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.
I've always noticed a big difference in mentality depending on the background of the parents. One of my best friends in school (Russian, came to Germany when he was 8 or so) always told me that his parents came here so that he can have a great life. The stories about one parent dropping university so they could leave their country to a better place, working hard to get their kids good education etc. - the kids from those types of parents strike me as incredibly driven by their loyalty to their parents. In this case the guy finished top of our class and last time I met him he was studying physics - still top of his class of course. Things went pretty similar for his brother.
Now, I also dealt with your typical "lazy bad criminal" russian kids on a different school I was and there it was pretty much the opposite. They didn't bother to speak German, they didn't care about being here or being good at school. When talking about things like this they always sounded as if they were dragged here because their parents had no where else to go and showcased some kind of "life sucks anyway" attitude.
The real problem isn't where they're coming from, the problem is that those who initially came here as a "worker class" stay in their uneducated puddle and continue with that trend even in 2nd and 3rd generations. Besides their names you can often not tell the more "intellectual" ones who came here for a better life from anyone else around here.
The only real difference between poor people from other countries who were invited here to work and the "native" worker-class is that the former sticks to their own language, excluding them even further. The whole worker class parent = worker class kids is the nail in the coffin.
I see some people are using crime rates of immigrant ethnicities as a proxy for the value or "inferiority" of their cultures. In that case I guess Asian culture > all?
i just want to say that as an individual living in a western country, "vancouver canada". i am appalled by my society/culture. We live a life of luxury off the exploited labour of people in other countries. our shoes, or clothing, or iphones and electronics, are all imported from factories from people with incredibly shitty wages.
we also drink alcohol, go clubbing, we also watch a sport where we cheer the loudest when they players are violently attacking each other. consumer culture, a culture where individuals are robbed their chance to cultivate agency...
that's however of course only a % of the population, and we also have great things like being more accepting of different sexual orientation / moving away from a society that represses and controls sexuality, and other great stuff!!
uhhh i guess what im trying to say is that. western culture is pretty filthy, but of course, compared to others, it may be less filthy, and may even have some spots of shinning glory.
To wrap up, here is song with lyrics that sort of captures my disgust at "western cultures"
The problem is that multiculturalism spends so much time denouncing western culture that it forgets that it only exists because of western culture.
If you want to know how multiculturalism is in fact the ideology of consumerism, I recommend Fredric Jameson "Postmodernism: Or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism"
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.
I've always noticed a big difference in mentality depending on the background of the parents. One of my best friends in school (Russian, came to Germany when he was 8 or so) always told me that his parents came here so that he can have a great life. The stories about one parent dropping university so they could leave their country to a better place, working hard to get their kids good education etc. - the kids from those types of parents strike me as incredibly driven by their loyalty to their parents. In this case the guy finished top of our class and last time I met him he was studying physics - still top of his class of course. Things went pretty similar for his brother.
Now, I also dealt with your typical "lazy bad criminal" russian kids on a different school I was and there it was pretty much the opposite. They didn't bother to speak German, they didn't care about being here or being good at school. When talking about things like this they always sounded as if they were dragged here because their parents had no where else to go and showcased some kind of "life sucks anyway" attitude.
The real problem isn't where they're coming from, the problem is that those who initially came here as a "worker class" stay in their uneducated puddle and continue with that trend even in 2nd and 3rd generations. Besides their names you can often not tell the more "intellectual" ones who came here for a better life from anyone else around here.
The only real difference between poor people from other countries who were invited here to work and the "native" worker-class is that the former sticks to their own language, excluding them even further. The whole worker class parent = worker class kids is the nail in the coffin.
Sweden's example is the finish immigration during and after WW2. There are large amounts of these people that settled with their finish friends and still aren't fluent in Swedish after 40+ years. This doesn't bother the majority of the Swedish people since the culture is nearly fully shared, get drunk, work, don't bother other people too much, be religious if you want to. Maybe people simply got used to them over the years. Most of the third generation don't know finish any longer (a decent portion does due to visiting with family over there, the majority doesn't though). The culture is so similar that the language isn't important to keep it and identify with.
Another large immigration wave is the Assyrian/Syriac Christians that are prosecuted in the middle east. These have resulted in more problems in the first generation due to the larger cultural gap and a change in the Swedish mentality. I personally believe the Swedish change in mentality is due to importation of the American culture, which culture that is most influential will vary over time. (America and the west in general is doing a good job of exporting culture to areas that doesn't share it, making it even easier in areas that were roughly the same. A funny thing in Sweden is that traditional Swedish cuisine is losing to other cultures food.)
