Here is a Lecture by Kenan Malik on the topic of Multiculturalism. He talks about the history of multiculturalism in Europe and dispels some myths regarding multiculturalism and immigration that we hold today.
Here is an intro by the dude himself and a transcript in case you would rather read or would like to read with the recording.
"Entitled ‘What is Wrong with Multiculturalism? A European Perspective’, the lecture pulled together many of the themes about immigration, identity, diversity and multiculturalism of which I have been talking and writing recently."
So yeah, I guess the purpose of this thread is public awareness of this information on the topic of multiculturalism as well as to debate and discuss his thoughts and ideas.
Quotes from the talk: His conclusion:
Multiculturalism, on the other hand, by reposing political problems in terms of culture or faith, transforms political conflicts into a form that makes them neither useful nor resolvable. Multicultural policies both constrain the kinds of clashes of opinion that could prove politically fruitful, and unleash the kinds of conflicts that are socially damaging. They transform political debates into cultural collisions and, by imprisoning individuals within their cultures and identities, make such collisions both inevitable and insoluble.
The lesson of Europe, it seems to me, is that if we want to preserve diversity as lived experience, we need also to challenge multiculturalism as a political process.
He supports it by disproving myths:
The first is the idea that European nations used to be homogenous but have become plural in a historically unique fashion.
The second claim is that contemporary immigration is different to previous waves, so much so that social structures need fundamental reorganization to accommodate it.
And third is the belief that European nations have adopted multicultural policies because minorities demanded it.
Both sides in the multiculturalism debate accept these claims. Where they differ is in whether they view immigration, and the social changes it has brought about, as a good or as an ill. Both sides, I want to suggest, are wrong, because these three premises upon which they base their arguments are flawed.
From what I have seen here though, instead of a collaborative understanding culture where people share all the perks of their heritage you end up with a cesspool of different isolated cultures that don't get along very well.
I think it's just the implementation here though where people are encouraged to form their own isolated cultures.
Multiculturalism is suppose to promote leniency and acceptance, but instead creates a lot of ethnocentrism as well as difficulty in ethnic and culture identity amongst youths.
I think a book by David Mathews potrays his difficulty with both identification of blacks and whites.
I live in NY, about 20-30 minutes from a Native American reservation. From what I've seen, all multiculturalism does is make people stubborn. If you're part of a minor ethnic group, like the people in that reservation, you're raised to be damn proud of your heritage. The problems with that, are that you never really fit in in the wider world, and that you don't just keep the positive aspects of your culture, you keep the negative ones too because of some twisted version of multiculturalism; "I shouldn't have to change at all, everyone else should have to deal with the way I am, regardless of how terrible I am."
I'm not 100% sure it's all multiculturalism's fault, as the reservation is also pretty destitute, so the problems might be based more in economics; but I can't believe that's the entire problem.
On August 11 2012 14:14 Millitron wrote: I live in NY, about 20-30 minutes from a Native American reservation. From what I've seen, all multiculturalism does is make people stubborn. If you're part of a minor ethnic group, like the people in that reservation, you're raised to be damn proud of your heritage. The problems with that, are that you never really fit in in the wider world, and that you don't just keep the positive aspects of your culture, you keep the negative ones too because of some twisted version of multiculturalism; "I shouldn't have to change at all, everyone else should have to deal with the way I am, regardless of how terrible I am."
I'm not 100% sure it's all multiculturalism's fault, as the reservation is also pretty destitute, so the problems might be based more in economics; but I can't believe that's the entire problem.
That's not multiculturalism. That cultural segregation.
If it was multicultural, there wouldn't be an area that Native Americans designated as their own.
On August 11 2012 14:14 Millitron wrote: I live in NY, about 20-30 minutes from a Native American reservation. From what I've seen, all multiculturalism does is make people stubborn. If you're part of a minor ethnic group, like the people in that reservation, you're raised to be damn proud of your heritage. The problems with that, are that you never really fit in in the wider world, and that you don't just keep the positive aspects of your culture, you keep the negative ones too because of some twisted version of multiculturalism; "I shouldn't have to change at all, everyone else should have to deal with the way I am, regardless of how terrible I am."
I'm not 100% sure it's all multiculturalism's fault, as the reservation is also pretty destitute, so the problems might be based more in economics; but I can't believe that's the entire problem.
That's not multiculturalism. That cultural segregation.
If it was multicultural, there wouldn't be an area that Native Americans designated as their own.
Using that definition of multicultural (everyone willingly integrates) ... Would anyone really be against multiculturalism? I don't see how it's possible to have an argument in this thread. The title represents a flawed premise. No one is attacking multiculturalism.
On August 11 2012 14:14 Millitron wrote: I live in NY, about 20-30 minutes from a Native American reservation. From what I've seen, all multiculturalism does is make people stubborn. If you're part of a minor ethnic group, like the people in that reservation, you're raised to be damn proud of your heritage. The problems with that, are that you never really fit in in the wider world, and that you don't just keep the positive aspects of your culture, you keep the negative ones too because of some twisted version of multiculturalism; "I shouldn't have to change at all, everyone else should have to deal with the way I am, regardless of how terrible I am."
I'm not 100% sure it's all multiculturalism's fault, as the reservation is also pretty destitute, so the problems might be based more in economics; but I can't believe that's the entire problem.
That's not multiculturalism. That cultural segregation.
If it was multicultural, there wouldn't be an area that Native Americans designated as their own.
It's not really segregation as they're free to come and go as they please. Many of them stay because the reservation acts as a kind of community outreach program, and people of Native American heritage get a payment yearly from the res.
It also negotiates with NYS almost as a sovereign nation. I'm not sure on the whole story, but there's some issue where the reservation government is actually preventing NYS road crews from fixing up a stretch of highway that runs through there. If they have that much power, they aren't just a means of segregation.
On August 11 2012 14:14 Millitron wrote: I live in NY, about 20-30 minutes from a Native American reservation. From what I've seen, all multiculturalism does is make people stubborn. If you're part of a minor ethnic group, like the people in that reservation, you're raised to be damn proud of your heritage. The problems with that, are that you never really fit in in the wider world, and that you don't just keep the positive aspects of your culture, you keep the negative ones too because of some twisted version of multiculturalism; "I shouldn't have to change at all, everyone else should have to deal with the way I am, regardless of how terrible I am."
I'm not 100% sure it's all multiculturalism's fault, as the reservation is also pretty destitute, so the problems might be based more in economics; but I can't believe that's the entire problem.
Multiculturalism (or lack of) can't be blanketly applied to all Indian through one tribe... it differs from tribe to tribe but impoverishment runs pretty common throughout most.
My tribe the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin is vastly different and has been a willing partner for the most part with the state, fed and integration (the majority live off reservation and have high education rates...)
On August 11 2012 14:14 Millitron wrote: I live in NY, about 20-30 minutes from a Native American reservation. From what I've seen, all multiculturalism does is make people stubborn. If you're part of a minor ethnic group, like the people in that reservation, you're raised to be damn proud of your heritage. The problems with that, are that you never really fit in in the wider world, and that you don't just keep the positive aspects of your culture, you keep the negative ones too because of some twisted version of multiculturalism; "I shouldn't have to change at all, everyone else should have to deal with the way I am, regardless of how terrible I am."
I'm not 100% sure it's all multiculturalism's fault, as the reservation is also pretty destitute, so the problems might be based more in economics; but I can't believe that's the entire problem.
Multiculturalism can't be blanketly applied to all Indian resser's through one tribe... it differs from tribe to tribe but impoverishment runs pretty common throughout most.
My tribe the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin is vastly different and has been a willing partner for the most part with the state, fed and integration (the majority live off reservation and have high education rates...)
I figured as much, it's just my experience with it, and my explanation for the problems they have.
Your tribe seems to have taken the high-road, keeping as much of your culture as you can, but being reasonable about it. The Seneca's though, haven't been as cooperative. They're constantly threatening tire fires, and on rare occasions, a native will literally get away with murder, because it happened on their land and their courts have jurisdiction.
On August 11 2012 14:14 Millitron wrote: I live in NY, about 20-30 minutes from a Native American reservation. From what I've seen, all multiculturalism does is make people stubborn. If you're part of a minor ethnic group, like the people in that reservation, you're raised to be damn proud of your heritage. The problems with that, are that you never really fit in in the wider world, and that you don't just keep the positive aspects of your culture, you keep the negative ones too because of some twisted version of multiculturalism; "I shouldn't have to change at all, everyone else should have to deal with the way I am, regardless of how terrible I am."
I'm not 100% sure it's all multiculturalism's fault, as the reservation is also pretty destitute, so the problems might be based more in economics; but I can't believe that's the entire problem.
Multiculturalism can't be blanketly applied to all Indian resser's through one tribe... it differs from tribe to tribe but impoverishment runs pretty common throughout most.
My tribe the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin is vastly different and has been a willing partner for the most part with the state, fed and integration (the majority live off reservation and have high education rates...)
I figured as much, it's just my experience with it, and my explanation for the problems they have.
Your tribe seems to have taken the high-road, keeping as much of your culture as you can, but being reasonable about it. The Seneca's though, haven't been as cooperative. They're constantly threatening tire fires, and on rare occasions, a native will literally get away with murder, because it happened on their land and their courts have jurisdiction.
Depends on the tribe man... alot of other tribal peoples (like our own COUGH) hate especially activist tribes like the Navajo's, Oneida Nation of New York or the Oglala's (although I guess they have a good reason to still be pissed...).
Although this thread was aimed at European mutliculturalism, it would be a tough case to say its failed here, and although using Indian tribes would be an especially strong point, hereto it can faulter in that the United States has treated many tribes truly as a sovereign entity and were never meant for full integration.
On August 11 2012 14:43 DannyJ wrote: I really don't think talking about native American indian tribes really relates well to the issues in Europe.
I agree... further discussion about Native tribes should be quashed lol...
P.S. Native Americans cannot get away with murder or other serious crimes under the General Crimes Act or the MJA which subjects them to Federal prosecution concurrently with tribal prosecution (exception only under rare circumstances like a treaty or Congressional delegation)
On August 11 2012 14:14 Millitron wrote: I live in NY, about 20-30 minutes from a Native American reservation. From what I've seen, all multiculturalism does is make people stubborn. If you're part of a minor ethnic group, like the people in that reservation, you're raised to be damn proud of your heritage. The problems with that, are that you never really fit in in the wider world, and that you don't just keep the positive aspects of your culture, you keep the negative ones too because of some twisted version of multiculturalism; "I shouldn't have to change at all, everyone else should have to deal with the way I am, regardless of how terrible I am."
I'm not 100% sure it's all multiculturalism's fault, as the reservation is also pretty destitute, so the problems might be based more in economics; but I can't believe that's the entire problem.
Multiculturalism can't be blanketly applied to all Indian resser's through one tribe... it differs from tribe to tribe but impoverishment runs pretty common throughout most.
My tribe the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin is vastly different and has been a willing partner for the most part with the state, fed and integration (the majority live off reservation and have high education rates...)
I figured as much, it's just my experience with it, and my explanation for the problems they have.
Your tribe seems to have taken the high-road, keeping as much of your culture as you can, but being reasonable about it. The Seneca's though, haven't been as cooperative. They're constantly threatening tire fires, and on rare occasions, a native will literally get away with murder, because it happened on their land and their courts have jurisdiction.
Depends on the tribe man... alot of other tribal peoples (like our own COUGH) hate especially activist tribes like the Navajo's, Oneida Nation of New York or the Oglala's (although I guess they have a good reason to still be pissed...).
Although this thread was aimed at European mutliculturalism, it would be a tough case to say its failed here, and although using Indian tribes would be an especially strong point, hereto it can faulter in that the United States has treated many tribes truly as a sovereign entity and were never meant for full integration.
I think the way the natives are treated in Alaska should be the model. They don't have their own reservations, but still manage to keep the positives of their culture. Northwest Coast art is making a huge comeback, and is providing quite a boost to their economy; they sell totem poles for 1000$ per foot. But since they don't have their own little realm, they have to try to fit in with the rest of the world.
This might be getting off-topic, so if you want to continue you can PM me.
Anyone willing to explain to an American what Malik means by a multicultural "political process," since he's so careful to distinguish that from "lived experience"?
On August 11 2012 14:56 gorbonic wrote: Anyone willing to explain to an American what Malik means by a multicultural "political process," since he's so careful to distinguish that from "lived experience"?
oh, he just means that "multiculturalism" was used by the state for it's own means, rather than immigrants "fighting" for multiculturalism. the example of germany was that immigrants were "guest workers" and denied citizenship. etc..
i may be wrong... but yeah, he explains it way better ofc, so yeah ^__^;;
Heres something to think about, we all evolved from the same species, we are all the same species. The differences in how we look, or in out culture is developed by aspects of our lives that are 100% not in our control.
There is nothing wrong with multiculturalism assuming you desire to deny that some cultures can foster behavior which has a negative effect on society, such as an inclination towards violence. The truth is that not all cultures are equal, some are better or worse than others.
On August 11 2012 14:30 forgottendreams wrote: My tribe the Oneida Nation of Wisconsin is vastly different and has been a willing partner for the most part with the state, fed and integration (the majority live off reservation and have high education rates...)
This. Problems arise when 1) the majority are racist assholes (happens more often than we would like to admit) and/or 2) minority groups willingly segregate themselves even further and actively oppose ANY attempt at assimilation, especially when they demand special rights which are mostly based on their religion (So you wanna wear a niqab in a country where balaclavas and facewear are banned in public? Or circumcise your children in countries where it's illegal? Too bad, assimilate or move somewhere where it's tolerated. I even remember a case in Germany a few years back where a man claimed in court that he had the right to beat his wife under Sharia Law. Yeah bitch, too bad you're in GERMANY under THEIR LAW.)
The other problem is that 1 leads to 2 and vice-versa, so you have a vicious circle.
On August 11 2012 14:14 Millitron wrote: I live in NY, about 20-30 minutes from a Native American reservation. From what I've seen, all multiculturalism does is make people stubborn. If you're part of a minor ethnic group, like the people in that reservation, you're raised to be damn proud of your heritage. The problems with that, are that you never really fit in in the wider world, and that you don't just keep the positive aspects of your culture, you keep the negative ones too because of some twisted version of multiculturalism; "I shouldn't have to change at all, everyone else should have to deal with the way I am, regardless of how terrible I am."
I'm not 100% sure it's all multiculturalism's fault, as the reservation is also pretty destitute, so the problems might be based more in economics; but I can't believe that's the entire problem.
That's not multiculturalism. That cultural segregation.
If it was multicultural, there wouldn't be an area that Native Americans designated as their own.
Using that definition of multicultural (everyone willingly integrates) ... Would anyone really be against multiculturalism?
Yes. You're correct that most individuals won't openly express that they're against it but the cultural units themselves will be against it. The first goal of any type of organisation (whether it's an ant- or beehive, a corporation, a state, religion or a culture) is self-preservation. If another entity threatens that organisation it will be fought.
That's also the reason why some legislations that were intended to be pro-multiculture (think of a random person stepping into a conflict between two random organisations) like forced migrations, quotas, integration projects in school tend to fuel anti-multiculturalist points of view without originally intending to do so.
The solution? Stop trying to work on integrating everyone into the same puddle of mud by telling people they're all the same. No one wants to hear or live that. Start telling people that others are different and it's okay that others are different. Everything has strengths and weaknesses.
