosen, the former are not. You are born gay, not a misogynist or homophobe. The whole basis for your thinking is wrong.. I'm sorry but culture is not chosen. You are born into a certain culture and it takes enormous effort to completely separate yourself from that, if it's possible at all. Maybe culture and race and ethnicity are exclusive, but that doesn't mean culture is something that is purely chosen, as you seem to believe. There are plenty of people who free themselves from their culture. It certainly isn't impossible. In fact, there is no excuse for not adopting the better alternative when confronted with it (and being confronted with includes moving to another country).
It is possible to escape to some extent from ideology but it is very difficult. It takes a lot of study. Most people lack the capital (social as well as financial) to do so.
On August 12 2012 06:00 r.Evo wrote:
Being "tolerant" is equal to "well, they're around, I don't like it, but what can I do?" around here. When you ask the same "tolerant" people if they ever bought at a turkish supermarket you get "Why would I buy there?" as an answer. It kind of has become a politically correct form of racism/anti-multiculturalism to say "Oh, no, I tolerate those people".
Acceptance would be a much cooler thing.
Absolutely. Tolerance is a dead end discourse. The real goal is not tolerance, or acceptance, but friendship.
|
On August 12 2012 06:00 r.Evo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 05:42 SiroKO wrote:On August 12 2012 05:22 Thorakh wrote:In other words, too few tolerance is nefast, but tolerating everything is equally harmful in the long run. No it isn't. What is harmful however, is your view on this matter. Homosexuals don't harm anyone and therefore homosexuality cannot be wrong. There is not a single rational argument against homosexuality, women voting and working, women dressing up a certain way, etc. If something doesn't harm, it, by definition, cannot be wrong. Plus, I never even said everything should be tolerated. Everything which does not harm should be tolerated. So that's your apathetic doxa. "If something doesn't harm, it, by definition, cannot be wrong." In my last post, I mentionned too much tolerance could be "more harmful on the long term". What you call "non-violent" stuff can be potentially more harmful on the long term than violent stuffs. A kid not being kissed by his mother or being raised by 2 homosexuals is far more violent and detrimental for his later psychological life than a couple of slaps in the face. Words as well can be far more abusive than a simple punch in the face. Indirect violence is currently the dominating form of violence in our society. And it's still violence. If I look at my local area (about 700k people total, not too dense, immigrants are mostly turkish and russian people in well... mostly their own areas) I actually think that the whole "we shoud all be tolerant"-ordeal makes the situation worse. Being "tolerant" is equal to "well, they're around, I don't like it, but what can I do?" around here. When you ask the same "tolerant" people if they ever bought at a turkish supermarket you get "Why would I buy there?" as an answer. It kind of has become a politically correct form of racism/anti-multiculturalism to say "Oh, no, I tolerate those people". Acceptance would be a much cooler thing.
Notice how extreme tolerance is only present in rich and individualistic societies.
As I said before, this tolerance is often times a disguised form of apathy.
You don't like these people but you don't really live with them since you barely cross them at the supermarket or in the transports.
So some people choose to not give a fuck.
Acceptance is what they all do. Or else, they would at the very least miliate for their nationalistic party.