The second generation still have some problems due to how large the gap in the first generation was, it has implemented a lot of elements of the Swedish culture though, even though they make up upwards of 30% in some cities (the most active Swedish Mafia is from this segment). The third generation will probably be closer to Swedish than Assyrian culture with some mix the other way due to people getting used to it. I personally find their idea of the visitors to a wedding paying for it good, since it removes the great economic burden a large wedding can be (probably a reason why many Swedish people stopped getting married and still got their children).
Most likely the fourth or fifth will share roughly the same culture. I see no signs of multi culture working out long term, small things like names, which religion and so on will probably stay longer, but overall culture will be similar enough that nobody will care. The Swedish laws are a primary reason for this with divorce being seen as normal and extreme things like "honour killings" of family is treated as a murder.
I think multiculturalism isn't a bad thing, as long as the immigrants that come into one's nation adapt to the country in question, there is no reason for them to leave their heritage behind, but you don't try to impose your own culture into the country that gave you a home.It's much easier to make multiculturalism work if you have some basic things in common though, such as language, ethnicity, culture, religion, development, etc... All of this things play a huge rol in making it much easier for the immigrant and the country to recieve foreigners to settle. Though this isnt essential, its just something that really helps, there has been a mass immigration of asians into my country, specially from China and Korea and they fit just well, because they are hard working, polite and make an effort to adapt to the nation as soon as possible. On the other hand I've seen and lived the problem of multiculturalism in Europe (studied in England) and I've got to say, as long as the immigrants in there dont understand that they are the ones to change and not the other way around, it will never work for them, a major problem on the other hand is that such religious fanatism wont get your anywhere, and will just breed hatred and racism.
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.
The misunderstanding arose after you quoted a guy that asked if the Nordic countries had a big anti-immigration movement going on and your answer to this quote started with "Not Sweden, to my great disappointment".
This thread has been an interesting read. I have a hard time putting my own view in words because of a few different reasons. Biggest being that I don't really have a defined view but also because I am a bit confused as to what multiculturalism means and what other possibilities there are. It seems, to me, quite inevitable that there will be some culture clashes when there's immigration from countries with differing cultures but that they will probably mix into each other after a while. I am not, however, saying that all values are equal and all that jazz but that some conflicts are to be expected.
Maybe they're similar enough that they can coexist and therefore create a multicultural society. This is also why I find it hard to understand how you can be for immigration but against multiculturalism. Overall, though, I am quite ignorant in the matter and don't spend much time thinking about it.
Then again, they did not have that stupid idea that skin color equals superiority or inferiority.
And neither does anyone in this thread. Race =/= culture. Racism is bad. 'Culturalism' is not.
What.
So you'd be fine if there would be a movement promoting the superiority of the German/American/Russian culture with the obvious incentive to free all people with lesser culture so they can finally live the same dream as everyone who is already part of the superior culture?
Race, culture, religion, actually ANY idea with the built in promise that it's superior and that wrongbelievers (or those with the wrong blood) have to be purged or, sorry, enlightened leads to pretty similar results.
People from different cultures/races/religions are... guess what: Different. No policy and no amount of talk you can do will convince anyone from anything else. People don't want to be from the same tribe so to speak. Encouraging that being different is completely okay would be a start instead of telling everyone that it's not okay and that they should be more similar to each other.
What you've just argued is that purging is bad and therefore any issue which purging could be used as a solution to shouldn't be recognised as an issue. Some cultures are shitty, identifying that homophobic/sexist cultures are worse than none homophobic/sexist cultures doesn't mean I am in favour of purges. Acting like they're all equal but different ignores potential humanitarian solutions through education and aid.
Truely homophobic and sexist cultures, in other words cultures where the raped women is guilty and where homosexuals are persecuted and killed, are indeed inferior. But I'm not sure if that's what you meant by that.
If by sexist/homophobic cultures you mean cultures in which men and women are not undifferentiated entities who can occupy the same jobs and do the same things, then your idea of a Western culture is different to the traditional European culture, and foreign as well.
That's why the traditional European culture is inferior as well.
So your idea of a counter-culture is an individualistic society composed of undifferentiated entities who share no real culture, except tolerating few stuff. No wonder why the conversion to Islam is skyrocketting in Europe.