The stats tell the story.28% of UK Muslims want the UK to introduce sharia law. I'm surprised feminists aren't more vocally anti-Islam to be honest , the way women are treated under sharia law is shameful.
On August 11 2012 15:52 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: The stats tell the story.28% of UK Muslims want the UK to introduce sharia law. I'm surprised feminists aren't more vocally anti-Islam to be honest , the way women are treated under sharia law is shameful.
You're right, the stats do tell the story. 72% of UK Muslims don't want to introduce sharia law.
On August 11 2012 15:52 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: The stats tell the story.28% of UK Muslims want the UK to introduce sharia law. I'm surprised feminists aren't more vocally anti-Islam to be honest , the way women are treated under sharia law is shameful.
You're right, the stats do tell the story. 72% of UK Muslims don't want to introduce sharia law.
Hey, how dare you use the same statistic to prove your point the other way!
40% of people aged 18-25 want weed legalised in the UK. The other 60% are too high to care.
We can and should be allowed to all live our lives however we choose, assuming we stay within the laws set down by democratically elected governments. Multiculturalism is here to stay, more often than not people from minorities actually do integrate well and since most countries now require you to learn the native tongue to obtain citizenship, minorities have more incentives to integrate while also being able to keep their culture alive.
Theres nothing wrong with multiculturism. The trouble we have in the UK is that we have multiculturism for multiculturisms sake. Its too easy for people who speak out against multiculturism or immigration to be pegged a racist, not matter how logical or reasonable their arguements are.
Multiculturalism has failed in Europe. Just visit London, probably the most multicultural capital in Europe.
You expect to see a harmonious cooexistence of cultures but what you get are completely segregated neighborhoods according to race and ethnicity. The Pakistanis are doing their own thing in east London, the Somalis their own, the Indians their own, the Africans their own, the Arabs their own, the Chinese their own etc etc all with little will to integrate to British culture, nevermind tolerating other cultures.
On August 11 2012 15:52 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: The stats tell the story.28% of UK Muslims want the UK to introduce sharia law. I'm surprised feminists aren't more vocally anti-Islam to be honest , the way women are treated under sharia law is shameful.
You're right, the stats do tell the story. 72% of UK Muslims don't want to introduce sharia law.
My point being 28% of ~3 million muslims is a hell of a lot of people not integrating into society.... Of course under sharia law homosexuality is punishable by death so that just shows you what that 28% of people think about that segment of society.Puts the whole 'Chick-Fil-A' thing in perspective.
On August 11 2012 18:41 AlphaWhale wrote: Go to school. Have a geography test. Haven't studied. Answer each question like it's a cheesy sex novel knowing it will be read to the entire class either by me or the teacher (which it was).
Schools like to make you feel like shit when you're unable to do the work (dropped down the lowest maths level because I kept forgetting my calculator at home) so I flipped that shit on it's head. tl;dr I did something goofy and now everyone has a happy memory of that time in high school.
Other seconds of courage usually involve climbing shit.
Honestly, I've never really understood wanting cultural diversity. Personally, clinging to stuff that your ancestors did or didn't do seems pretty silly and irrelevant.
The best argument in favor of it that I have heard is that encourages people to have different perspectives. While true, this isn't always a good thing, and perceptive people are always going to see through different perspectives regardless of encouragement.
On August 11 2012 15:52 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: The stats tell the story.28% of UK Muslims want the UK to introduce sharia law. I'm surprised feminists aren't more vocally anti-Islam to be honest , the way women are treated under sharia law is shameful.
You're right, the stats do tell the story. 72% of UK Muslims don't want to introduce sharia law.
My point being 28% of ~3 million muslims is a hell of a lot of people not integrating into society.... Of course under sharia law homosexuality is punishable by death so that just shows you what that 28% of people think about that segment of society.Puts the whole 'Chick-Fil-A' thing in perspective.
His point being, 72% of ~3 million muslims is a hell of a lot of people integrating into society.... Who's to say that the other minority can't be integrated later on, or perhaps their children?
On August 11 2012 15:42 zalz wrote: Multiculturalism doesn't work. You need some form of cohession, some larger culture that everyone somehow feels a part of.
If not that, it is simply cultural segregation, something which is already a fact in many places in Europe.
Not all cultures are equal.
OH NO YOU DI'INT!
About Europe: When you take into your country people from third-world countries like Afghanistan, countries in which it is legal to stone a woman for adultry, when a woman is raped it's always her fault, when people are told since they are young that Islam is the "master religon", and that the "Dihmmies" are there for you to rape, kill and enslave. When you actively give these people money, when you never tell them to adapt, when you bash anyone who says anything against them as "racist" and "islamophobe" and when you don't give them fair judgement, you get a very large population of people who not only didn't integrate, but are actively harming society itself.
Note to people who will respond to this: -I didn't say that everyone who comes from Afghanistan, Somalia and so on are like that, but that a lot of people are. -I didn't say that "Islam is bad herp derp", I said that the way Islam is taught in countries like these is racist and sexist. -I didn't say that these people shouldn't be given money at all, I said that you shouldn't, in any way, promote such a hateful ideology by giving it free money.
On August 11 2012 15:42 zalz wrote: Multiculturalism doesn't work. You need some form of cohession, some larger culture that everyone somehow feels a part of.
If not that, it is simply cultural segregation, something which is already a fact in many places in Europe.
Not all cultures are equal.
OH NO YOU DI'INT!
About Europe: When you take into your country people from third-world countries like Afghanistan, countries in which it is legal to stone a woman for adultry, when a woman is raped it's always her fault, when people are told since they are young that Islam is the "master religon", and that the "Dihmmies" are there for you to rape, kill and enslave. When you actively give these people money, when you never tell them to adapt, when you bash anyone who says anything against them as "racist" and "islamophobe" and when you don't give them fair judgement, you get a very large population of people who not only didn't integrate, but are actively harming society itself.
Note to people who will respond to this: -I didn't say that everyone who comes from Afghanistan, Somalia and so on are like that, but that a lot of people are. -I didn't say that "Islam is bad herp derp", I said that the way Islam is taught in countries like these is racist and sexist. -I didn't say that these people shouldn't be given money at all, I said that you shouldn't, in any way, promote such a hateful ideology by giving it free money.
The people who actively flees these countries and has the money to go to Europe are often people who disagree about how their country is run and what religion they're taught though. Often upper class from what I can tell.
When asian immigrants first came to UK. they were beaten, chased down roads, all sorts. Those communities decided it was safer to stick together and stay out of the white guys ways. That issue no longer exists and younger generations are starting to mix more and get along. Multiculturalism will work, it just needs more time.
On August 11 2012 15:42 zalz wrote: Multiculturalism doesn't work. You need some form of cohession, some larger culture that everyone somehow feels a part of.
If not that, it is simply cultural segregation, something which is already a fact in many places in Europe.
Not all cultures are equal.
OH NO YOU DI'INT!
About Europe: When you take into your country people from third-world countries like Afghanistan, countries in which it is legal to stone a woman for adultry, when a woman is raped it's always her fault, when people are told since they are young that Islam is the "master religon", and that the "Dihmmies" are there for you to rape, kill and enslave. When you actively give these people money, when you never tell them to adapt, when you bash anyone who says anything against them as "racist" and "islamophobe" and when you don't give them fair judgement, you get a very large population of people who not only didn't integrate, but are actively harming society itself.
Note to people who will respond to this: -I didn't say that everyone who comes from Afghanistan, Somalia and so on are like that, but that a lot of people are. -I didn't say that "Islam is bad herp derp", I said that the way Islam is taught in countries like these is racist and sexist. -I didn't say that these people shouldn't be given money at all, I said that you shouldn't, in any way, promote such a hateful ideology by giving it free money.
The people who actively flees these countries and has the money to go to Europe are often people who disagree about how their country is run and what religion they're taught though. Often upper class from what I can tell.
It is actually a big problem that it doesn't cost them a lot of money to get here, thus making Europe a far more tempting destination for economical refugees that come for money rather than disagreement with their government.
Well-off, connected people with a political grudge will buy a planeticket to America.
I'm kinda disgusted about the people who just come to the country and leech ALL out of the social security system. There have been SO many cases in my country where people lie to the government, mainly about their childs and heatl condition etc. to get max support from the governemnt. We as tax payers must pay this all. And they still complain how they have just 60 square meter house FOR FREE. Its ridiculous.
Luckily there is a counterweight to this immigration, because there are a lot good people. Who acts just like us, does work and tries to proceed in their career. I higlhy respect these people as they can ADAPT to other enviroment and work their hart out to have what they deserve.
Even all the sexual crimes are mostly committed by immigrates. The studies that i have read, also indicate that its HIGHLY possible that they will continue to commit crimes. In my law system there is no way to kick any people out. They just get 1-2 years of probation and something like 1000 euros of indemnity or something like that.
Im no racist at all, but it just makes me sick how they can be so abusive, and yet so arrogant.
Having seen my beautiful city of Antwerp turn from a city of the working class to a Arab Ghetto its safe to say I dislike the new multicultural state, even more so since they have virtually no economical benefit. Most are criminal, have low jobincome or are on wellfare.
On August 11 2012 20:08 Bahamut1337 wrote: Having seen my beautiful city of Antwerp turn from a city of the working class to a Arab Ghetto its safe to say I dislike the new multicultural state, even more so since they have virtually no economical benefit. Most are criminal, have low jobincome or are on wellfare.
Sounds rather segregated to me. Segregation =/= multiculturalism.
On August 11 2012 18:37 Blacktion wrote: Theres nothing wrong with multiculturism. The trouble we have in the UK is that we have multiculturism for multiculturisms sake. Its too easy for people who speak out against multiculturism or immigration to be pegged a racist, not matter how logical or reasonable their arguements are.
I hear this parroted a lot, and I don't think there's much in it tbh. For one thing, what does ' multiculturism for multiculturisms sake' actually mean? And the people who are being pegged as racists are the ones holding 'No More Mosque' signs, or claiming that our (spurious notion of) national identity is being eroded, based exclusively on the rubbish and lies read in the Express, Mail et al. The fact that the topic is brought up all the damned time is evidence enough that no one is being shouted down. The conversation is there to be had but if anti-immigration arguments are to be taken seriously they have to be well researched and not sound uncomfortably similiar to 'rights for whites', which frankly a lot of it does.
On August 11 2012 15:42 zalz wrote: Multiculturalism doesn't work. You need some form of cohession, some larger culture that everyone somehow feels a part of.
If not that, it is simply cultural segregation, something which is already a fact in many places in Europe.
Not all cultures are equal.
OH NO YOU DI'INT!
About Europe: When you take into your country people from third-world countries like Afghanistan, countries in which it is legal to stone a woman for adultry, when a woman is raped it's always her fault, when people are told since they are young that Islam is the "master religon", and that the "Dihmmies" are there for you to rape, kill and enslave. When you actively give these people money, when you never tell them to adapt, when you bash anyone who says anything against them as "racist" and "islamophobe" and when you don't give them fair judgement, you get a very large population of people who not only didn't integrate, but are actively harming society itself.
Note to people who will respond to this: -I didn't say that everyone who comes from Afghanistan, Somalia and so on are like that, but that a lot of people are. -I didn't say that "Islam is bad herp derp", I said that the way Islam is taught in countries like these is racist and sexist. -I didn't say that these people shouldn't be given money at all, I said that you shouldn't, in any way, promote such a hateful ideology by giving it free money.
The people who actively flees these countries and has the money to go to Europe are often people who disagree about how their country is run and what religion they're taught though. Often upper class from what I can tell.
Explain to me why Somali's in Denmark and the Netherlands continue to support a highly orthodox form of Islam, where woman are 2nd rate despite the fact their nations are failed states due that very same Islam.
Open your eyes and smell the coffee, Europe is going to have a civil war within 30 years unless Immigrants and their kids start being part of society and start taking responsiblity. People in the city of Antwerp are already talking about amateur militia's to clean up the streets if stuff gets worse. A woman can barely walk around unless she wears a veil
On August 11 2012 20:08 Bahamut1337 wrote: Having seen my beautiful city of Antwerp turn from a city of the working class to a Arab Ghetto its safe to say I dislike the new multicultural state, even more so since they have virtually no economical benefit. Most are criminal, have low jobincome or are on wellfare.
Sounds rather segregated to me. Segregation =/= multiculturalism.
I could name dozens of majority white low income area's where they could live, but they do not. Its self imposed segregation at best, nothing the goverment can do about that. The results should even be clear in political correct sweden.
Denouncing multiculturalism is kind of easy. But denouncing the powerful people having promoted it, who keep promiting it today, and the reasons why they did it requires true courage. Any journalist citing names would get instantly banned of all media corporations. See Rick Sanchez example.
Thing I personally hate the most about multiculturalism is that the ones who preached it the most at first (Jews) are the ones who in reality actually practice it the less.
Denouncing multiculturalism is kind of easy. But denouncing the powerful people having promoted it, who keep promiting it today, and the reasons why they did it requires true courage. Any journalist citing names would get instantly banned of all media corporations.
Thing I personally hate the most about multiculturalism is that the ones who preached it the most at first (Jews) are the ones who in reality actually practice it the less.
Israel is a hugely diverse state with North Africans Europeans Ethiopians Africans and South-East Asians, not to mention with a vast array of different religions.
It were the companies that wanted gues workers, but it was the Socialist left which decided they should all stay and leech the system to a near death.
On August 11 2012 15:52 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: The stats tell the story.28% of UK Muslims want the UK to introduce sharia law. I'm surprised feminists aren't more vocally anti-Islam to be honest , the way women are treated under sharia law is shameful.
You're right, the stats do tell the story. 72% of UK Muslims don't want to introduce sharia law.
My point being 28% of ~3 million muslims is a hell of a lot of people not integrating into society.... Of course under sharia law homosexuality is punishable by death so that just shows you what that 28% of people think about that segment of society.Puts the whole 'Chick-Fil-A' thing in perspective.
His point being, 72% of ~3 million muslims is a hell of a lot of people integrating into society.... Who's to say that the other minority can't be integrated later on, or perhaps their children?
Well your profile states you live in Slovakia so i doubt you have much first hand knowledge of this type of thing but as has been said many times these immigrants move mostly into slums in East London , Manchester and Birmingham.White people started moving out of these areas in the 80s and are under 50% in most of these ghettos by now.
I see these areas becoming less integrated as the percentage of muslims increases and these people feel more secure practising their own customs as opposed to the customs of the rest of the country this will inevitably lead to more conflict and a possible civil war in the future.
Note that i don't have a problem with them practising these beliefs in their own countries - Afghanistan , Iran or whatever i just worry that the strides we have made in equality of women , homosexuals and other groups will be eroded by this extremist religion.If we weren't bombing their countries maybe not so many would be coming in the first place but thats another topic altogether....
Denouncing multiculturalism is kind of easy. But denouncing the powerful people having promoted it, who keep promiting it today, and the reasons why they did it requires true courage. Any journalist citing names would get instantly banned of all media corporations.
Thing I personally hate the most about multiculturalism is that the ones who preached it the most at first (Jews) are the ones who in reality actually practice it the less.
Israel is a hugely diverse state with North Africans Europeans Ethiopians Africans and South-East Asians, not to mention with a vast array of different religions.
It were the companies that wanted gues workers, but it was the Socialist left which decided they should all stay and leech the system to a near death.
"The companies" don't mean shit also. They're names, people, lobbies, interests behind these abstract entities.