|
On August 12 2012 06:15 SiroKO wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 06:00 r.Evo wrote:On August 12 2012 05:42 SiroKO wrote:On August 12 2012 05:22 Thorakh wrote:In other words, too few tolerance is nefast, but tolerating everything is equally harmful in the long run. No it isn't. What is harmful however, is your view on this matter. Homosexuals don't harm anyone and therefore homosexuality cannot be wrong. There is not a single rational argument against homosexuality, women voting and working, women dressing up a certain way, etc. If something doesn't harm, it, by definition, cannot be wrong. Plus, I never even said everything should be tolerated. Everything which does not harm should be tolerated. So that's your apathetic doxa. "If something doesn't harm, it, by definition, cannot be wrong." In my last post, I mentionned too much tolerance could be "more harmful on the long term". What you call "non-violent" stuff can be potentially more harmful on the long term than violent stuffs. A kid not being kissed by his mother or being raised by 2 homosexuals is far more violent and detrimental for his later psychological life than a couple of slaps in the face. Words as well can be far more abusive than a simple punch in the face. Indirect violence is currently the dominating form of violence in our society. And it's still violence. If I look at my local area (about 700k people total, not too dense, immigrants are mostly turkish and russian people in well... mostly their own areas) I actually think that the whole "we shoud all be tolerant"-ordeal makes the situation worse. Being "tolerant" is equal to "well, they're around, I don't like it, but what can I do?" around here. When you ask the same "tolerant" people if they ever bought at a turkish supermarket you get "Why would I buy there?" as an answer. It kind of has become a politically correct form of racism/anti-multiculturalism to say "Oh, no, I tolerate those people". Acceptance would be a much cooler thing. Notice how extreme tolerance is only present in rich and individualistic societies.
Whose wealth is supported by the exploitation of the immigrant groups one is supposed to "tolerate"...
Funny how they make this "tolerance" seem like such a favor
|
On August 12 2012 05:58 McBengt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 05:47 SupLilSon wrote:On August 12 2012 05:36 McBengt wrote:On August 12 2012 05:28 SupLilSon wrote:On August 12 2012 05:12 McBengt wrote:On August 12 2012 05:02 SupLilSon wrote:On August 12 2012 04:48 McBengt wrote:On August 12 2012 04:39 Euronyme wrote:On August 12 2012 04:11 McBengt wrote:On August 12 2012 03:58 SupLilSon wrote:
[quote]
How do you suffer being on Team Liquid? I don't get it. I've always seen Team Liquid as a pretty multicultural/multiethnic body. Or you can only tolerate infererior non-blond- non-blue eyed races over the internet, but god forbid they try to live in your country? I found it funny that in the Olympics, many of the traditionally White Nordic countries still sent Black athletes to compete. Just something I noticed. Did you somehow extrapolate racist views from what I wrote? My best friend since third grade is from Iran. My coach and several training partners of mine are from Brazil. I worked for for three years with a turkish guy, we still hang out. It has nothing to do with the ethnicity of an individual person, it has to do with my country's lack of testicular fortitude in standing up for the core principles of our society. Some things just aren't desirable in a society that aims for equality. You did say that it was your great disappointment that we don't have a 'big anti immigrant thing going on'. No that was a post I quoted. And my sense of disappointment stems from the aforementioned lack of resolve in the face of oppressive and intolerant elements. But I'm hardly surprised, "racist" is the automatic defense employed these days against people who aren't keen on stoning women to death for having the audacity of being raped. And please stop equating culture with race, it's really annoying and highly disingenuous. I can despise a culture without despising the people who come from that area. You sound like a hardcore Bible Belter from the US. "I don't hate gays, I just hate all the gay things they do." Odd, as I'm a hardline atheist and completely against any form of religious appeasement. And the analogy is completely flawed. Gays are not an ethnic group, nor do they share a common set of values or beliefs. I despise certain people and their actions, if I feel it's warranted. If it's systematic, as in a cultural phenomenon, even more so. Again stop comparing race or sexual preference to culture. The latter is chosen, the former are not. You are born gay, not a misogynist or homophobe. The whole basis for your thinking is wrong.. I'm sorry but culture is not chosen. You are born into a certain culture and it takes enormous effort to completely separate yourself from that, if it's possible at all. Maybe culture and race and ethnicity are exclusive, but that doesn't mean culture is something that is purely chosen, as you seem to believe. That's a cop out. Many things are hard. A dude at my old job grew up as an openly gay person in Libya. That's hard. He coped. I was taught that Santa came to visit every year on christmas as a kid. Then I realised it was bullshit. I also used to think girls were icky, because that was the popular opinion of the boys at the time. I know plenty of people who fled their home countries specifically to escape the prevaling cultural values there, because they found them less than appealing. Just because a choice is hard doesn't make it any less of a choice. Yes, because your weak anectdotal evidence makes it true. All those women in the middle east and Africa suffering genital mutilation and opression are just taking it because they choose to. Yea, everyone get's to choose their culture. Of course they didn't, but odds are they have never known anything else, and thus have no base for comparison. We have a quite a few of those women in Sweden. I would imagine they are quite happy about some of the changes compared to their homeland. I am talking about people in a position to actually understand and evaluate their own culture from a wider perspective. People that have, say, left home and traveled abroad, maybe seeking asylum in another country? Culture is not fixed, it can be changed or completely discarded if the will is strong enough. You just have to know that there are alternatives to begin with.