No, my idea of society is a mix of open cultures who respect each other and have no 'values' which dictate the oppressing or harming of others.
If you keep on trying to protect the "West" under the banner of "gay marriage and adoption", or the right for women to dress up like sluts and not suffer from any sexist remarks, then you're doomed to fail, and to drag us all down with you.
so you're criticizing western cultures for acceptance of gays? i don't really get your point...
also this thread is the most interesting thread i've read over the past couple of weeks. i'm actually enjoying reading it. as a product of the canadian school system we're learned to love multiculturalism, but because of our geographic location i guess we haven't been exposed to as many nutjobs are you guys in europe. that islamic march video posted earlier in freakin london really made me question...
where i live it is multi-ethnic but culturally we're not that far apart. i mean where i live it's primarily asians (indian,korean,chinese,japanese,etc) white people. and like the cultural divide isn't actually that big. they're also like 2nd generation
Wait, so... your school system is allowed by law, to teach you values? When these values are determined by the government?
On August 12 2012 02:07 Thorakh wrote: [quote]And neither does anyone in this thread. Race =/= culture. Racism is bad. 'Culturalism' is not.
What.
So you'd be fine if there would be a movement promoting the superiority of the German/American/Russian culture with the obvious incentive to free all people with lesser culture so they can finally live the same dream as everyone who is already part of the superior culture?
Race, culture, religion, actually ANY idea with the built in promise that it's superior and that wrongbelievers (or those with the wrong blood) have to be purged or, sorry, enlightened leads to pretty similar results.
People from different cultures/races/religions are... guess what: Different. No policy and no amount of talk you can do will convince anyone from anything else. People don't want to be from the same tribe so to speak. Encouraging that being different is completely okay would be a start instead of telling everyone that it's not okay and that they should be more similar to each other.
What you've just argued is that purging is bad and therefore any issue which purging could be used as a solution to shouldn't be recognised as an issue. Some cultures are shitty, identifying that homophobic/sexist cultures are worse than none homophobic/sexist cultures doesn't mean I am in favour of purges. Acting like they're all equal but different ignores potential humanitarian solutions through education and aid.
Truely homophobic and sexist cultures, in other words cultures where the raped women is guilty and where homosexuals are persecuted and killed, are indeed inferior. But I'm not sure if that's what you meant by that.
If by sexist/homophobic cultures you mean cultures in which men and women are not undifferentiated entities who can occupy the same jobs and do the same things, then your idea of a Western culture is different to the traditional European culture, and foreign as well.
That's why the traditional European culture is inferior as well.
So your idea of a counter-culture is an individualistic society composed of undifferentiated entities who share no real culture, except tolerating few stuff. No wonder why the conversion to Islam is skyrocketting in Europe.
No, my idea of society is a mix of open cultures who respect each other and have no 'values' which dictate the oppressing or harming of others.
If you keep on trying to protect the "West" under the banner of "gay marriage and adoption", or the right for women to dress up like sluts and not suffer from any sexist remarks, then you're doomed to fail, and to drag us all down with you.
so you're criticizing western cultures for acceptance of gays? i don't really get your point...
also this thread is the most interesting thread i've read over the past couple of weeks. i'm actually enjoying reading it. as a product of the canadian school system we're learned to love multiculturalism, but because of our geographic location i guess we haven't been exposed to as many nutjobs are you guys in europe. that islamic march video posted earlier in freakin london really made me question...
where i live it is multi-ethnic but culturally we're not that far apart. i mean where i live it's primarily asians (indian,korean,chinese,japanese,etc) white people. and like the cultural divide isn't actually that big. they're also like 2nd generation
Wait, so... your school system is allowed by law, to teach you values? When these values are determined by the government?
Pretty much all school systems does it. There are some areas in America that teaches creationism. Which areas of history/politics/geography to focus on and things like that also factor in heavily even if you don't have an agenda.
Japan not readily teaching about the genocides in Asia around WW2. Korea's school system being against Japan are other examples.
On August 12 2012 02:07 Thorakh wrote: [quote]And neither does anyone in this thread. Race =/= culture. Racism is bad. 'Culturalism' is not.
What.
So you'd be fine if there would be a movement promoting the superiority of the German/American/Russian culture with the obvious incentive to free all people with lesser culture so they can finally live the same dream as everyone who is already part of the superior culture?