The companies did not ask for them to stay.the time they had any use for their hard and unskilled labour is long gone. It was the left which decided they should stay
On August 11 2012 19:58 Sepi wrote: I'm kinda disgusted about the people who just come to the country and leech ALL out of the social security system. There have been SO many cases in my country where people lie to the government, mainly about their childs and heatl condition etc. to get max support from the governemnt. We as tax payers must pay this all. And they still complain how they have just 60 square meter house FOR FREE. Its ridiculous.
Luckily there is a counterweight to this immigration, because there are a lot good people. Who acts just like us, does work and tries to proceed in their career. I higlhy respect these people as they can ADAPT to other enviroment and work their hart out to have what they deserve.
Even all the sexual crimes are mostly committed by immigrates. The studies that i have read, also indicate that its HIGHLY possible that they will continue to commit crimes. In my law system there is no way to kick any people out. They just get 1-2 years of probation and something like 1000 euros of indemnity or something like that.
Im no racist at all, but it just makes me sick how they can be so abusive, and yet so arrogant.
Wow really? Do you actually live in Finland? Holy shit that's just sad. You're famous for having one of the most racist social policies, and one of the absolute smallest immigration rates in all of Europe, and yet you complain there's too much? You have 150k immigrants and children of immigrants total, which equals a 2% of the population. Don't you have more serious issues than that? Alcoholism for instance? I seem to recall that just about every hobo in Sweden speaks with a Finnish accent.
On August 11 2012 19:58 Sepi wrote: I'm kinda disgusted about the people who just come to the country and leech ALL out of the social security system. There have been SO many cases in my country where people lie to the government, mainly about their childs and heatl condition etc. to get max support from the governemnt. We as tax payers must pay this all. And they still complain how they have just 60 square meter house FOR FREE. Its ridiculous.
Luckily there is a counterweight to this immigration, because there are a lot good people. Who acts just like us, does work and tries to proceed in their career. I higlhy respect these people as they can ADAPT to other enviroment and work their hart out to have what they deserve.
Even all the sexual crimes are mostly committed by immigrates. The studies that i have read, also indicate that its HIGHLY possible that they will continue to commit crimes. In my law system there is no way to kick any people out. They just get 1-2 years of probation and something like 1000 euros of indemnity or something like that.
Im no racist at all, but it just makes me sick how they can be so abusive, and yet so arrogant.
Wow really? Do you actually live in Finland? Holy shit that's just sad. You're famous for having one of the most racist social policies, and one of the absolute smallest immigration rates in all of Europe, and yet you complain there's too much? You have 150k immigrants and children of immigrants total, which equals a 2% of the population. Don't you have more serious issues than that? Alcoholism for instance? I seem to recall that just about every hobo in Sweden speaks with a Finnish accent.
Well, when almost all the sexual crimes are comitted by immigrants, some people might consider that a problem worth adressing.
On August 11 2012 18:38 Psychobabas wrote: Multiculturalism has failed in Europe. Just visit London, probably the most multicultural capital in Europe.
You expect to see a harmonious cooexistence of cultures but what you get are completely segregated neighborhoods according to race and ethnicity. The Pakistanis are doing their own thing in east London, the Somalis their own, the Indians their own, the Africans their own, the Arabs their own, the Chinese their own etc etc all with little will to integrate to British culture, nevermind tolerating other cultures.
Some can barely speak a word of English.
I'm pretty sure this is okay. As long as no one breaks the law, there's nothing wrong with having cultural geographical groupings. There are generally locations where Aussies go, Polish go, Spanish go as well as Africans and Orientals. There are grouping areas for the English in almost every country. There are plenty who come from these areas who branch out, the next generation will intermarry with other cultures. It takes a while but divisions get broken down. And as a reward we get a shitload of talent across the gene pool of humanity. Worked for the US as far as I can see (although the incredible influx of Mexicans has sort of upset the apple cart).
On August 11 2012 19:58 Sepi wrote: I'm kinda disgusted about the people who just come to the country and leech ALL out of the social security system. There have been SO many cases in my country where people lie to the government, mainly about their childs and heatl condition etc. to get max support from the governemnt. We as tax payers must pay this all. And they still complain how they have just 60 square meter house FOR FREE. Its ridiculous.
Luckily there is a counterweight to this immigration, because there are a lot good people. Who acts just like us, does work and tries to proceed in their career. I higlhy respect these people as they can ADAPT to other enviroment and work their hart out to have what they deserve.
Even all the sexual crimes are mostly committed by immigrates. The studies that i have read, also indicate that its HIGHLY possible that they will continue to commit crimes. In my law system there is no way to kick any people out. They just get 1-2 years of probation and something like 1000 euros of indemnity or something like that.
Im no racist at all, but it just makes me sick how they can be so abusive, and yet so arrogant.
This isn't really a complaint about multiculturalism, rather a complaint about the state of the Finnish legal system and the weakness of its determination process for working out validity of benefit claims.
On August 11 2012 19:58 Sepi wrote: I'm kinda disgusted about the people who just come to the country and leech ALL out of the social security system. There have been SO many cases in my country where people lie to the government, mainly about their childs and heatl condition etc. to get max support from the governemnt. We as tax payers must pay this all. And they still complain how they have just 60 square meter house FOR FREE. Its ridiculous.
Luckily there is a counterweight to this immigration, because there are a lot good people. Who acts just like us, does work and tries to proceed in their career. I higlhy respect these people as they can ADAPT to other enviroment and work their hart out to have what they deserve.
Even all the sexual crimes are mostly committed by immigrates. The studies that i have read, also indicate that its HIGHLY possible that they will continue to commit crimes. In my law system there is no way to kick any people out. They just get 1-2 years of probation and something like 1000 euros of indemnity or something like that.
Im no racist at all, but it just makes me sick how they can be so abusive, and yet so arrogant.
Wow really? Do you actually live in Finland? Holy shit that's just sad. You're famous for having one of the most racist social policies, and one of the absolute smallest immigration rates in all of Europe, and yet you complain there's too much? You have 150k immigrants and children of immigrants total, which equals a 2% of the population. Don't you have more serious issues than that? Alcoholism for instance? I seem to recall that just about every hobo in Sweden speaks with a Finnish accent.
I think Finland has a model we should follow, it forces people to join society. Its not like Sweden where a Somali can get 8 kids and make the taxpayer pay for it.
You seem to avoid the rest of his post, Immigrants are more criminal, less educated, cheat the system more, rape more etc. If you would have a society with 30-40 percent immigrants it would be unliveable.
Also Where are the Swedish Jews? Oh most left due to immigration from intolerant groups? Oh wow that is something to be proud off!
On August 11 2012 19:58 Sepi wrote: I'm kinda disgusted about the people who just come to the country and leech ALL out of the social security system. There have been SO many cases in my country where people lie to the government, mainly about their childs and heatl condition etc. to get max support from the governemnt. We as tax payers must pay this all. And they still complain how they have just 60 square meter house FOR FREE. Its ridiculous.
Luckily there is a counterweight to this immigration, because there are a lot good people. Who acts just like us, does work and tries to proceed in their career. I higlhy respect these people as they can ADAPT to other enviroment and work their hart out to have what they deserve.
Even all the sexual crimes are mostly committed by immigrates. The studies that i have read, also indicate that its HIGHLY possible that they will continue to commit crimes. In my law system there is no way to kick any people out. They just get 1-2 years of probation and something like 1000 euros of indemnity or something like that.
Im no racist at all, but it just makes me sick how they can be so abusive, and yet so arrogant.
This isn't really a complaint about multiculturalism, rather a complaint about the state of the Finnish legal system and the weakness of its determination process for working out validity of benefit claims.
True, but its still all because of multiculturalism. In finland, we are nowhere near of other nordic countries like norway or sweden yeah. And its not that big problem because our economics can easily handle it, but mutliculture is ongoing process here. Im not against it, and i havent even seen its all sides yet. The things that i read are kinda contradictious and have both sides so i cant speak anything about that of myself.
On August 11 2012 21:11 Bahamut1337 wrote: I think Finland has a model we should follow, it forces people to join society. Its not like Sweden where a Somali can get 8 kids and make the taxpayer pay for it.
Wrong. We pay much more than swedish people per immigrant. Our numbers just arent in the swedish level to match their overall expenses.
[Edit] Just to add, i read an article that we give something near to 2000 euros average per immigrant for month ( Grown ups with families). I think it was 2nd best rated in the world. It was more than twice compared to many other european countries. So we fully provide everything to them that they need in order to adapt to the society. I don't remember it exactly because it was more than a year ago in a newspaper, but it tells definately something.
On August 11 2012 20:47 Euronyme wrote: Wow really? Do you actually live in Finland? Holy shit that's just sad. You're famous for having one of the most racist social policies, and one of the absolute smallest immigration rates in all of Europe, and yet you complain there's too much? You have 150k immigrants and children of immigrants total, which equals a 2% of the population. Don't you have more serious issues than that? Alcoholism for instance? I seem to recall that just about every hobo in Sweden speaks with a Finnish accent.
Haha, now its you who brings up the mileading stereotypes that doesnt belong in this discussion. Dont know anything about your hobos really and i dont care. Just to note that we dont see that much of them here on public lol.
I do not see how its racist policy if you dont let everyone to come to LIVE in your country whitout working or doing any good to the society like swedish do. Its not like the all of them is unemployed, but you cant deny that there is MUCH of them in your society. The multiculturaliaism is part of your society now, and there is no denying it but i cannot see why you see it as racist policy if everyone doesn't follow?
I do not complain about immigrants, and i think its a good thing. It just my personal opinion, that in long time run they should be forced to try to earn their living by them selves. I get it that it takes time to settle in new enviroment and society, but majority of unemployed foreign people even do not try really to get any work, its just that our social security system encourages that kind of life style. Its not because of multiculturalism.
What im trying to point out is, do they really need the 1/4-1/3 or more to be immigrants to get that actual multicultural feeling, which could lead to them blending in to the society better? Or is it just that many of these people are lazy when they suddenly get all these benefits, so they don't have to contribute any good in the foreign society? Don't really know. I bet there is no answer : (
On August 11 2012 19:58 Sepi wrote: I'm kinda disgusted about the people who just come to the country and leech ALL out of the social security system. There have been SO many cases in my country where people lie to the government, mainly about their childs and heatl condition etc. to get max support from the governemnt. We as tax payers must pay this all. And they still complain how they have just 60 square meter house FOR FREE. Its ridiculous.
Luckily there is a counterweight to this immigration, because there are a lot good people. Who acts just like us, does work and tries to proceed in their career. I higlhy respect these people as they can ADAPT to other enviroment and work their hart out to have what they deserve.
Even all the sexual crimes are mostly committed by immigrates. The studies that i have read, also indicate that its HIGHLY possible that they will continue to commit crimes. In my law system there is no way to kick any people out. They just get 1-2 years of probation and something like 1000 euros of indemnity or something like that.
Im no racist at all, but it just makes me sick how they can be so abusive, and yet so arrogant.
Wow really? Do you actually live in Finland? Holy shit that's just sad. You're famous for having one of the most racist social policies, and one of the absolute smallest immigration rates in all of Europe, and yet you complain there's too much? You have 150k immigrants and children of immigrants total, which equals a 2% of the population. Don't you have more serious issues than that? Alcoholism for instance? I seem to recall that just about every hobo in Sweden speaks with a Finnish accent.
I think Finland has a model we should follow, it forces people to join society. Its not like Sweden where a Somali can get 8 kids and make the taxpayer pay for it.
You seem to avoid the rest of his post, Immigrants are more criminal, less educated, cheat the system more, rape more etc. If you would have a society with 30-40 percent immigrants it would be unliveable.
Also Where are the Swedish Jews? Oh most left due to immigration from intolerant groups? Oh wow that is something to be proud off!
A lot of whites are also targeted. And because of that all whites fleed the places flooded by African/Middle-Eastern immigrants (totally not the case with Asians).
In France, most Jewish intellectuals/media were pro-immigration and forbade any criticize of third world immigration as long as they only targeted the white natives. As soon as the immigrants moved to other areas, and that they realized that they were by far more anti-semitic than the French because of the Palestinian conflict, they started to allow and even encourage people to denounce "Islam" and so on.
On August 11 2012 19:58 Sepi wrote: I'm kinda disgusted about the people who just come to the country and leech ALL out of the social security system. There have been SO many cases in my country where people lie to the government, mainly about their childs and heatl condition etc. to get max support from the governemnt. We as tax payers must pay this all. And they still complain how they have just 60 square meter house FOR FREE. Its ridiculous.
Luckily there is a counterweight to this immigration, because there are a lot good people. Who acts just like us, does work and tries to proceed in their career. I higlhy respect these people as they can ADAPT to other enviroment and work their hart out to have what they deserve.
Even all the sexual crimes are mostly committed by immigrates. The studies that i have read, also indicate that its HIGHLY possible that they will continue to commit crimes. In my law system there is no way to kick any people out. They just get 1-2 years of probation and something like 1000 euros of indemnity or something like that.
Im no racist at all, but it just makes me sick how they can be so abusive, and yet so arrogant.
Wow really? Do you actually live in Finland? Holy shit that's just sad. You're famous for having one of the most racist social policies, and one of the absolute smallest immigration rates in all of Europe, and yet you complain there's too much? You have 150k immigrants and children of immigrants total, which equals a 2% of the population. Don't you have more serious issues than that? Alcoholism for instance? I seem to recall that just about every hobo in Sweden speaks with a Finnish accent.
I think Finland has a model we should follow, it forces people to join society. Its not like Sweden where a Somali can get 8 kids and make the taxpayer pay for it.
You seem to avoid the rest of his post, Immigrants are more criminal, less educated, cheat the system more, rape more etc. If you would have a society with 30-40 percent immigrants it would be unliveable.
Also Where are the Swedish Jews? Oh most left due to immigration from intolerant groups? Oh wow that is something to be proud off!
A lot of whites are also targeted. And because of that all whites fleed the places flooded by African/Middle-Eastern immigrants (totally not the case with Asians).
In France, most Jewish intellectuals/media were pro-immigration and forbade any criticize of third world immigration as long as they only targeted the white natives. As soon as the immigrants moved to other areas, and that they realized that they were by far more anti-semitic than the French because of the Palestinian conflict, they started to allow and even encourage people to denounce "Islam" and so on.
Any evidence for these bold claims? Or just generic "ZIONIZM!" complaints?
On August 11 2012 19:58 Sepi wrote: I'm kinda disgusted about the people who just come to the country and leech ALL out of the social security system. There have been SO many cases in my country where people lie to the government, mainly about their childs and heatl condition etc. to get max support from the governemnt. We as tax payers must pay this all. And they still complain how they have just 60 square meter house FOR FREE. Its ridiculous.
Luckily there is a counterweight to this immigration, because there are a lot good people. Who acts just like us, does work and tries to proceed in their career. I higlhy respect these people as they can ADAPT to other enviroment and work their hart out to have what they deserve.
Even all the sexual crimes are mostly committed by immigrates. The studies that i have read, also indicate that its HIGHLY possible that they will continue to commit crimes. In my law system there is no way to kick any people out. They just get 1-2 years of probation and something like 1000 euros of indemnity or something like that.
Im no racist at all, but it just makes me sick how they can be so abusive, and yet so arrogant.