And there are many people who are a part of these cultures you despise and see no reason to change. That is how they grew up and that is how they want their kids to grow up. And your lengths to separate culture from race/ethnicity/etc is quite interesting as culture is inherent and connected to all of them. I guess you just see yourself as righteous enough to judge good culture from bad?
|
On August 12 2012 06:19 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 06:15 SiroKO wrote:On August 12 2012 06:00 r.Evo wrote:On August 12 2012 05:42 SiroKO wrote:On August 12 2012 05:22 Thorakh wrote:In other words, too few tolerance is nefast, but tolerating everything is equally harmful in the long run. No it isn't. What is harmful however, is your view on this matter. Homosexuals don't harm anyone and therefore homosexuality cannot be wrong. There is not a single rational argument against homosexuality, women voting and working, women dressing up a certain way, etc. If something doesn't harm, it, by definition, cannot be wrong. Plus, I never even said everything should be tolerated. Everything which does not harm should be tolerated. So that's your apathetic doxa. "If something doesn't harm, it, by definition, cannot be wrong." In my last post, I mentionned too much tolerance could be "more harmful on the long term". What you call "non-violent" stuff can be potentially more harmful on the long term than violent stuffs. A kid not being kissed by his mother or being raised by 2 homosexuals is far more violent and detrimental for his later psychological life than a couple of slaps in the face. Words as well can be far more abusive than a simple punch in the face. Indirect violence is currently the dominating form of violence in our society. And it's still violence. If I look at my local area (about 700k people total, not too dense, immigrants are mostly turkish and russian people in well... mostly their own areas) I actually think that the whole "we shoud all be tolerant"-ordeal makes the situation worse. Being "tolerant" is equal to "well, they're around, I don't like it, but what can I do?" around here. When you ask the same "tolerant" people if they ever bought at a turkish supermarket you get "Why would I buy there?" as an answer. It kind of has become a politically correct form of racism/anti-multiculturalism to say "Oh, no, I tolerate those people". Acceptance would be a much cooler thing. Notice how extreme tolerance is only present in rich and individualistic societies. Whose wealth is supported by the exploitation of the immigrant groups one is supposed to "tolerate"... Funny how they make this "tolerance" seem like such a favor
Yes, because these immigrants didn't immigrate here on their own free will... They were snatched up and dragged here to work our minimum wage jobs, because there weren't enough people to fill all the jobs.
I'm first generation American and I don't feel exploited, neither do my parents.