Race, culture, religion, actually ANY idea with the built in promise that it's superior and that wrongbelievers (or those with the wrong blood) have to be purged or, sorry, enlightened leads to pretty similar results.
People from different cultures/races/religions are... guess what: Different. No policy and no amount of talk you can do will convince anyone from anything else. People don't want to be from the same tribe so to speak. Encouraging that being different is completely okay would be a start instead of telling everyone that it's not okay and that they should be more similar to each other.
What you've just argued is that purging is bad and therefore any issue which purging could be used as a solution to shouldn't be recognised as an issue. Some cultures are shitty, identifying that homophobic/sexist cultures are worse than none homophobic/sexist cultures doesn't mean I am in favour of purges. Acting like they're all equal but different ignores potential humanitarian solutions through education and aid.
Truely homophobic and sexist cultures, in other words cultures where the raped women is guilty and where homosexuals are persecuted and killed, are indeed inferior. But I'm not sure if that's what you meant by that.
If by sexist/homophobic cultures you mean cultures in which men and women are not undifferentiated entities who can occupy the same jobs and do the same things, then your idea of a Western culture is different to the traditional European culture, and foreign as well.
That's why the traditional European culture is inferior as well.
So your idea of a counter-culture is an individualistic society composed of undifferentiated entities who share no real culture, except tolerating few stuff. No wonder why the conversion to Islam is skyrocketting in Europe.
No, my idea of society is a mix of open cultures who respect each other and have no 'values' which dictate the oppressing or harming of others.
If you keep on trying to protect the "West" under the banner of "gay marriage and adoption", or the right for women to dress up like sluts and not suffer from any sexist remarks, then you're doomed to fail, and to drag us all down with you.
so you're criticizing western cultures for acceptance of gays? i don't really get your point...
also this thread is the most interesting thread i've read over the past couple of weeks. i'm actually enjoying reading it. as a product of the canadian school system we're learned to love multiculturalism, but because of our geographic location i guess we haven't been exposed to as many nutjobs are you guys in europe. that islamic march video posted earlier in freakin london really made me question...
where i live it is multi-ethnic but culturally we're not that far apart. i mean where i live it's primarily asians (indian,korean,chinese,japanese,etc) white people. and like the cultural divide isn't actually that big. they're also like 2nd generation
Wait, so... your school system is allowed by law, to teach you values? When these values are determined by the government?
I'm pretty sure every school system in the world by law has to teach certain values. Democracy for instance is always portrayed well in democratic countries, whereas 'the leader' is portrayed well in countries without.
On August 12 2012 19:52 RageBot wrote: Wait, so... your school system is allowed by law, to teach you values? When these values are determined by the government?
Pretty much all school systems does it. There are some areas in America that teaches creationism. Which areas of history/politics/geography to focus on and things like that also factor in heavily even if you don't have an agenda.
Japan not readily teaching about the genocides in Asia around WW2. Korea's school system being against Japan are other examples.
For example, here in France, the schools are pro-EU. We're being thaught that Europe is one big country (despite all the differences between Scandinavia, Spain and Romania) so that the next generations accept a bigger EU, with more power over individual nations.
I guess that Israëli schools, on the other hand, teach that zionism is good and that you have a right to occupy the country, right?
School is a process of normalization; to quote a book even though I don't remember its name :
society doesn't only only produce artifact things, but artifact people.
On August 12 2012 19:52 RageBot wrote: Wait, so... your school system is allowed by law, to teach you values? When these values are determined by the government?
Pretty much all school systems does it. There are some areas in America that teaches creationism. Which areas of history/politics/geography to focus on and things like that also factor in heavily even if you don't have an agenda.
Japan not readily teaching about the genocides in Asia around WW2. Korea's school system being against Japan are other examples.
For example, here in France, the schools are pro-EU. We're being thaught that Europe is one big country (despite all the differences between Scandinavia, Spain and Romania) so that the next generations accept a bigger EU, with more power over individual nations.
I guess that Israëli schools, on the other hand, teach that zionism is good and that you have a right to occupy the country, right?
School is a process of normalization; to quote a book even though I don't remember its name :
society doesn't only only produce artifact things, but artifact people.
Herp derp.
No, up until pretty much now, the official corriculum was teaching democratic values such as pluralism, human rights, and to try and see things from a different point of view (this subject was called "citizenship" in rough translation). The funny thing that in many right-winged schools, (especailly the more religous orriented ones) the teachers made point to tell their students "we are forced to teach you these values, however, they are wrong, and what's right is the bible". Are you even aware of the fact that during the disengagement from Gaza (circa 2005) the majority of Israelies were for the disengagment? (That is for leaving our zionistic-hateful settlements, in order to increase the odds of peace with the Palestinians?).