Wow really? Do you actually live in Finland? Holy shit that's just sad. You're famous for having one of the most racist social policies, and one of the absolute smallest immigration rates in all of Europe, and yet you complain there's too much? You have 150k immigrants and children of immigrants total, which equals a 2% of the population. Don't you have more serious issues than that? Alcoholism for instance? I seem to recall that just about every hobo in Sweden speaks with a Finnish accent.
On August 11 2012 21:50 Bahamut1337 wrote: Jews made up less then 2 percent of france's population and are somehow blamed for it? My oh my and here I thought Vichy France was long gone
Belive me they're not 2% of journalists/media/corporation leaders. Besides, 75% of the French jews survived because French people hided them and didn't denounce them. It was the left who gave all power to MR Petain (assembly was mostly leftist).
On the other hand, most of the early resistants were at what we would call today the far-right.
They are a miniority, the french people themselves voted massively for the people who opened the gates, blaming a group with a 2 percent voting infuence is silly on so many levels.
Anyway seems france has enough problems.
A Marseilles restaurant owner was threatened and attacked at the beginning of the week because he did not want to observe Ramadan, it has been learned today from a source close to the inquiry, confirming information from the daily La Provence.
Aged 64-years-old, the restaurant-owner, a Frenchman of Egyptian origin not practising the Muslim religion, was approached on Monday by an individual walking around with a veiled woman. Several times the suspect demanded that the businessman, who operates in the Belsunce district (centre of Marseilles), to close his establishment for Ramadan, failing which he would undertake reprisals against him. One hour later, the individual returned and struck him a violent blow with his belt. Wounded by the metal part of the belt, the restaurant owner was transported to La Conception hospital.
On August 11 2012 19:58 Sepi wrote: I'm kinda disgusted about the people who just come to the country and leech ALL out of the social security system. There have been SO many cases in my country where people lie to the government, mainly about their childs and heatl condition etc. to get max support from the governemnt. We as tax payers must pay this all. And they still complain how they have just 60 square meter house FOR FREE. Its ridiculous.
Luckily there is a counterweight to this immigration, because there are a lot good people. Who acts just like us, does work and tries to proceed in their career. I higlhy respect these people as they can ADAPT to other enviroment and work their hart out to have what they deserve.
Even all the sexual crimes are mostly committed by immigrates. The studies that i have read, also indicate that its HIGHLY possible that they will continue to commit crimes. In my law system there is no way to kick any people out. They just get 1-2 years of probation and something like 1000 euros of indemnity or something like that.
Im no racist at all, but it just makes me sick how they can be so abusive, and yet so arrogant.
Wow really? Do you actually live in Finland? Holy shit that's just sad. You're famous for having one of the most racist social policies, and one of the absolute smallest immigration rates in all of Europe, and yet you complain there's too much? You have 150k immigrants and children of immigrants total, which equals a 2% of the population. Don't you have more serious issues than that? Alcoholism for instance? I seem to recall that just about every hobo in Sweden speaks with a Finnish accent.
I think Finland has a model we should follow, it forces people to join society. Its not like Sweden where a Somali can get 8 kids and make the taxpayer pay for it.
You seem to avoid the rest of his post, Immigrants are more criminal, less educated, cheat the system more, rape more etc. If you would have a society with 30-40 percent immigrants it would be unliveable.
Also Where are the Swedish Jews? Oh most left due to immigration from intolerant groups? Oh wow that is something to be proud off!
A lot of whites are also targeted. And because of that all whites fleed the places flooded by African/Middle-Eastern immigrants (totally not the case with Asians).
In France, most Jewish intellectuals/media were pro-immigration and forbade any criticize of third world immigration as long as they only targeted the white natives. As soon as the immigrants moved to other areas, and that they realized that they were by far more anti-semitic than the French because of the Palestinian conflict, they started to allow and even encourage people to denounce "Islam" and so on.
Any evidence for these bold claims? Or just generic "ZIONIZM!" complaints?
Many of the so called "leftist" philosophers and thinkers of the late 70's - early 80's are now against immigration, islam etc... Strangely enough they are pretty much all of jewish background :D
They are a miniority, the french people themselves voted massively for the people who opened the gates, blaming a group with a 2 percent voting infuence is silly on so many levels.
A Marseilles restaurant owner was threatened and attacked at the beginning of the week because he did not want to observe Ramadan, it has been learned today from a source close to the inquiry, confirming information from the daily La Provence.
Aged 64-years-old, the restaurant-owner, a Frenchman of Egyptian origin not practising the Muslim religion, was approached on Monday by an individual walking around with a veiled woman. Several times the suspect demanded that the businessman, who operates in the Belsunce district (centre of Marseilles), to close his establishment for Ramadan, failing which he would undertake reprisals against him. One hour later, the individual returned and struck him a violent blow with his belt. Wounded by the metal part of the belt, the restaurant owner was transported to La Conception hospital.
That's what we call "a fait divers", one incident. They're plenty of Muslim restaurants/butchery, in fact most of them, not closing for the Ramadan and nothing ever happened to their owners.
They are a miniority, the french people themselves voted massively for the people who opened the gates, blaming a group with a 2 percent voting infuence is silly on so many levels.
Anyway seems france has enough problems.
A Marseilles restaurant owner was threatened and attacked at the beginning of the week because he did not want to observe Ramadan, it has been learned today from a source close to the inquiry, confirming information from the daily La Provence.
Aged 64-years-old, the restaurant-owner, a Frenchman of Egyptian origin not practising the Muslim religion, was approached on Monday by an individual walking around with a veiled woman. Several times the suspect demanded that the businessman, who operates in the Belsunce district (centre of Marseilles), to close his establishment for Ramadan, failing which he would undertake reprisals against him. One hour later, the individual returned and struck him a violent blow with his belt. Wounded by the metal part of the belt, the restaurant owner was transported to La Conception hospital.
That's what we call "a fait divers", one incident. They're plenty of Muslim restaurants/butchery, in fact most of them, not closing for the Ramadan and nothing ever happened to their owners.
Same with the 21500 terrorist incidents since 9-11 no doubt. Or the ''incidents'' in France Islamic no go zones surrounding Paris.
People need to believe in same ideas for this to work. Middle Ages with Church's Authority are an example... There are too many different people with different ideas to become one body. It's all in the politics. People can't expect each other to work together if there's not much in common between them.
They are a miniority, the french people themselves voted massively for the people who opened the gates, blaming a group with a 2 percent voting infuence is silly on so many levels.
Anyway seems france has enough problems.
A Marseilles restaurant owner was threatened and attacked at the beginning of the week because he did not want to observe Ramadan, it has been learned today from a source close to the inquiry, confirming information from the daily La Provence.
Aged 64-years-old, the restaurant-owner, a Frenchman of Egyptian origin not practising the Muslim religion, was approached on Monday by an individual walking around with a veiled woman. Several times the suspect demanded that the businessman, who operates in the Belsunce district (centre of Marseilles), to close his establishment for Ramadan, failing which he would undertake reprisals against him. One hour later, the individual returned and struck him a violent blow with his belt. Wounded by the metal part of the belt, the restaurant owner was transported to La Conception hospital.
That's what we call "a fait divers", one incident. They're plenty of Muslim restaurants/butchery, in fact most of them, not closing for the Ramadan and nothing ever happened to their owners.
Same with the 21500 terrorist incidents since 9-11 no doubt. Or the ''incidents'' in France Islamic no go zones surrounding Paris.
So many incidents.
You mix everything up. Like there's 2 camp, the zionist anti-islam one, and the pro-deliquency and pro-islamization of Europe with open-borders policy.
That's what the media sells you. Mixing up delinquency, islam, poverty, so that people reject the whole package, when in fact Islam brutally condemns thefts and mindless aggressions, not to mention that a lot of victims are muslims as well.
I'm not pro-islamization, but I'm tired of these jewish intellectuals, and jewish anti-racist lobbies now telling me that Islam sucks and that muslims are inherently violent, after having told my parents that being against muslim immigration means being a nazi.
If I was a mod I'd ban everyone that obviously didnt read the article only the word multiculturalism and decided to post here. I think that this article is a really good.
On August 11 2012 18:38 Psychobabas wrote: Multiculturalism has failed in Europe. Just visit London, probably the most multicultural capital in Europe.
You expect to see a harmonious cooexistence of cultures but what you get are completely segregated neighborhoods according to race and ethnicity. The Pakistanis are doing their own thing in east London, the Somalis their own, the Indians their own, the Africans their own, the Arabs their own, the Chinese their own etc etc all with little will to integrate to British culture, nevermind tolerating other cultures.
Some can barely speak a word of English.
It's the way UK deals with multiculturalism. The spirit is "We are all the same, every culture has the right to live how he wants".
It's pretty cool. The problem is that it implies communitarianism. People use to stay with people like them, their food, their place to live, even their school, they language.
More and more people considere themself as paskistans, indians, muslims, etc, forgetting that they are in fact British, a country with a long history and it's own way of life. It's own culture in short that must be respected because it's the culture of most of people.
And i think this is the problem. Nobody say that muslims must become anglicans or eat fish and chips of course, but considering their are British citizen, they should be proud of it FIRST and their other culture should be secondary.
The communitarianism in UK is a very bad thing imho, because a child is grown as a [put your cultur here if it's not british] and he sees the british culture as a foreign culture, and not a big part of his own.
In short cummunitarianism is the ennemy of integration, witch is the ennemy of a wealthy multiculturalism.
On global topic : multiculturalism is not bad. It's just awfully done in western countries.
(PS : Sorry for my bad english, i try to improve, but it's far to be good )
Multiculuralism will only work when it's no longer seen as multiculturalism; it will only work when all those component cultures see themselves as part of the one culture, rather than part of their original cultures. In saying this, I'm not advocating that everyone joining a larger culture should forget their heritage and take on that culture's aspects, but more that the said culture should be one which has taken on all of the positives of the original cultures (And hopefully cut out many of the negatives, such as harmful traditions), and yet can call those positives its own.
The article is very interesting, although it doesn't stress enough that "multiculturalism" is a sort of stage, not an ideal. People rant about how cultures don't fare well together, but have they forgotten how countries were built in the first place?
They cry and protest at the though of recent changes, but their voices will be lost when the years have passed and when once again everybody is the same.
Xenophobia is a fantasy that wishes the world was such a simple place. Simple conceptions for simple minds.
On August 11 2012 18:38 Psychobabas wrote: Multiculturalism has failed in Europe. Just visit London, probably the most multicultural capital in Europe.
You expect to see a harmonious cooexistence of cultures but what you get are completely segregated neighborhoods according to race and ethnicity. The Pakistanis are doing their own thing in east London, the Somalis their own, the Indians their own, the Africans their own, the Arabs their own, the Chinese their own etc etc all with little will to integrate to British culture, nevermind tolerating other cultures.
Some can barely speak a word of English.
It's the way UK deals with multiculturalism. The spirit is "We are all the same, every culture has the right to live how he wants".
It's pretty cool. The problem is that it implies communitarianism. People use to stay with people like them, their food, their place to live, even their school, they language.
More and more people considere themself as paskistans, indians, muslims, etc, forgetting that they are in fact British, a country with a long history and it's own way of life. It's own culture in short that must be respected because it's the culture of most of people.
And i think this is the problem. Nobody say that muslims must become anglicans or eat fish and chips of course, but considering their are British citizen, they should be proud of it FIRST and their other culture should be secondary.
The communitarianism in UK is a very bad thing imho, because a child is grown as a [put your cultur here if it's not british] and he sees the british culture as a foreign culture, and not a big part of his own.
In short cummunitarianism is the ennemy of integration, witch is the ennemy of a wealthy multiculturalism.
On global topic : multiculturalism is not bad. It's just awfully done in western countries.
(PS : Sorry for my bad english, i try to improve, but it's far to be good )
I think thats about right. Take a look at this (I actually bumped to this in a finnish comedy/internet humour site)
They do not see themselves as inhabitants of England. They see themselves as muslim extremist, who have rights to denounce and bash everything that doesn't belong to their culture and religious rules. Ridiculous.
In the beginning the reporter says that the protest is because arrest of a swedish local woman whose husband set a bomb in 2010.
On August 11 2012 14:14 Millitron wrote: I live in NY, about 20-30 minutes from a Native American reservation. From what I've seen, all multiculturalism does is make people stubborn. If you're part of a minor ethnic group, like the people in that reservation, you're raised to be damn proud of your heritage. The problems with that, are that you never really fit in in the wider world, and that you don't just keep the positive aspects of your culture, you keep the negative ones too because of some twisted version of multiculturalism; "I shouldn't have to change at all, everyone else should have to deal with the way I am, regardless of how terrible I am."
I'm not 100% sure it's all multiculturalism's fault, as the reservation is also pretty destitute, so the problems might be based more in economics; but I can't believe that's the entire problem.
This is only the bad side of being proud of your culture and I agree with it a little bit, some people just think they can do nothing and be ok because they are from a certain culture, but that is just a justification, most people live like that anyway. (Remenber nazis saying they belonged to the super arian-race?, and americans with the first class-second class citizen society?)
I'm an amerindian myself, from Venezuela, but here we have our own reservations too, and being proud of our culture means also to work very hard and be successful to break that cliché of amerindians being inferior, something the white man used to say a lot in his race based-feudal latin american society and that is still repeated today, because racism hasn't gone away, even though not in the public media, racism motivates people to work hard too. The point is, like Malcolm X said, being proud of your origin motivates you to work harder, it is truly like that to be honest, the hardest working people in my community also feel very proud too, but not blindly proud, if you start thinking your culture is superior then you become the thing you hate, it is not about that, it is in a way knowing who you are, something man has done since ever.
Some people need to be reminded they are not inferior, I think in america this used happened when in the 20's-50's some black people though they were inferior to white men, and after hearing about all that was said about second class citizens and their worse economic situation it is only logical, I think those who though they were, were called uncle toms right?, that is one reason my community promotes being proud, because a lot of amerindians in latin america still believe they are inferior and that they should not do this or that because that is for the "white man" (learning english is one of these things they think it's no good for them, 50 years ago it used to be writing and reading), luckily this does not affect the young generation anymore.
I cant really fathom how most of western society works, because it must be so radically different from Brazil.
We are a multicultural society, unlike america and many countries where specific cultures are segretated, here its blend beyond recognition, and the ones who strive for their "original" culture are seen more like medieval reenactors than as a culture per se.
The secret I think is to be somewhat chauvinist while being broad minded.
Dont expect everyone to be the same/act the same and you wont be surprised.
On August 11 2012 15:42 zalz wrote: Multiculturalism doesn't work. You need some form of cohession, some larger culture that everyone somehow feels a part of.
If not that, it is simply cultural segregation, something which is already a fact in many places in Europe.
How well people of different groups function relative to other groups is dependent on the social and economic conditions such as ability to find jobs rather than some groups of people just having better belief and value systems that others. Religious and political extremism emerge from tangible problems like not being able to make ends meet while living in a hostile environment. Even in a country like Canada (or any other country with a large immigrant population) where recognition of foreign credentials is an issue (let immigrants in based on credentials, don't give immigrants jobs they're qualified for), muliticulturalism has not been an problem and policies favouring multiculturalism have proven to work.
On August 11 2012 15:42 zalz wrote: Multiculturalism doesn't work. You need some form of cohession, some larger culture that everyone somehow feels a part of.
If not that, it is simply cultural segregation, something which is already a fact in many places in Europe.