|
On August 12 2012 06:15 SiroKO wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 06:00 r.Evo wrote:On August 12 2012 05:42 SiroKO wrote:On August 12 2012 05:22 Thorakh wrote:In other words, too few tolerance is nefast, but tolerating everything is equally harmful in the long run. No it isn't. What is harmful however, is your view on this matter. Homosexuals don't harm anyone and therefore homosexuality cannot be wrong. There is not a single rational argument against homosexuality, women voting and working, women dressing up a certain way, etc. If something doesn't harm, it, by definition, cannot be wrong. Plus, I never even said everything should be tolerated. Everything which does not harm should be tolerated. So that's your apathetic doxa. "If something doesn't harm, it, by definition, cannot be wrong." In my last post, I mentionned too much tolerance could be "more harmful on the long term". What you call "non-violent" stuff can be potentially more harmful on the long term than violent stuffs. A kid not being kissed by his mother or being raised by 2 homosexuals is far more violent and detrimental for his later psychological life than a couple of slaps in the face. Words as well can be far more abusive than a simple punch in the face. Indirect violence is currently the dominating form of violence in our society. And it's still violence. If I look at my local area (about 700k people total, not too dense, immigrants are mostly turkish and russian people in well... mostly their own areas) I actually think that the whole "we shoud all be tolerant"-ordeal makes the situation worse. Being "tolerant" is equal to "well, they're around, I don't like it, but what can I do?" around here. When you ask the same "tolerant" people if they ever bought at a turkish supermarket you get "Why would I buy there?" as an answer. It kind of has become a politically correct form of racism/anti-multiculturalism to say "Oh, no, I tolerate those people". Acceptance would be a much cooler thing. Notice how extreme tolerance is only present in rich and individualistic societies. As I said before, this tolerance is often times a disguised form of apathy. You don't like these people but you don't really live with them since you barely cross them at the supermarket or in the transports. So some people choose to not give a fuck. Acceptance is what they all do. Or else, they would at the very least miliate for their nationalistic party.
I'm probably asking you about semantics now, but I find them to be rather intrigueing in this case.
To me the world "tolerance" has a negative ring. I tolerate things that I can't immediately change and that I don't directly approve of. If the police drags my car out, I'm tolerating that. If I see someone see/do/write/talk bullshit but don't find it bullshit enough to start argueing, I'm tolerating it.
"Acceptance" has a certain component of embracing it. If I accept someone around me I enjoy his or her presence to some degree. To me it's directly one step above tolerance. It says that I can identify with the values of who or what I accept which pretty much says "You're part of my group".
Whether that tolerance is apathy or racism in disguise is something I'm really not sure about. A (not too close) part of my family is pretty damn politically right, including the good old "Those turks steal our jobs / their supermarkets/stores are dirty" etc. - however as soon as buzzwords like "intolerance" or "racism" are dropped in conversations with them the wording suddenly changes to "They can do whatever they want as long as it's in their own neighborhood" or (my favorite) "Of course we're tolerant, I even give the black guy cleaning the toilet some extra cent".
The whole "They can do what they want as long as I don't have to deal with it" is, in my opinion, less apathy but more straight up racism. It's just being called tolerant nowadays.
(I guess what I'm looking for here is a cross check about what tolerance & acceptance mean and imply to other people who aren't from around here. Would be cool if I'd get some input. <3)
|
On August 12 2012 06:19 sam!zdat wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 06:15 SiroKO wrote:On August 12 2012 06:00 r.Evo wrote:On August 12 2012 05:42 SiroKO wrote:On August 12 2012 05:22 Thorakh wrote:In other words, too few tolerance is nefast, but tolerating everything is equally harmful in the long run. No it isn't. What is harmful however, is your view on this matter. Homosexuals don't harm anyone and therefore homosexuality cannot be wrong. There is not a single rational argument against homosexuality, women voting and working, women dressing up a certain way, etc. If something doesn't harm, it, by definition, cannot be wrong. Plus, I never even said everything should be tolerated. Everything which does not harm should be tolerated. So that's your apathetic doxa. "If something doesn't harm, it, by definition, cannot be wrong." In my last post, I mentionned too much tolerance could be "more harmful on the long term". What you call "non-violent" stuff can be potentially more harmful on the long term than violent stuffs. A kid not being kissed by his mother or being raised by 2 homosexuals is far more violent and detrimental for his later psychological life than a couple of slaps in the face. Words as well can be far more abusive than a simple punch in the face. Indirect violence is currently the dominating form of violence in our society. And it's still violence. If I look at my local area (about 700k people total, not too dense, immigrants are mostly turkish and russian people in well... mostly their own areas) I actually think that the whole "we shoud all be tolerant"-ordeal makes the situation worse. Being "tolerant" is equal to "well, they're around, I don't like it, but what can I do?" around here. When you ask the same "tolerant" people if they ever bought at a turkish supermarket you get "Why would I buy there?" as an answer. It kind of has become a politically correct form of racism/anti-multiculturalism to say "Oh, no, I tolerate those people". Acceptance would be a much cooler thing. Notice how extreme tolerance is only present in rich and individualistic societies. Whose wealth is supported by the exploitation of the immigrant groups one is supposed to "tolerate"... Funny how they make this "tolerance" seem like such a favor
The idea that Western nations acquired their wealth through colonization and now immigration is a lie which has been debunked several times.