You see? You make the mistake of believing your media, which shows you "Israel" as a complete whole, without differeing opinions at all, while it is probably one of the most actually multicultural countries in the world:
There's actually a lot of backlash in the media right now, because the ministry of education is trying to enforce more "Zionist-Right-Winged" education right now, and a lot of teachers go against them, with a big majority threatning with a strike.
But isn't the state of Israël presented as a certainty? Do you talk about the legitimacy of the creation of an Israëli state? I hope not, it would be a social suicide! This is what I meant when I said that zionism is thought to be a good thing. Very few in Israël question the country's existance in the first place.
You also said it yourself : your country teaches you of human rights (which, philosophically speaking, is a polemical idea) and democracy. School itself defends certain values.
I don't see how "herp derp" or wikipedia or the French media are relevant.
Multiculturalism seems to work. Look at USA. If you look at Europe, the countries that have had a very high immigration, Germany, UK, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland and the Netherlands are the most successful european countries today. Anything that encourages open-mindness is a good thing. All these thoughts about us and them is disgusting and only stems from small-minded ppl. This fear about losing your culture is unfounded. If your culture really matters, it will stay.
On August 12 2012 10:20 yandere991 wrote: I see some people are using crime rates of immigrant ethnicities as a proxy for the value or "inferiority" of their cultures. In that case I guess Asian culture > all?
That' something I've always wondered... When people bring up issues or statistics regarding race, it's almost always aiming to be negative. But, as far as I can see, it seems that if there's a superior group of humans, it would have to be Eastern Asians. They make up about 1/3 of the world, have incredible work ethics, and are very quick to adapt to new cultures and dominate them. Of course those are all just stereotypes that don't apply to all, but it says something when they're a minority in America and make up such a large percentage of college students. Also, Japan and South Korea are incredibly tiny countries with very minimal natural resources, but through sheer prowess in their fields of business and technology they are world powers. If there's any superior culture (which I don't really believe that there is), I'd say without hesitation that it's Asian.
---
I also don't believe that multiculturalism is bad in any way. If it causes any form of negativity effects, it's the fault of the people who cause the issues, not multiculturalism itself. It's not the fusion that's the cause of problems, it's the people involved who fuck up what should be a good thing. They should be forced into respecting and accepting other people. Ironically, I think that intolerance is probably the least tolerable thing in the world. To me, it's like candy, children, and discipline. Without any form of parental authority, a child will indulge itself on candy all day and every day in their beginning. They will get sick and be unhealthy eventually. At this time, the smart ones will stop eating candy in such excess. The dumb, stubborn ones will eat it, disregarding the evident truth and substituting it with their own delusions that they aren't the problem. If it becomes necesarry, a parent must force/teach a child to eat healthy, as eating just candy is not a way to live. Imo, multiculturalism can only work to benefit people in the long-run. Isolation of culture will never solve any problem, it will just delay them and possibly make them worse. They would be living in a naive, ignorant world in which they are too arrogant to accept anything but themselves. If people cannot respect each other because of things as intangible as culture/ethnicity, I believe it's not only okay to use to force to help them, but should be expected.
If you deny another group's culture because you think it's wrong (unless it involves something that's universally wrong, such as spousal abuse, denying legitimate freedoms, inequality, etc.), it's your fault. You're the issue, not anyone else. Have fun eating candy for the rest of your life, living in the ignorant delusion that you're better off not having to deal with the existence of others.
On August 12 2012 22:18 ninini wrote: Multiculturalism seems to work. Look at USA. If you look at Europe, the countries that have had a very high immigration, Germany, UK, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland and the Netherlands are the most successful european countries today. Anything that encourages open-mindness is a good thing. All these thoughts about us and them is disgusting and only stems from small-minded ppl. This fear about losing your culture is unfounded. If your culture really matters, it will stay.
It isnt about losing your culture. If anything the western world is MORE open-minded which is getting us buttfucked by the arab world when they move to certain locations.
On August 12 2012 21:55 Kukaracha wrote: But isn't the state of Israël presented as a certainty? Do you talk about the legitimacy of the creation of an Israëli state? I hope not, it would be a social suicide! This is what I meant when I said that zionism is thought to be a good thing. Very few in Israël question the country's existance in the first place.