How well people of different groups function relative to other groups is dependent on the social and economic conditions such as ability to find jobs rather than some groups of people just having better belief and value systems that others. Religious and political extremism emerge from tangible problems like not being able to make ends meet while living in a hostile environment. Even in a country like Canada (or any other country with a large immigrant population) where recognition of foreign credentials is an issue (let immigrants in based on credentials, don't give immigrants jobs they're qualified for), muliticulturalism has not been an problem and policies favouring multiculturalism have proven to work.
Canada isn't Europe.
Your position on the world actually influences the kind of refugees you are likely to pick up.
Canada is impossible to reach for economical refugees. Meanwhile, every rich family that doesn't like the political waves in their respective country can book a ticket to Canada or America, depending on their preference.
The economical refugees come for the money, the political refugees come for the culture.
On August 11 2012 15:42 zalz wrote: Multiculturalism doesn't work. You need some form of cohession, some larger culture that everyone somehow feels a part of.
If not that, it is simply cultural segregation, something which is already a fact in many places in Europe.
How well people of different groups function relative to other groups is dependent on the social and economic conditions such as ability to find jobs rather than some groups of people just having better belief and value systems that others. Religious and political extremism emerge from tangible problems like not being able to make ends meet while living in a hostile environment. Even in a country like Canada (or any other country with a large immigrant population) where recognition of foreign credentials is an issue (let immigrants in based on credentials, don't give immigrants jobs they're qualified for), muliticulturalism has not been an problem and policies favouring multiculturalism have proven to work.
Canada isn't Europe.
Your position on the world actually influences the kind of refugees you are likely to pick up.
Canada is impossible to reach for economical refugees. Meanwhile, every rich family that doesn't like the political waves in their respective country can book a ticket to Canada or America, depending on their preference.
The economical refugees come for the money, the political refugees come for the culture.
Virutally all immigrants, illegal immigrants and arguably most refugees comes for the money. Immigrants vastly outnumber the other two groups. It's just that the money is more accessible here because we have a system that creates more opportunities. People don't just go "I hate this country, I'm going to Canada". I've never met an immigrant who did not have national/ethnic/religious pride or identity that they brought from their home country with them, but of course that's just anecdotal evidence. But if you read the links or other studies about the sociology of Canada, you'll find that people here identify both as Canadians and as whatever else they want to identify with. For the most part it's simply the fact that Canada is just less xenophobic and has a higher demand for skilled labour.
On August 11 2012 18:38 Psychobabas wrote: Multiculturalism has failed in Europe. Just visit London, probably the most multicultural capital in Europe.
You expect to see a harmonious cooexistence of cultures but what you get are completely segregated neighborhoods according to race and ethnicity. The Pakistanis are doing their own thing in east London, the Somalis their own, the Indians their own, the Africans their own, the Arabs their own, the Chinese their own etc etc all with little will to integrate to British culture, nevermind tolerating other cultures.
Some can barely speak a word of English.
It's the way UK deals with multiculturalism. The spirit is "We are all the same, every culture has the right to live how he wants".
It's pretty cool. The problem is that it implies communitarianism. People use to stay with people like them, their food, their place to live, even their school, they language.
More and more people considere themself as paskistans, indians, muslims, etc, forgetting that they are in fact British, a country with a long history and it's own way of life. It's own culture in short that must be respected because it's the culture of most of people.
And i think this is the problem. Nobody say that muslims must become anglicans or eat fish and chips of course, but considering their are British citizen, they should be proud of it FIRST and their other culture should be secondary.
The communitarianism in UK is a very bad thing imho, because a child is grown as a [put your cultur here if it's not british] and he sees the british culture as a foreign culture, and not a big part of his own.
In short cummunitarianism is the ennemy of integration, witch is the ennemy of a wealthy multiculturalism.
On global topic : multiculturalism is not bad. It's just awfully done in western countries.
(PS : Sorry for my bad english, i try to improve, but it's far to be good )
I think thats about right. Take a look at this (I actually bumped to this in a finnish comedy/internet humour site)
They do not see themselves as inhabitants of England. They see themselves as muslim extremist, who have rights to denounce and bash everything that doesn't belong to their culture and religious rules. Ridiculous.
In the beginning the reporter says that the protest is because arrest of a swedish local woman whose husband set a bomb in 2010.
Sad video. People who want sharia law should just be shipped to a country that enforces it. end of story.
On August 11 2012 18:38 Psychobabas wrote: Multiculturalism has failed in Europe. Just visit London, probably the most multicultural capital in Europe.
You expect to see a harmonious cooexistence of cultures but what you get are completely segregated neighborhoods according to race and ethnicity. The Pakistanis are doing their own thing in east London, the Somalis their own, the Indians their own, the Africans their own, the Arabs their own, the Chinese their own etc etc all with little will to integrate to British culture, nevermind tolerating other cultures.
Some can barely speak a word of English.
It's the way UK deals with multiculturalism. The spirit is "We are all the same, every culture has the right to live how he wants".
It's pretty cool. The problem is that it implies communitarianism. People use to stay with people like them, their food, their place to live, even their school, they language.
More and more people considere themself as paskistans, indians, muslims, etc, forgetting that they are in fact British, a country with a long history and it's own way of life. It's own culture in short that must be respected because it's the culture of most of people.
And i think this is the problem. Nobody say that muslims must become anglicans or eat fish and chips of course, but considering their are British citizen, they should be proud of it FIRST and their other culture should be secondary.
The communitarianism in UK is a very bad thing imho, because a child is grown as a [put your cultur here if it's not british] and he sees the british culture as a foreign culture, and not a big part of his own.
In short cummunitarianism is the ennemy of integration, witch is the ennemy of a wealthy multiculturalism.
On global topic : multiculturalism is not bad. It's just awfully done in western countries.
(PS : Sorry for my bad english, i try to improve, but it's far to be good )
I think thats about right. Take a look at this (I actually bumped to this in a finnish comedy/internet humour site)
They do not see themselves as inhabitants of England. They see themselves as muslim extremist, who have rights to denounce and bash everything that doesn't belong to their culture and religious rules. Ridiculous.
In the beginning the reporter says that the protest is because arrest of a swedish local woman whose husband set a bomb in 2010.
If you actually watch that video with an unprejudiced perspective (as hard as that might be) you'll hear that the burka-clad woman says "you can choose to wear this, I choose to wear that" despite the fact that the subtitles say "you choose to wear this, I choose to wear that". Even if she did say the latter, that's still a clear indication that, at least ostensibly, there is a respect for individual choice. There's no "we're going to take over this country and impose our belief system on you whether you like it or not because we hold fascist Islamic beliefs." The Muslim demonstrators who despite looking like ninjas and lumberjacks are no more fascistic than the "reporter" in the video. They're simply exercising their freedom of expression/speech by protesting what they believe to be acts of police oppression.
Now before you paint me as a PC strawman who facilitates the destruction of western civilization at the hands of barbaric Muslims, I'm not defending Islamic extremism or even Islam. Personally, I think all religious beliefs are quite stupid or irrational, but to act as if there is some autonomous, malignant cancerous entity such as religion or "culture" (whatever that term even means to you) that causes people to act like total nitwits rather than actually examining the material conditions from which these sociological and psychological phenomena (e.g., groupthink, political extremism) emerge is just lazy thinking and a convenient excuse to be a racist/Islamophobic fearmongerer.
On August 11 2012 18:38 Psychobabas wrote: Multiculturalism has failed in Europe. Just visit London, probably the most multicultural capital in Europe.
You expect to see a harmonious cooexistence of cultures but what you get are completely segregated neighborhoods according to race and ethnicity. The Pakistanis are doing their own thing in east London, the Somalis their own, the Indians their own, the Africans their own, the Arabs their own, the Chinese their own etc etc all with little will to integrate to British culture, nevermind tolerating other cultures.
Some can barely speak a word of English.
It's the way UK deals with multiculturalism. The spirit is "We are all the same, every culture has the right to live how he wants".
It's pretty cool. The problem is that it implies communitarianism. People use to stay with people like them, their food, their place to live, even their school, they language.
More and more people considere themself as paskistans, indians, muslims, etc, forgetting that they are in fact British, a country with a long history and it's own way of life. It's own culture in short that must be respected because it's the culture of most of people.
And i think this is the problem. Nobody say that muslims must become anglicans or eat fish and chips of course, but considering their are British citizen, they should be proud of it FIRST and their other culture should be secondary.
The communitarianism in UK is a very bad thing imho, because a child is grown as a [put your cultur here if it's not british] and he sees the british culture as a foreign culture, and not a big part of his own.
In short cummunitarianism is the ennemy of integration, witch is the ennemy of a wealthy multiculturalism.
On global topic : multiculturalism is not bad. It's just awfully done in western countries.
(PS : Sorry for my bad english, i try to improve, but it's far to be good )
I think thats about right. Take a look at this (I actually bumped to this in a finnish comedy/internet humour site)
They do not see themselves as inhabitants of England. They see themselves as muslim extremist, who have rights to denounce and bash everything that doesn't belong to their culture and religious rules. Ridiculous.
In the beginning the reporter says that the protest is because arrest of a swedish local woman whose husband set a bomb in 2010.
Sad video. People who want sharia law should just be shipped to a country that enforces it. end of story.
People should be forcibly expelled from their homes because of an opinion. What's that called again?
It's actually a good thing from an intellectual standpoint. But you need to treat people in mass as animals. They think with a hive(or community for mammals) mind. Different is considered an outsider and the hive must be protected from outsiders.
On August 11 2012 18:38 Psychobabas wrote: Multiculturalism has failed in Europe. Just visit London, probably the most multicultural capital in Europe.
You expect to see a harmonious cooexistence of cultures but what you get are completely segregated neighborhoods according to race and ethnicity. The Pakistanis are doing their own thing in east London, the Somalis their own, the Indians their own, the Africans their own, the Arabs their own, the Chinese their own etc etc all with little will to integrate to British culture, nevermind tolerating other cultures.
Some can barely speak a word of English.
It's the way UK deals with multiculturalism. The spirit is "We are all the same, every culture has the right to live how he wants".
It's pretty cool. The problem is that it implies communitarianism. People use to stay with people like them, their food, their place to live, even their school, they language.
More and more people considere themself as paskistans, indians, muslims, etc, forgetting that they are in fact British, a country with a long history and it's own way of life. It's own culture in short that must be respected because it's the culture of most of people.
And i think this is the problem. Nobody say that muslims must become anglicans or eat fish and chips of course, but considering their are British citizen, they should be proud of it FIRST and their other culture should be secondary.
The communitarianism in UK is a very bad thing imho, because a child is grown as a [put your cultur here if it's not british] and he sees the british culture as a foreign culture, and not a big part of his own.
In short cummunitarianism is the ennemy of integration, witch is the ennemy of a wealthy multiculturalism.
On global topic : multiculturalism is not bad. It's just awfully done in western countries.
(PS : Sorry for my bad english, i try to improve, but it's far to be good )
I think thats about right. Take a look at this (I actually bumped to this in a finnish comedy/internet humour site)
They do not see themselves as inhabitants of England. They see themselves as muslim extremist, who have rights to denounce and bash everything that doesn't belong to their culture and religious rules. Ridiculous.
In the beginning the reporter says that the protest is because arrest of a swedish local woman whose husband set a bomb in 2010.
Sad video. People who want sharia law should just be shipped to a country that enforces it. end of story.
People should be forcibly expelled from their homes because of an opinion. What's that called again?
That's called making your country a better place.
Some cultures/ideas just really are objectively inferior and make the world a worse place to live in.
Multiculturalism is a thinly veiled divide and conquer strategy. It is promoted by the wealthy and powerful to split the lower classes along racial, religious, and cultural lines.
People who go along with it just because it is couched in sweet sounding lies are useful idiots.
Good Fences: The Importance of Setting Boundaries for Peaceful Coexistence
Our analysis shows that peace does not depend on integrated coexistence, but rather on well defined topographical and political boundaries separating groups.
On August 11 2012 18:38 Psychobabas wrote: Multiculturalism has failed in Europe. Just visit London, probably the most multicultural capital in Europe.
You expect to see a harmonious cooexistence of cultures but what you get are completely segregated neighborhoods according to race and ethnicity. The Pakistanis are doing their own thing in east London, the Somalis their own, the Indians their own, the Africans their own, the Arabs their own, the Chinese their own etc etc all with little will to integrate to British culture, nevermind tolerating other cultures.
Some can barely speak a word of English.
It's the way UK deals with multiculturalism. The spirit is "We are all the same, every culture has the right to live how he wants".
It's pretty cool. The problem is that it implies communitarianism. People use to stay with people like them, their food, their place to live, even their school, they language.
More and more people considere themself as paskistans, indians, muslims, etc, forgetting that they are in fact British, a country with a long history and it's own way of life. It's own culture in short that must be respected because it's the culture of most of people.
And i think this is the problem. Nobody say that muslims must become anglicans or eat fish and chips of course, but considering their are British citizen, they should be proud of it FIRST and their other culture should be secondary.
The communitarianism in UK is a very bad thing imho, because a child is grown as a [put your cultur here if it's not british] and he sees the british culture as a foreign culture, and not a big part of his own.
In short cummunitarianism is the ennemy of integration, witch is the ennemy of a wealthy multiculturalism.
On global topic : multiculturalism is not bad. It's just awfully done in western countries.
(PS : Sorry for my bad english, i try to improve, but it's far to be good )
I think thats about right. Take a look at this (I actually bumped to this in a finnish comedy/internet humour site)
They do not see themselves as inhabitants of England. They see themselves as muslim extremist, who have rights to denounce and bash everything that doesn't belong to their culture and religious rules. Ridiculous.
In the beginning the reporter says that the protest is because arrest of a swedish local woman whose husband set a bomb in 2010.
Sad video. People who want sharia law should just be shipped to a country that enforces it. end of story.
People should be forcibly expelled from their homes because of an opinion. What's that called again?
That's called making your country a better place.
Some cultures/ideas just really are objectively inferior and make the world a worse place to live in.
Well if their home countries won't take them back seeing as how they're naturalized citizens, maybe some ghettos in rural Europe will do, right?
On August 11 2012 18:38 Psychobabas wrote: Multiculturalism has failed in Europe. Just visit London, probably the most multicultural capital in Europe.
You expect to see a harmonious cooexistence of cultures but what you get are completely segregated neighborhoods according to race and ethnicity. The Pakistanis are doing their own thing in east London, the Somalis their own, the Indians their own, the Africans their own, the Arabs their own, the Chinese their own etc etc all with little will to integrate to British culture, nevermind tolerating other cultures.
Some can barely speak a word of English.
It's the way UK deals with multiculturalism. The spirit is "We are all the same, every culture has the right to live how he wants".
It's pretty cool. The problem is that it implies communitarianism. People use to stay with people like them, their food, their place to live, even their school, they language.
More and more people considere themself as paskistans, indians, muslims, etc, forgetting that they are in fact British, a country with a long history and it's own way of life. It's own culture in short that must be respected because it's the culture of most of people.
And i think this is the problem. Nobody say that muslims must become anglicans or eat fish and chips of course, but considering their are British citizen, they should be proud of it FIRST and their other culture should be secondary.
The communitarianism in UK is a very bad thing imho, because a child is grown as a [put your cultur here if it's not british] and he sees the british culture as a foreign culture, and not a big part of his own.
In short cummunitarianism is the ennemy of integration, witch is the ennemy of a wealthy multiculturalism.
On global topic : multiculturalism is not bad. It's just awfully done in western countries.