French colonization costed more than it brought us.
Immigration is entirely debatable, lots of reports contradict each other.
Besides, you must be aware that the natives who live in the same area than the immigrants are usually not the one exploiting them.
These people wouldn't get a single penny out of the situation, but they will suffer from all the negative aspects of it.
|
On August 12 2012 06:20 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 05:58 McBengt wrote:On August 12 2012 05:47 SupLilSon wrote:On August 12 2012 05:36 McBengt wrote:On August 12 2012 05:28 SupLilSon wrote:On August 12 2012 05:12 McBengt wrote:On August 12 2012 05:02 SupLilSon wrote:On August 12 2012 04:48 McBengt wrote:On August 12 2012 04:39 Euronyme wrote:On August 12 2012 04:11 McBengt wrote:
[quote]
Did you somehow extrapolate racist views from what I wrote? My best friend since third grade is from Iran. My coach and several training partners of mine are from Brazil. I worked for for three years with a turkish guy, we still hang out.
It has nothing to do with the ethnicity of an individual person, it has to do with my country's lack of testicular fortitude in standing up for the core principles of our society. Some things just aren't desirable in a society that aims for equality. You did say that it was your great disappointment that we don't have a 'big anti immigrant thing going on'. No that was a post I quoted. And my sense of disappointment stems from the aforementioned lack of resolve in the face of oppressive and intolerant elements. But I'm hardly surprised, "racist" is the automatic defense employed these days against people who aren't keen on stoning women to death for having the audacity of being raped. And please stop equating culture with race, it's really annoying and highly disingenuous. I can despise a culture without despising the people who come from that area. You sound like a hardcore Bible Belter from the US. "I don't hate gays, I just hate all the gay things they do." Odd, as I'm a hardline atheist and completely against any form of religious appeasement. And the analogy is completely flawed. Gays are not an ethnic group, nor do they share a common set of values or beliefs. I despise certain people and their actions, if I feel it's warranted. If it's systematic, as in a cultural phenomenon, even more so. Again stop comparing race or sexual preference to culture. The latter is chosen, the former are not. You are born gay, not a misogynist or homophobe. The whole basis for your thinking is wrong.. I'm sorry but culture is not chosen. You are born into a certain culture and it takes enormous effort to completely separate yourself from that, if it's possible at all. Maybe culture and race and ethnicity are exclusive, but that doesn't mean culture is something that is purely chosen, as you seem to believe. That's a cop out. Many things are hard. A dude at my old job grew up as an openly gay person in Libya. That's hard. He coped. I was taught that Santa came to visit every year on christmas as a kid. Then I realised it was bullshit. I also used to think girls were icky, because that was the popular opinion of the boys at the time. I know plenty of people who fled their home countries specifically to escape the prevaling cultural values there, because they found them less than appealing. Just because a choice is hard doesn't make it any less of a choice. Yes, because your weak anectdotal evidence makes it true. All those women in the middle east and Africa suffering genital mutilation and opression are just taking it because they choose to. Yea, everyone get's to choose their culture. Of course they didn't, but odds are they have never known anything else, and thus have no base for comparison. We have a quite a few of those women in Sweden. I would imagine they are quite happy about some of the changes compared to their homeland. I am talking about people in a position to actually understand and evaluate their own culture from a wider perspective. People that have, say, left home and traveled abroad, maybe seeking asylum in another country? Culture is not fixed, it can be changed or completely discarded if the will is strong enough. You just have to know that there are alternatives to begin with. And there are many people who are a part of these cultures you despise and see no reason to change. That is how they grew up and that is how they want their kids to grow up. And your lengths to separate culture from race/ethnicity/etc is quite interesting as culture is inherent and connected to all of them. I guess you just see yourself as righteous enough to judge good culture from bad?