You also said it yourself : your country teaches you of human rights (which, philosophically speaking, is a polemical idea) and democracy. School itself defends certain values.
I don't see how "herp derp" or wikipedia or the French media are relevant.
Hmm...I got your point and you're right to some extent. Several more things:
-The "Herp derp" is a knee-jerk reaction to whenever I see the useage of the word "Zionist", it is used in hundred of different associations. -There is talk about the legitimacy of Israel, however, with positive tones regarding it's creation (for example, i'm in favor of the creation of Israel due to the need of Jews to have a place of their own, however, I would prefer not in actual Israel, both due to the original existant population and because it's too damn hot in here). -The problem I initially had was that, while we had several subjects taught by the government, there were sometimes at odds with what the current governmant stated, while in places like Canada (according to what was said here) the curriculum is solely in support of the current ruling government.
On August 12 2012 22:18 ninini wrote: Multiculturalism seems to work. Look at USA. If you look at Europe, the countries that have had a very high immigration, Germany, UK, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland and the Netherlands are the most successful european countries today. Anything that encourages open-mindness is a good thing. All these thoughts about us and them is disgusting and only stems from small-minded ppl. This fear about losing your culture is unfounded. If your culture really matters, it will stay.
They were always successful , at one stage UK was producing over 50% of the worlds output of manufactured goods.I am not sure how you can say increased immigration from Arab and African countries over the last 10 years has made them successful what made them successful was creating the industrial revolution , having overseas colonies and also law and order (the first nation to create a police force).Norway has massive oil reserves , Germany manufactures alot of stuff and Switzerland is Switzerland.Likewise with the UK increased immigration in recent years had nothing to do with their success nowdays as they were grandfathered into this success.
To prove my point , Japan is the 3rd largest economy in the world and they're a monoculture with miniscule immigration.
On August 12 2012 22:18 ninini wrote: Multiculturalism seems to work. Look at USA. If you look at Europe, the countries that have had a very high immigration, Germany, UK, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Switzerland and the Netherlands are the most successful european countries today. Anything that encourages open-mindness is a good thing. All these thoughts about us and them is disgusting and only stems from small-minded ppl. This fear about losing your culture is unfounded. If your culture really matters, it will stay.
They were always successful , at one stage UK was producing over 50% of the worlds output of manufactured goods.I am not sure how you can say increased immigration from Arab and African countries over the last 10 years has made them successful what made them successful was creating the industrial revolution , having overseas colonies and also law and order (the first nation to create a police force).Norway has massive oil reserves , Germany manufactures alot of stuff and Switzerland is Switzerland.Likewise with the UK increased immigration in recent years had nothing to do with their success nowdays as they were grandfathered into this success.
To prove my point , Japan is the 3rd largest economy in the world and they're a monoculture with miniscule immigration.
Sweden has always had a large immigration, and has largely been a successful country in different areas. Granted that this is the firs time the immigration has been of such a different culture, as it's historically mainly been Europeans, but immigration in itself is hardly something bad.
The problem is that the immigrants nowadays often come from countries that have the political atmosphere that the western world had hundreds of years ago, making it harder for them to assimilate. I still think that if nothing else, it should be considered a way of helping out a fellow human being, and accepting them into a country that's much more open and free than the one they left behind.
Sweden's for a long time been a "socialistic" country, meaning that there's always been a force in the politics to help out and donate to people less fortunate. This goes hand in hand with having tax funded medicine, college etc. This has historically partly been funded by government owned companies that have earned a lot of money. These compete with other private companines, but have managed to stay successful and in a way ease the tax burden. The current right wing government has started selling off as many of these as possible though and lowered the taxes for the money they made. This will likely cause Sweden to shut down a lot of the immigration and social benefits in the future, so we'll see how it goes.
Edit. The government owned companies are / were for instance the weapons industry, a power company, a communications company, a medicine company, and a monopoly on liquor stores as alcoholism used to be a big problem.
On August 13 2012 00:21 Euronyme wrote: Edit. The government owned companies are / were for instance the weapons industry, a power company, a communications company, a medicine company, and a monopoly on liquor stores as alcoholism used to be a big problem.
Alcoholism is still a large problem. Just the only part of your post I know is incorrect. We have roughly the same consumption/capita as in 1960 while countries such as Italy has half of what they had then.
EPT