(PS : Sorry for my bad english, i try to improve, but it's far to be good )
I think thats about right. Take a look at this (I actually bumped to this in a finnish comedy/internet humour site)
They do not see themselves as inhabitants of England. They see themselves as muslim extremist, who have rights to denounce and bash everything that doesn't belong to their culture and religious rules. Ridiculous.
In the beginning the reporter says that the protest is because arrest of a swedish local woman whose husband set a bomb in 2010.
Sad video. People who want sharia law should just be shipped to a country that enforces it. end of story.
People should be forcibly expelled from their homes because of an opinion. What's that called again?
That's called making your country a better place.
Some cultures/ideas just really are objectively inferior and make the world a worse place to live in.
Well if their home countries won't take them back seeing as how they're naturalized citizens, maybe some ghettos in rural Europe will do, right?
Or we just send them to Canada because apparently you people are gifted at making model citizens from barbarians, right?
Should we just slowly let our countries be taken over by extremists? These people don't want to change. They want to come here, live of our socialist policies, invite more relatives over and slowly convert my country into an Islamic state.
And I know full well that there are tons of good foreign people. It's the culture that some have what's wrong, not the place they come from.
On August 11 2012 18:38 Psychobabas wrote: Multiculturalism has failed in Europe. Just visit London, probably the most multicultural capital in Europe.
You expect to see a harmonious cooexistence of cultures but what you get are completely segregated neighborhoods according to race and ethnicity. The Pakistanis are doing their own thing in east London, the Somalis their own, the Indians their own, the Africans their own, the Arabs their own, the Chinese their own etc etc all with little will to integrate to British culture, nevermind tolerating other cultures.
Some can barely speak a word of English.
It's the way UK deals with multiculturalism. The spirit is "We are all the same, every culture has the right to live how he wants".
It's pretty cool. The problem is that it implies communitarianism. People use to stay with people like them, their food, their place to live, even their school, they language.
More and more people considere themself as paskistans, indians, muslims, etc, forgetting that they are in fact British, a country with a long history and it's own way of life. It's own culture in short that must be respected because it's the culture of most of people.
And i think this is the problem. Nobody say that muslims must become anglicans or eat fish and chips of course, but considering their are British citizen, they should be proud of it FIRST and their other culture should be secondary.
The communitarianism in UK is a very bad thing imho, because a child is grown as a [put your cultur here if it's not british] and he sees the british culture as a foreign culture, and not a big part of his own.
In short cummunitarianism is the ennemy of integration, witch is the ennemy of a wealthy multiculturalism.
On global topic : multiculturalism is not bad. It's just awfully done in western countries.
(PS : Sorry for my bad english, i try to improve, but it's far to be good )
I think thats about right. Take a look at this (I actually bumped to this in a finnish comedy/internet humour site)
They do not see themselves as inhabitants of England. They see themselves as muslim extremist, who have rights to denounce and bash everything that doesn't belong to their culture and religious rules. Ridiculous.
In the beginning the reporter says that the protest is because arrest of a swedish local woman whose husband set a bomb in 2010.
Sad video. People who want sharia law should just be shipped to a country that enforces it. end of story.
People should be forcibly expelled from their homes because of an opinion. What's that called again?
That's called making your country a better place.
Some cultures/ideas just really are objectively inferior and make the world a worse place to live in.
Well if their home countries won't take them back seeing as how they're naturalized citizens, maybe some ghettos in rural Europe will do, right?
Or we just send them to Canada because apparently you people are gifted at making model citizens from barbarians, right?
Should we just slowly let our countries be taken over by extremists? These people don't want to change. They want to come here, live of our socialist policies, invite more relatives over and slowly convert my country into an Islamic state.
Circular logic that freedoms your countries allow are the very things that will effectuate abolishment of those freedoms. Show me some actual evidence of the impending doom that is Sharia law (not something like a youtube video by some clueless hack) and I'll stop condescending to your laughable, fascist beliefs.
On August 11 2012 18:38 Psychobabas wrote: Multiculturalism has failed in Europe. Just visit London, probably the most multicultural capital in Europe.
You expect to see a harmonious cooexistence of cultures but what you get are completely segregated neighborhoods according to race and ethnicity. The Pakistanis are doing their own thing in east London, the Somalis their own, the Indians their own, the Africans their own, the Arabs their own, the Chinese their own etc etc all with little will to integrate to British culture, nevermind tolerating other cultures.
Some can barely speak a word of English.
It's the way UK deals with multiculturalism. The spirit is "We are all the same, every culture has the right to live how he wants".
It's pretty cool. The problem is that it implies communitarianism. People use to stay with people like them, their food, their place to live, even their school, they language.
More and more people considere themself as paskistans, indians, muslims, etc, forgetting that they are in fact British, a country with a long history and it's own way of life. It's own culture in short that must be respected because it's the culture of most of people.
And i think this is the problem. Nobody say that muslims must become anglicans or eat fish and chips of course, but considering their are British citizen, they should be proud of it FIRST and their other culture should be secondary.
The communitarianism in UK is a very bad thing imho, because a child is grown as a [put your cultur here if it's not british] and he sees the british culture as a foreign culture, and not a big part of his own.
In short cummunitarianism is the ennemy of integration, witch is the ennemy of a wealthy multiculturalism.
On global topic : multiculturalism is not bad. It's just awfully done in western countries.
(PS : Sorry for my bad english, i try to improve, but it's far to be good )
I think thats about right. Take a look at this (I actually bumped to this in a finnish comedy/internet humour site)
They do not see themselves as inhabitants of England. They see themselves as muslim extremist, who have rights to denounce and bash everything that doesn't belong to their culture and religious rules. Ridiculous.
In the beginning the reporter says that the protest is because arrest of a swedish local woman whose husband set a bomb in 2010.
Sad video. People who want sharia law should just be shipped to a country that enforces it. end of story.
People should be forcibly expelled from their homes because of an opinion. What's that called again?
On August 11 2012 18:38 Psychobabas wrote: Multiculturalism has failed in Europe. Just visit London, probably the most multicultural capital in Europe.
You expect to see a harmonious cooexistence of cultures but what you get are completely segregated neighborhoods according to race and ethnicity. The Pakistanis are doing their own thing in east London, the Somalis their own, the Indians their own, the Africans their own, the Arabs their own, the Chinese their own etc etc all with little will to integrate to British culture, nevermind tolerating other cultures.
Some can barely speak a word of English.
It's the way UK deals with multiculturalism. The spirit is "We are all the same, every culture has the right to live how he wants".
It's pretty cool. The problem is that it implies communitarianism. People use to stay with people like them, their food, their place to live, even their school, they language.
More and more people considere themself as paskistans, indians, muslims, etc, forgetting that they are in fact British, a country with a long history and it's own way of life. It's own culture in short that must be respected because it's the culture of most of people.
And i think this is the problem. Nobody say that muslims must become anglicans or eat fish and chips of course, but considering their are British citizen, they should be proud of it FIRST and their other culture should be secondary.
The communitarianism in UK is a very bad thing imho, because a child is grown as a [put your cultur here if it's not british] and he sees the british culture as a foreign culture, and not a big part of his own.
In short cummunitarianism is the ennemy of integration, witch is the ennemy of a wealthy multiculturalism.
On global topic : multiculturalism is not bad. It's just awfully done in western countries.
(PS : Sorry for my bad english, i try to improve, but it's far to be good )
I think thats about right. Take a look at this (I actually bumped to this in a finnish comedy/internet humour site)
They do not see themselves as inhabitants of England. They see themselves as muslim extremist, who have rights to denounce and bash everything that doesn't belong to their culture and religious rules. Ridiculous.
In the beginning the reporter says that the protest is because arrest of a swedish local woman whose husband set a bomb in 2010.
Sad video. People who want sharia law should just be shipped to a country that enforces it. end of story.
People should be forcibly expelled from their homes because of an opinion. What's that called again?
Sharia Law.
Zing!
Which I would wholeheartedly oppose if it were an actual threat. Hence the hypocrisy of his post.
edit: to be clear, I already oppose sharia law, but by oppose I meant actually do something. As of now, there's not much to be done other than point out how stupid it is if people raise the subject to me (which has never happened outside of the internet). And there almost definitely never will be, despite the fearmongering idiocy you might read in this thread.
On August 11 2012 22:23 GenghisKhan wrote: Multiculuralism will only work when it's no longer seen as multiculturalism; it will only work when all those component cultures see themselves as part of the one culture, rather than part of their original cultures. In saying this, I'm not advocating that everyone joining a larger culture should forget their heritage and take on that culture's aspects, but more that the said culture should be one which has taken on all of the positives of the original cultures (And hopefully cut out many of the negatives, such as harmful traditions), and yet can call those positives its own.
Canada is somewhat of a testing ground for multiculturalism, and I'm amazed things go as smoothly as they do here. Racial hate crimes are practically non-existent, in fact racism of any kind is astonishingly rare.
Canadian's just have a positive and accepting attitude. Sure, immigrants land and form their own communities, but their children attend the same public schools, play on the same sports teams and form friendships with Canadian's of all backgrounds. We don't force immigrants to become Canadian, we just show them what is so great about this place without arrogance and they find themselves becoming more like us, with their own unique culture strengthening the whole.
Going to a hockey game in Canada these days is fantastic. You will see people from literally everywhere on earth gathered together, drinking their favourite beer, doing what Canadian's do best. It's a beautiful thing.
On August 11 2012 18:38 Psychobabas wrote: Multiculturalism has failed in Europe. Just visit London, probably the most multicultural capital in Europe.
You expect to see a harmonious cooexistence of cultures but what you get are completely segregated neighborhoods according to race and ethnicity. The Pakistanis are doing their own thing in east London, the Somalis their own, the Indians their own, the Africans their own, the Arabs their own, the Chinese their own etc etc all with little will to integrate to British culture, nevermind tolerating other cultures.
Some can barely speak a word of English.
It's the way UK deals with multiculturalism. The spirit is "We are all the same, every culture has the right to live how he wants".
It's pretty cool. The problem is that it implies communitarianism. People use to stay with people like them, their food, their place to live, even their school, they language.
More and more people considere themself as paskistans, indians, muslims, etc, forgetting that they are in fact British, a country with a long history and it's own way of life. It's own culture in short that must be respected because it's the culture of most of people.
And i think this is the problem. Nobody say that muslims must become anglicans or eat fish and chips of course, but considering their are British citizen, they should be proud of it FIRST and their other culture should be secondary.
The communitarianism in UK is a very bad thing imho, because a child is grown as a [put your cultur here if it's not british] and he sees the british culture as a foreign culture, and not a big part of his own.
In short cummunitarianism is the ennemy of integration, witch is the ennemy of a wealthy multiculturalism.
On global topic : multiculturalism is not bad. It's just awfully done in western countries.
(PS : Sorry for my bad english, i try to improve, but it's far to be good )
I think thats about right. Take a look at this (I actually bumped to this in a finnish comedy/internet humour site)
They do not see themselves as inhabitants of England. They see themselves as muslim extremist, who have rights to denounce and bash everything that doesn't belong to their culture and religious rules. Ridiculous.
In the beginning the reporter says that the protest is because arrest of a swedish local woman whose husband set a bomb in 2010.
Sad video. People who want sharia law should just be shipped to a country that enforces it. end of story.
People should be forcibly expelled from their homes because of an opinion. What's that called again?
Sharia Law.
Zing!
Which I would wholeheartedly oppose if it were an actual threat. Hence the hypocrisy of his post. edit: to be clear, I already oppose sharia law, but by oppose I meant actually do something. As of now, there's not much to be done other than point out how stupid it is if people raise the subject to me (which has never happened outside of the internet).
Was Nazism an actual threat in 1925?
The fact that something is dangerous in it's current state does not mean that it won't be dangerous in the future.
On August 11 2012 18:38 Psychobabas wrote: Multiculturalism has failed in Europe. Just visit London, probably the most multicultural capital in Europe.
You expect to see a harmonious cooexistence of cultures but what you get are completely segregated neighborhoods according to race and ethnicity. The Pakistanis are doing their own thing in east London, the Somalis their own, the Indians their own, the Africans their own, the Arabs their own, the Chinese their own etc etc all with little will to integrate to British culture, nevermind tolerating other cultures.
Some can barely speak a word of English.
It's the way UK deals with multiculturalism. The spirit is "We are all the same, every culture has the right to live how he wants".
It's pretty cool. The problem is that it implies communitarianism. People use to stay with people like them, their food, their place to live, even their school, they language.
More and more people considere themself as paskistans, indians, muslims, etc, forgetting that they are in fact British, a country with a long history and it's own way of life. It's own culture in short that must be respected because it's the culture of most of people.
And i think this is the problem. Nobody say that muslims must become anglicans or eat fish and chips of course, but considering their are British citizen, they should be proud of it FIRST and their other culture should be secondary.
The communitarianism in UK is a very bad thing imho, because a child is grown as a [put your cultur here if it's not british] and he sees the british culture as a foreign culture, and not a big part of his own.
In short cummunitarianism is the ennemy of integration, witch is the ennemy of a wealthy multiculturalism.
On global topic : multiculturalism is not bad. It's just awfully done in western countries.
(PS : Sorry for my bad english, i try to improve, but it's far to be good )
I think thats about right. Take a look at this (I actually bumped to this in a finnish comedy/internet humour site)
They do not see themselves as inhabitants of England. They see themselves as muslim extremist, who have rights to denounce and bash everything that doesn't belong to their culture and religious rules. Ridiculous.
In the beginning the reporter says that the protest is because arrest of a swedish local woman whose husband set a bomb in 2010.
Sad video. People who want sharia law should just be shipped to a country that enforces it. end of story.
People should be forcibly expelled from their homes because of an opinion. What's that called again?
Sharia Law.
Zing!
Which I would wholeheartedly oppose if it were an actual threat. Hence the hypocrisy of his post. edit: to be clear, I already oppose sharia law, but by oppose I meant actually do something. As of now, there's not much to be done other than point out how stupid it is if people raise the subject to me (which has never happened outside of the internet).
Was Nazism an actual threat in 1925?
The fact that something is dangerous in it's current state does not mean that it won't be dangerous in the future.
Slippery slope fallacy. Please present actual evidence that this whole European Islamist movement has anywhere near the level of support of Nazism in the 1920s or that the two movements are similar in any way that is not entirely superficial or preposterous. Or that the socioeconomic circumstances are identical and can thus be used to infer causation. By your logic, Palestine will be obliterated by Israel in a few decades.
On August 11 2012 22:23 GenghisKhan wrote: Multiculuralism will only work when it's no longer seen as multiculturalism; it will only work when all those component cultures see themselves as part of the one culture, rather than part of their original cultures. In saying this, I'm not advocating that everyone joining a larger culture should forget their heritage and take on that culture's aspects, but more that the said culture should be one which has taken on all of the positives of the original cultures (And hopefully cut out many of the negatives, such as harmful traditions), and yet can call those positives its own.
Canada is somewhat of a testing ground for multiculturalism, and I'm amazed things go as smoothly as they do here. Racial hate crimes are practically non-existent, in fact racism of any kind is astonishingly rare.
Canadian's just have a positive and accepting attitude. Sure, immigrants land and form their own communities, but their children attend the same public schools, play on the same sports teams and form friendships with Canadian's of all backgrounds. We don't force immigrants to become Canadian, we just show them what is so great about this place without arrogance and they find themselves becoming more like us, with their own unique culture strengthening the whole.