Righteous? No, the furthest thing from it.
But I do honestly believe that certain traits in a culture are just inherently superior to others. I believe the strive to achieve equality for both sexes to be inherently superior to the oppression and misogyny of many arab countries. I believe accepting homosexuals as equal citizens with the same rights as everyone else is inherently superior to the discrimination and persecution perpetrated by predominantly religious countries. I believe the right to offend and challenge is inherently superior to the idea that you are not allowed to criticize religious dogma or government mandates.
And I firmly believe my country and others who share our basic set of principles should never compromise those for any reason. And as far as I am aware I still enjoy the freedom to despise what I wish.
Does that make me arrogant and presumptuous? Perhaps, but honestly, I can live with that.
|
On August 12 2012 05:42 SiroKO wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 05:22 Thorakh wrote:In other words, too few tolerance is nefast, but tolerating everything is equally harmful in the long run. No it isn't. What is harmful however, is your view on this matter. Homosexuals don't harm anyone and therefore homosexuality cannot be wrong. There is not a single rational argument against homosexuality, women voting and working, women dressing up a certain way, etc. If something doesn't harm, it, by definition, cannot be wrong. Plus, I never even said everything should be tolerated. Everything which does not harm should be tolerated. So that's your apathetic doxa. "If something doesn't harm, it, by definition, cannot be wrong." In my last post, I mentionned too much tolerance could be "more harmful on the long term". What you call "non-violent" stuff can be potentially more harmful on the long term than violent stuffs. A kid not being kissed by his mother or being raised by 2 homosexuals is far more violent and detrimental for his later psychological life than a couple of slaps in the face. Words as well can be far more abusive than a simple punch in the face. Indirect violence is currently the dominating form of violence in our society. And it's still violence. And exactly what do the two things you mentioned have to do with what I said? I don't see anything about kissing or homosexual couples adopting children (I have no knowledge on this subject, but even if it were detrimental to the child, it still would not have any relevance to homosexuality not being illegal) in my quote. Your whole post is nothing but pointless conjecture about what might happen someday due to some things...
Tell us how "homosexuality, women voting and working, women dressing up a certain way" are harmful in the long run...
|
On August 12 2012 06:23 SupLilSon wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 06:19 sam!zdat wrote:On August 12 2012 06:15 SiroKO wrote:On August 12 2012 06:00 r.Evo wrote:On August 12 2012 05:42 SiroKO wrote:On August 12 2012 05:22 Thorakh wrote:In other words, too few tolerance is nefast, but tolerating everything is equally harmful in the long run. No it isn't. What is harmful however, is your view on this matter. Homosexuals don't harm anyone and therefore homosexuality cannot be wrong. There is not a single rational argument against homosexuality, women voting and working, women dressing up a certain way, etc. If something doesn't harm, it, by definition, cannot be wrong. Plus, I never even said everything should be tolerated. Everything which does not harm should be tolerated. So that's your apathetic doxa. "If something doesn't harm, it, by definition, cannot be wrong." In my last post, I mentionned too much tolerance could be "more harmful on the long term". What you call "non-violent" stuff can be potentially more harmful on the long term than violent stuffs. A kid not being kissed by his mother or being raised by 2 homosexuals is far more violent and detrimental for his later psychological life than a couple of slaps in the face. Words as well can be far more abusive than a simple punch in the face. Indirect violence is currently the dominating form of violence in our society. And it's still violence. If I look at my local area (about 700k people total, not too dense, immigrants are mostly turkish and russian people in well... mostly their own areas) I actually think that the whole "we shoud all be tolerant"-ordeal makes the situation worse. Being "tolerant" is equal to "well, they're around, I don't like it, but what can I do?" around here. When you ask the same "tolerant" people if they ever bought at a turkish supermarket you get "Why would I buy there?" as an answer. It kind of has become a politically correct form of racism/anti-multiculturalism to say "Oh, no, I tolerate those people". Acceptance would be a much cooler thing. Notice how extreme tolerance is only present in rich and individualistic societies. Whose wealth is supported by the exploitation of the immigrant groups one is supposed to "tolerate"... Funny how they make this "tolerance" seem like such a favor Yes, because these immigrants didn't immigrate here on their own free will... They were snatched up and dragged here to work our minimum wage jobs, because there weren't enough people to fill all the jobs. I'm first generation American and I don't feel exploited, neither do my parents.