Going to a hockey game in Canada these days is fantastic. You will see people from literally everywhere on earth gathered together, drinking their favourite beer, doing what Canadian's do best. It's a beautiful thing.
That's fantastic! It's just a shame the rest of the world isn't a magical place where everyone dances together on the grass with rainbows in the blue sky.
Show me some actual evidence of the impending doom that is Sharia law (not something like a youtube video by some clueless hack) and I'll stop condescending to your laughable, fascist beliefs.
Yes, it's fascist wanting to protect the world from Sharia law. Unless you live in Europe, why do you even pretend to know how it works here?
Slippery slope fallacy. Please Present actual evidence that this whole European Islamist movement has anywhere near the level of support of Nazism or that the two movements are similar in any way that is not entirely superficial or preposterous. By your logic, Palestine will be obliterated by Israel in a few decades.
Seeing entire parts of cities slowly become worse and worse over the years means nothing, right? Hearing weekly about incidents where women in public are yelled at, spat on or worse just because they don't conform to Islamic standards is okay, right? Having gay couples bullied into moving by young muslims isn't worrying, right?
On August 11 2012 22:23 GenghisKhan wrote: Multiculuralism will only work when it's no longer seen as multiculturalism; it will only work when all those component cultures see themselves as part of the one culture, rather than part of their original cultures. In saying this, I'm not advocating that everyone joining a larger culture should forget their heritage and take on that culture's aspects, but more that the said culture should be one which has taken on all of the positives of the original cultures (And hopefully cut out many of the negatives, such as harmful traditions), and yet can call those positives its own.
Canada is somewhat of a testing ground for multiculturalism, and I'm amazed things go as smoothly as they do here. Racial hate crimes are practically non-existent, in fact racism of any kind is astonishingly rare.
Canadian's just have a positive and accepting attitude. Sure, immigrants land and form their own communities, but their children attend the same public schools, play on the same sports teams and form friendships with Canadian's of all backgrounds. We don't force immigrants to become Canadian, we just show them what is so great about this place without arrogance and they find themselves becoming more like us, with their own unique culture strengthening the whole.
Going to a hockey game in Canada these days is fantastic. You will see people from literally everywhere on earth gathered together, drinking their favourite beer, doing what Canadian's do best. It's a beautiful thing.
That's fantastic! It's just a shame the rest of the world isn't a magical place where everyone dances together on the grass with rainbows in the blue sky.
Show me some actual evidence of the impending doom that is Sharia law (not something like a youtube video by some clueless hack) and I'll stop condescending to your laughable, fascist beliefs.
Yes, it's fascist wanting to protect the world from Sharia law. Unless you live in Europe, why do you even pretend to know how it works here?
Slippery slope fallacy. Please Present actual evidence that this whole European Islamist movement has anywhere near the level of support of Nazism or that the two movements are similar in any way that is not entirely superficial or preposterous. By your logic, Palestine will be obliterated by Israel in a few decades.
Seeing entire parts of cities slowly become worse and worse over the years means nothing, right?
If living in a place makes you an expert, we don't ever need to refer to empirical evidence. After all, conjectural evidence is just as valid right? You're just pwning yourself harder with every post.
edit: Please present the evidence of deteriorating cities as well as the clear causal link between that and the actions of dudes who believe in Mohammed and Allah.
edit: or the link between economic/social deterioration and this "inferior culture" you speak of.
On August 11 2012 18:38 Psychobabas wrote: Multiculturalism has failed in Europe. Just visit London, probably the most multicultural capital in Europe.
You expect to see a harmonious cooexistence of cultures but what you get are completely segregated neighborhoods according to race and ethnicity. The Pakistanis are doing their own thing in east London, the Somalis their own, the Indians their own, the Africans their own, the Arabs their own, the Chinese their own etc etc all with little will to integrate to British culture, nevermind tolerating other cultures.
Some can barely speak a word of English.
It's the way UK deals with multiculturalism. The spirit is "We are all the same, every culture has the right to live how he wants".
It's pretty cool. The problem is that it implies communitarianism. People use to stay with people like them, their food, their place to live, even their school, they language.
More and more people considere themself as paskistans, indians, muslims, etc, forgetting that they are in fact British, a country with a long history and it's own way of life. It's own culture in short that must be respected because it's the culture of most of people.
And i think this is the problem. Nobody say that muslims must become anglicans or eat fish and chips of course, but considering their are British citizen, they should be proud of it FIRST and their other culture should be secondary.
The communitarianism in UK is a very bad thing imho, because a child is grown as a [put your cultur here if it's not british] and he sees the british culture as a foreign culture, and not a big part of his own.
In short cummunitarianism is the ennemy of integration, witch is the ennemy of a wealthy multiculturalism.
On global topic : multiculturalism is not bad. It's just awfully done in western countries.
(PS : Sorry for my bad english, i try to improve, but it's far to be good )
I think thats about right. Take a look at this (I actually bumped to this in a finnish comedy/internet humour site)
They do not see themselves as inhabitants of England. They see themselves as muslim extremist, who have rights to denounce and bash everything that doesn't belong to their culture and religious rules. Ridiculous.
In the beginning the reporter says that the protest is because arrest of a swedish local woman whose husband set a bomb in 2010.
Sad video. People who want sharia law should just be shipped to a country that enforces it. end of story.
People should be forcibly expelled from their homes because of an opinion. What's that called again?
That's called making your country a better place.
Some cultures/ideas just really are objectively inferior and make the world a worse place to live in.
Well if their home countries won't take them back seeing as how they're naturalized citizens, maybe some ghettos in rural Europe will do, right?
Or we just send them to Canada because apparently you people are gifted at making model citizens from barbarians, right?
Should we just slowly let our countries be taken over by extremis? These people don't want to change. They want to come here, live of our socialist policies, invite more relatives over and slowly convert my country into an Islamic state.
And I know full well that there are tons of good foreign people. It's the culture that some have what's wrong, not the place they come from.
Do you really think that's what in the head of the average Muslim joe ? Leaving in a shitty ghetto and trying to subjugate your country rather than marrying the girl he loves, having a good job, some kids and a house ?
I know Muslims are on average more devote than Christians, and I also know that some European country recieves a lot of middle-eastern muslims whom are far more radical than the North africans, but really, don't be delusionned. On one hand, there is a huge proportion of Muslims in Europe who deserve a kick in the ass because they're criminals and delinquents who don't respect the country in which they or their parents emigrate to, but on the other, this has nothing to do with the core values of Islam. Islam doesn't absolve rapes, thefts, and mindless agressions. Your leftist politicians do.
Still, I acknowledge that there might be some clash between Europe and Islam since it is a foreign religion, but these issues are grossly overexagerated by the mass media propaganda.
On August 11 2012 18:38 Psychobabas wrote: Multiculturalism has failed in Europe. Just visit London, probably the most multicultural capital in Europe.
You expect to see a harmonious cooexistence of cultures but what you get are completely segregated neighborhoods according to race and ethnicity. The Pakistanis are doing their own thing in east London, the Somalis their own, the Indians their own, the Africans their own, the Arabs their own, the Chinese their own etc etc all with little will to integrate to British culture, nevermind tolerating other cultures.
Some can barely speak a word of English.
It's the way UK deals with multiculturalism. The spirit is "We are all the same, every culture has the right to live how he wants".
It's pretty cool. The problem is that it implies communitarianism. People use to stay with people like them, their food, their place to live, even their school, they language.
More and more people considere themself as paskistans, indians, muslims, etc, forgetting that they are in fact British, a country with a long history and it's own way of life. It's own culture in short that must be respected because it's the culture of most of people.
And i think this is the problem. Nobody say that muslims must become anglicans or eat fish and chips of course, but considering their are British citizen, they should be proud of it FIRST and their other culture should be secondary.
The communitarianism in UK is a very bad thing imho, because a child is grown as a [put your cultur here if it's not british] and he sees the british culture as a foreign culture, and not a big part of his own.
In short cummunitarianism is the ennemy of integration, witch is the ennemy of a wealthy multiculturalism.
On global topic : multiculturalism is not bad. It's just awfully done in western countries.
(PS : Sorry for my bad english, i try to improve, but it's far to be good )
I think thats about right. Take a look at this (I actually bumped to this in a finnish comedy/internet humour site)
They do not see themselves as inhabitants of England. They see themselves as muslim extremist, who have rights to denounce and bash everything that doesn't belong to their culture and religious rules. Ridiculous.
In the beginning the reporter says that the protest is because arrest of a swedish local woman whose husband set a bomb in 2010.
Sad video. People who want sharia law should just be shipped to a country that enforces it. end of story.
People should be forcibly expelled from their homes because of an opinion. What's that called again?
That's called making your country a better place.
Some cultures/ideas just really are objectively inferior and make the world a worse place to live in.
Well if their home countries won't take them back seeing as how they're naturalized citizens, maybe some ghettos in rural Europe will do, right?
Or we just send them to Canada because apparently you people are gifted at making model citizens from barbarians, right?
Should we just slowly let our countries be taken over by extremis? These people don't want to change. They want to come here, live of our socialist policies, invite more relatives over and slowly convert my country into an Islamic state.
And I know full well that there are tons of good foreign people. It's the culture that some have what's wrong, not the place they come from.
Do you really think that's what in the head of the average Muslim joe ? Leaving in a shitty ghetto and trying to subjugate your country rather than marrying the girl he loves, having a good job, some kids and a house ?
I know Muslims are on average more devote than Christians, and I also know that some European country recieves a lot of middle-eastern muslims whom are far more radical than the North africans, but really, don't be delusionned. On one hand, there is a huge proportion of Muslims in Europe who deserve a kick in the ass because they're criminals and delinquents who don't respect the country in which they or their parents emigrate to, but on the other, this has nothing to do with the core values of Islam. Islam doesn't absolve rapes, thefts, and mindless agressions. Your leftist politicians do.
Still, I acknowledge that there might be some clash between Europe and Islam since it is a foreign religion, but these issues are grossly overexagerated by the mass media propaganda.
I know the Islam isn't inherently bad, it's what the people make of it what's bad. The culture of those people is bad, even if the things they practice aren't based on the Quran.
On August 11 2012 22:23 GenghisKhan wrote: Multiculuralism will only work when it's no longer seen as multiculturalism; it will only work when all those component cultures see themselves as part of the one culture, rather than part of their original cultures. In saying this, I'm not advocating that everyone joining a larger culture should forget their heritage and take on that culture's aspects, but more that the said culture should be one which has taken on all of the positives of the original cultures (And hopefully cut out many of the negatives, such as harmful traditions), and yet can call those positives its own.
Canada is somewhat of a testing ground for multiculturalism, and I'm amazed things go as smoothly as they do here. Racial hate crimes are practically non-existent, in fact racism of any kind is astonishingly rare.
Canadian's just have a positive and accepting attitude. Sure, immigrants land and form their own communities, but their children attend the same public schools, play on the same sports teams and form friendships with Canadian's of all backgrounds. We don't force immigrants to become Canadian, we just show them what is so great about this place without arrogance and they find themselves becoming more like us, with their own unique culture strengthening the whole.
Going to a hockey game in Canada these days is fantastic. You will see people from literally everywhere on earth gathered together, drinking their favourite beer, doing what Canadian's do best. It's a beautiful thing.
That's fantastic! It's just a shame the rest of the world isn't a magical place where everyone dances together on the grass with rainbows in the blue sky.
Isn't that the literal definition of the Netherlands?
On August 11 2012 18:38 Psychobabas wrote: Multiculturalism has failed in Europe. Just visit London, probably the most multicultural capital in Europe.
You expect to see a harmonious cooexistence of cultures but what you get are completely segregated neighborhoods according to race and ethnicity. The Pakistanis are doing their own thing in east London, the Somalis their own, the Indians their own, the Africans their own, the Arabs their own, the Chinese their own etc etc all with little will to integrate to British culture, nevermind tolerating other cultures.
Some can barely speak a word of English.
It's the way UK deals with multiculturalism. The spirit is "We are all the same, every culture has the right to live how he wants".
It's pretty cool. The problem is that it implies communitarianism. People use to stay with people like them, their food, their place to live, even their school, they language.
More and more people considere themself as paskistans, indians, muslims, etc, forgetting that they are in fact British, a country with a long history and it's own way of life. It's own culture in short that must be respected because it's the culture of most of people.
And i think this is the problem. Nobody say that muslims must become anglicans or eat fish and chips of course, but considering their are British citizen, they should be proud of it FIRST and their other culture should be secondary.
The communitarianism in UK is a very bad thing imho, because a child is grown as a [put your cultur here if it's not british] and he sees the british culture as a foreign culture, and not a big part of his own.
In short cummunitarianism is the ennemy of integration, witch is the ennemy of a wealthy multiculturalism.
On global topic : multiculturalism is not bad. It's just awfully done in western countries.
(PS : Sorry for my bad english, i try to improve, but it's far to be good )
I think thats about right. Take a look at this (I actually bumped to this in a finnish comedy/internet humour site)
They do not see themselves as inhabitants of England. They see themselves as muslim extremist, who have rights to denounce and bash everything that doesn't belong to their culture and religious rules. Ridiculous.
In the beginning the reporter says that the protest is because arrest of a swedish local woman whose husband set a bomb in 2010.
Sad video. People who want sharia law should just be shipped to a country that enforces it. end of story.
People should be forcibly expelled from their homes because of an opinion. What's that called again?
Sharia Law.
Zing!
Which I would wholeheartedly oppose if it were an actual threat. Hence the hypocrisy of his post. edit: to be clear, I already oppose sharia law, but by oppose I meant actually do something. As of now, there's not much to be done other than point out how stupid it is if people raise the subject to me (which has never happened outside of the internet).
Was Nazism an actual threat in 1925?
The fact that something is dangerous in it's current state does not mean that it won't be dangerous in the future.
Slippery slope fallacy. Please Present actual evidence that this whole European Islamist movement has anywhere near the level of support of Nazism in the 1920s or that the two movements are similar in any way that is not entirely superficial or preposterous. Or that the socioeconomic circumstances are identical and can thus be used to infer causation. By your logic, Palestine will be obliterated by Israel in a few decades.
Nope, by my logic, Israel will be destroyed in a few decades, due to differences between the groups (Ashkenazi jews, Spharadi jews, Arabs, Orthodox jews, mildly religous jews) in Israel + The financial turmoil that is about to hit Israel due to the recession that's going to happen in Europe/USA.
It's interesting to see the juxtaposition of individuals in the Cultural Mosiac camp versus those that favour the Melting Pot theory, where a heterogenous society becomes more and more homogenous - basically assimilated into the main culture.
In Canada, the goal is to build a multi-cultural society where everyone's religious/personal beliefs are free. That is as long as you Obey the Law of the land, which means discrimination/hate on the basis of religion or other beliefs is by no means accepted. Whether or not the system works really depends on your perspective. But in my opinion, it's doing fine.
This is an interesting case of cultural clash. http://gawker.com/walt-wawra/ An US officer visiting Calgary was approached by 2 men asking if he went to the "Calgary Stampede" yet. The officer thought he was being threatened. He "got out" of the situation safely, thanked god and thought about why he wasn't allowed to carry a gun in Canada. Reports later noted that the 2 men were actually Calgary Stampede promoters offering free tickets. Now this isn't a debate about gun control. But it shows the cultural differences between Canada/US. Additional Note: This was a man that had been an officer of over 20 years, and he wasn't able to assess the situation properly. We only know of this account because he wrote a personal letter to the Calgary news letter, noting how he got out of what he presumed was a dangerous situation.