What is this myth of freedom? People are forced to do things by economic necessity.
I don't know about you, but keep in mind that ideology has a powerful way of keeping people from realizing that they are being exploited. (edit: also, there's a good chance that your family might not be the sort of immigrant we are talking about. I doubt your parents came here as migrant workers)
On August 12 2012 06:34 SiroKO wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2012 06:19 sam!zdat wrote:On August 12 2012 06:15 SiroKO wrote:On August 12 2012 06:00 r.Evo wrote:On August 12 2012 05:42 SiroKO wrote:On August 12 2012 05:22 Thorakh wrote:In other words, too few tolerance is nefast, but tolerating everything is equally harmful in the long run. No it isn't. What is harmful however, is your view on this matter. Homosexuals don't harm anyone and therefore homosexuality cannot be wrong. There is not a single rational argument against homosexuality, women voting and working, women dressing up a certain way, etc. If something doesn't harm, it, by definition, cannot be wrong. Plus, I never even said everything should be tolerated. Everything which does not harm should be tolerated. So that's your apathetic doxa. "If something doesn't harm, it, by definition, cannot be wrong." In my last post, I mentionned too much tolerance could be "more harmful on the long term". What you call "non-violent" stuff can be potentially more harmful on the long term than violent stuffs. A kid not being kissed by his mother or being raised by 2 homosexuals is far more violent and detrimental for his later psychological life than a couple of slaps in the face. Words as well can be far more abusive than a simple punch in the face. Indirect violence is currently the dominating form of violence in our society. And it's still violence. If I look at my local area (about 700k people total, not too dense, immigrants are mostly turkish and russian people in well... mostly their own areas) I actually think that the whole "we shoud all be tolerant"-ordeal makes the situation worse. Being "tolerant" is equal to "well, they're around, I don't like it, but what can I do?" around here. When you ask the same "tolerant" people if they ever bought at a turkish supermarket you get "Why would I buy there?" as an answer. It kind of has become a politically correct form of racism/anti-multiculturalism to say "Oh, no, I tolerate those people". Acceptance would be a much cooler thing. Notice how extreme tolerance is only present in rich and individualistic societies. Whose wealth is supported by the exploitation of the immigrant groups one is supposed to "tolerate"... Funny how they make this "tolerance" seem like such a favor The idea that Western nations acquired their wealth through colonization and now immigration is a lie which has been debunked several times. French colonization costed more than it brought us.
What is this absurdity? Maybe that's true for France... You think Britain didn't get rich off its colonies?
Immigration is entirely debatable, lots of reports contradict each other.
Besides, you must be aware that the natives who live in the same area than the immigrants are usually not the one exploiting them.
These people wouldn't get a single penny out of the situation, but they will suffer from all the negative aspects of it.
It depends on which natives. Local labor loses, capital (which is, increasingly, never local) gains.
In my country at least, anti-immigration is just a sham for the right to hoodwink its base (which is threatened by it). You think we would have illegal immigrants if capital wasn't dying to hire them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