Does the Cultural Mosiac theory work? It depends if individuals from other countries come into the Host country with intentions to follow their own personal beliefs when it infringes the Host country's law.
On August 12 2012 00:34 Eps wrote: Does the Cultural Mosiac theory work? It depends if individuals from other countries come into the Host country with intentions to follow their own personal beliefs when it infringes the Host country's law.
Which the host country can enforce (i.e., the criminal justice system) and perhaps even prevent with better social institutions (e.g., second language courses, employment services, social assistance). From some of the posts in this thread, it's like European nations never legislated against rape, theft and other crimes and thus are powerless against the hordes of inferior cultural mongrels wreaking havoc in their nation.
On August 12 2012 00:25 Thorakh wrote: [Seeing entire parts of cities slowly become worse and worse over the years means nothing, right? Hearing weekly about incidents where women in public are yelled at, spat on or worse just because they don't conform to Islamic standards is okay, right? Having gay couples bullied into moving by young muslims isn't worrying, right?
The criminal actions of individuals can and are treated as such. If there is a higher prevalence of crime in particular social groups (e.g., poor blacks in North America, poor middle-easterners/Muslims in Europe, poor gypsies) then there is a social and economic issue that could be better understood and ameliorated via sociological and other empirical examination, not conjecture about perceived "cultural" "inferiority".
Cultural mosaic has ever been the predecessor to a melting pot. People don't just assimilate a few years after they get off the boat. It takes time, and invariably the host country is changed by the assimilation as well as the assimilatees themselves. But assimilation does eventually happen. Intermarriage speeds it up.
Religion is a thorny issue in this, however, and does stand as an impediment to assimilation due to the fundamentalist tendencies of older religions. Abrahamic religions specifically have been able to keep their believers successfully segregated - to an extent - from the rest of society in a lot of countries.
On August 11 2012 23:57 Portlandian wrote: Multiculturalism is a thinly veiled divide and conquer strategy. It is promoted by the wealthy and powerful to split the lower classes along racial, religious, and cultural lines.
People who go along with it just because it is couched in sweet sounding lies are useful idiots.
Good Fences: The Importance of Setting Boundaries for Peaceful Coexistence
Our analysis shows that peace does not depend on integrated coexistence, but rather on well defined topographical and political boundaries separating groups.
On August 11 2012 22:23 GenghisKhan wrote: Multiculuralism will only work when it's no longer seen as multiculturalism; it will only work when all those component cultures see themselves as part of the one culture, rather than part of their original cultures. In saying this, I'm not advocating that everyone joining a larger culture should forget their heritage and take on that culture's aspects, but more that the said culture should be one which has taken on all of the positives of the original cultures (And hopefully cut out many of the negatives, such as harmful traditions), and yet can call those positives its own.
Canada is somewhat of a testing ground for multiculturalism, and I'm amazed things go as smoothly as they do here. Racial hate crimes are practically non-existent, in fact racism of any kind is astonishingly rare.
Canadian's just have a positive and accepting attitude. Sure, immigrants land and form their own communities, but their children attend the same public schools, play on the same sports teams and form friendships with Canadian's of all backgrounds. We don't force immigrants to become Canadian, we just show them what is so great about this place without arrogance and they find themselves becoming more like us, with their own unique culture strengthening the whole.
Going to a hockey game in Canada these days is fantastic. You will see people from literally everywhere on earth gathered together, drinking their favourite beer, doing what Canadian's do best. It's a beautiful thing.
The idea that diversity is working out so well for Canada is a lie. Racial gaps in crime rates persist, though they keep it under wraps to protect the feelings of people like you who have bought into the multicult myth. There are also racial gaps in education, which are being addressed with things like "Afrocentric" schooling in Toronto which is pretty contrary to the whole ideal of multiculturalism. Maybe they should have stayed in Africa if they need Afrocentric schooling?
To maintain this facade of multicultural utopia Canadians have abolished all semblance of free speech. While people mindlessly chant "diversity is strength" the reality is that diversity is so divisive that everyone must adhere to strict speech restrictions to avoid breaking the peace. They also have laws which mandate racial discrimination in hiring to enforce equal outcomes. Unfairness is standard in multicultural societies. Every group agitates for special privileges, and politicians are all too happy to give favors for votes.
Police routinely suppress racial data in Canada, study says
The study notes that Canadian research has shown that black people are pulled over more often than other groups and that aboriginals are over-represented in prisons.
One possible explanation is that racial minorities are socially disadvantaged, putting them at greater risk of involvement in crime, the study says. But another possibility is systemic discrimination by police based on race.
In order to get to the bottom of why over-representation exists, there needs to be a systematic collection and reporting of racial data, the study says.
On August 12 2012 00:20 blinken wrote: Going to a hockey game in Canada these days is fantastic. You will see people from literally everywhere on earth gathered together, drinking their favourite beer, doing what Canadian's do best. It's a beautiful thing.
This is the type of braindead emotional mush that is typical of people who support multiculturalism.
What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Sadly nobody ever asks about what the real tangible benefits are that could possibly justify the huge bureaucracy and infringements on basic rights like free speech and fair treatment under the law that multiculturalism entails.
On August 11 2012 23:57 Portlandian wrote: Multiculturalism is a thinly veiled divide and conquer strategy. It is promoted by the wealthy and powerful to split the lower classes along racial, religious, and cultural lines.
People who go along with it just because it is couched in sweet sounding lies are useful idiots.
Good Fences: The Importance of Setting Boundaries for Peaceful Coexistence
Our analysis shows that peace does not depend on integrated coexistence, but rather on well defined topographical and political boundaries separating groups.
I agree, multiculturalism is just another tool to consilidate the power of those who enforce it on our societies
As is all social policy. What does that tell us though? That governments attempt to keep countries running in the way that they want them to (which is hopefully the way their constituents want their country to be run)? That's not really saying anything about anything. Governments allow immigration because it fills demands for skilled and unskilled labour. This can have all sorts of implications like those discussed in this thread already, but to simply point out that immigration policy is part of the state apparatus contributes nothing.
On August 11 2012 18:38 Psychobabas wrote: Multiculturalism has failed in Europe. Just visit London, probably the most multicultural capital in Europe.
You expect to see a harmonious cooexistence of cultures but what you get are completely segregated neighborhoods according to race and ethnicity. The Pakistanis are doing their own thing in east London, the Somalis their own, the Indians their own, the Africans their own, the Arabs their own, the Chinese their own etc etc all with little will to integrate to British culture, nevermind tolerating other cultures.
Some can barely speak a word of English.
It's the way UK deals with multiculturalism. The spirit is "We are all the same, every culture has the right to live how he wants".
It's pretty cool. The problem is that it implies communitarianism. People use to stay with people like them, their food, their place to live, even their school, they language.
More and more people considere themself as paskistans, indians, muslims, etc, forgetting that they are in fact British, a country with a long history and it's own way of life. It's own culture in short that must be respected because it's the culture of most of people.
And i think this is the problem. Nobody say that muslims must become anglicans or eat fish and chips of course, but considering their are British citizen, they should be proud of it FIRST and their other culture should be secondary.
The communitarianism in UK is a very bad thing imho, because a child is grown as a [put your cultur here if it's not british] and he sees the british culture as a foreign culture, and not a big part of his own.
In short cummunitarianism is the ennemy of integration, witch is the ennemy of a wealthy multiculturalism.
On global topic : multiculturalism is not bad. It's just awfully done in western countries.
(PS : Sorry for my bad english, i try to improve, but it's far to be good )
I think thats about right. Take a look at this (I actually bumped to this in a finnish comedy/internet humour site)
They do not see themselves as inhabitants of England. They see themselves as muslim extremist, who have rights to denounce and bash everything that doesn't belong to their culture and religious rules. Ridiculous.
In the beginning the reporter says that the protest is because arrest of a swedish local woman whose husband set a bomb in 2010.
Sad video. People who want sharia law should just be shipped to a country that enforces it. end of story.
People should be forcibly expelled from their homes because of an opinion. What's that called again?
That's called making your country a better place.
Some cultures/ideas just really are objectively inferior and make the world a worse place to live in.
Well if their home countries won't take them back seeing as how they're naturalized citizens, maybe some ghettos in rural Europe will do, right?
Or we just send them to Canada because apparently you people are gifted at making model citizens from barbarians, right?
Should we just slowly let our countries be taken over by extremis? These people don't want to change. They want to come here, live of our socialist policies, invite more relatives over and slowly convert my country into an Islamic state.
And I know full well that there are tons of good foreign people. It's the culture that some have what's wrong, not the place they come from.
Do you really think that's what in the head of the average Muslim joe ? Leaving in a shitty ghetto and trying to subjugate your country rather than marrying the girl he loves, having a good job, some kids and a house ?
I know Muslims are on average more devote than Christians, and I also know that some European country recieves a lot of middle-eastern muslims whom are far more radical than the North africans, but really, don't be delusionned. On one hand, there is a huge proportion of Muslims in Europe who deserve a kick in the ass because they're criminals and delinquents who don't respect the country in which they or their parents emigrate to, but on the other, this has nothing to do with the core values of Islam. Islam doesn't absolve rapes, thefts, and mindless agressions. Your leftist politicians do.
Still, I acknowledge that there might be some clash between Europe and Islam since it is a foreign religion, but these issues are grossly overexagerated by the mass media propaganda.
I know the Islam isn't inherently bad, it's what the people make of it what's bad. The culture of those people is bad, even if the things they practice aren't based on the Quran.
Most of the devote Muslims (not talking about the crazy middle-eastern wanting to establish the sharia in gb or whatever) have a culture which is pretty much what was the European culture in the late 19th. Respect of the elders, respect of authority, male/female distinction, being proud of your heritage, being proud of your masculinity...
It spiraled out of control because the immigration was massive and that the leftist politicians escused aggressions, thefts... because of the economical difficulties these immigrants were facing.
You wouldn't find anything in the QU'ran escusing rape on a christian because of economical difficulties. That's 100% decadent societal-leftist culture. People need to start blaming all the politicians who opened gates to this massive immigration, and all the founders of these so called anti-racist lobbies which for some reason florished everywhere in Europe at pretty much the same time.
On August 12 2012 00:57 Portlandian wrote: What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Sadly nobody ever asks about what the real tangible benefits are that could possibly justify the huge bureaucracy and infringements on basic rights like free speech and fair treatment under the law that multiculturalism entails.
Multiculturalism is a byproduct of immigration. The benefits of immigration are - when done correctly - improved economic output and talent acquisition. There is no alternative to multiculturalism when a country decides to open its doors to immigrants regardless of race, ethnicity, and religion because immigrants won't just erase their differences to the host population when they immigrate, and coercive attempts to suppress these differences only lead to their exacerbation.
The criminal actions of individuals can and are treated as such. If there is a higher prevalence of crime in particular social groups (e.g., poor blacks in North America, poor middle-easterners/Muslims in Europe, poor gypsies) then there is a social and economic issue that could be better understood and ameliorated via sociological and other empirical examination, not conjecture about perceived "cultural" "inferiority".
Or maybe, just maybe it is because of the mindset (their culture) some of those people have:
Which the host country can enforce (i.e., the criminal justice system) and perhaps even prevent with better social institutions (e.g., second language courses, employment services, social assistance)
All of this is present in my country and yet things don't get better, I wonder why?
Most of the devote Muslims (not talking about the crazy middle-eastern wanting to establish the sharia in gb or whatever) have a culture which is pretty much what was the European culture in the late 19th. Respect of the elders, respect of authority, male/female distinction, being proud of your heritage, being proud of your masculinity...
It spiraled out of control because the immigration was massive and that the leftist politicians escused aggressions, thefts... because of the economical difficulties these immigrants were facing.
You wouldn't find anything in the QU'ran escusing rape on a christian because of economical difficulties. That's 100% decadent societal-leftist culture. People need to start blaming all the politicians who opened gates to this massive immigration, and all the founders of these so called anti-racist lobbies which for some reason florished everywhere in Europe at pretty much the same time.
On August 11 2012 22:23 GenghisKhan wrote: Multiculuralism will only work when it's no longer seen as multiculturalism; it will only work when all those component cultures see themselves as part of the one culture, rather than part of their original cultures. In saying this, I'm not advocating that everyone joining a larger culture should forget their heritage and take on that culture's aspects, but more that the said culture should be one which has taken on all of the positives of the original cultures (And hopefully cut out many of the negatives, such as harmful traditions), and yet can call those positives its own.
Canada is somewhat of a testing ground for multiculturalism, and I'm amazed things go as smoothly as they do here. Racial hate crimes are practically non-existent, in fact racism of any kind is astonishingly rare.
Canadian's just have a positive and accepting attitude. Sure, immigrants land and form their own communities, but their children attend the same public schools, play on the same sports teams and form friendships with Canadian's of all backgrounds. We don't force immigrants to become Canadian, we just show them what is so great about this place without arrogance and they find themselves becoming more like us, with their own unique culture strengthening the whole.
Going to a hockey game in Canada these days is fantastic. You will see people from literally everywhere on earth gathered together, drinking their favourite beer, doing what Canadian's do best. It's a beautiful thing.
The idea that diversity is working out so well for Canada is a lie. Racial gaps in crime rates persist, though they keep it under wraps to protect the feelings of people like you who have bought into the multicult myth. There are also racial gaps in education, which are being addressed with things like "Afrocentric" schooling in Toronto which is pretty contrary to the whole ideal of multiculturalism. Maybe they should have stayed in Africa if they need Afrocentric schooling?
To maintain this facade of multicultural utopia Canadians have abolished all semblance of free speech. While people mindlessly chant "diversity is strength" the reality is that diversity is so divisive that everyone must adhere to strict speech restrictions to avoid breaking the peace. They also have laws which mandate racial discrimination in hiring to enforce equal outcomes. Unfairness is standard in multicultural societies. Every group agitates for special privileges, and politicians are all too happy to give favors for votes.
Police routinely suppress racial data in Canada, study says
The study notes that Canadian research has shown that black people are pulled over more often than other groups and that aboriginals are over-represented in prisons.
One possible explanation is that racial minorities are socially disadvantaged, putting them at greater risk of involvement in crime, the study says. But another possibility is systemic discrimination by police based on race.
In order to get to the bottom of why over-representation exists, there needs to be a systematic collection and reporting of racial data, the study says.
On August 12 2012 00:20 blinken wrote: Going to a hockey game in Canada these days is fantastic. You will see people from literally everywhere on earth gathered together, drinking their favourite beer, doing what Canadian's do best. It's a beautiful thing.
This is the type of braindead emotional mush that is typical of people who support multiculturalism.
What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Sadly nobody ever asks about what the real tangible benefits are that could possibly justify the huge bureaucracy and infringements on basic rights like free speech and fair treatment under the law that multiculturalism entails.
First of all, what's your definition of culture? I take it that we're discussing culture defined as a value/belief system shared by a group and transmitted from one/some individuals to others.
If that's what your definition is as well, I don't understand how you can conflate differences in crime rate between racial groups (e.g., black and white people), suppression of free speech (for which you haven't provided a Canadian example) and the fact that police cover up racial data with the fact that there are people of different national/ethnic/"cultural" backgrounds inhabiting Canada. I don't care about any sort of mushy harmonious society stuff, but I fail to see how people of diverse backgrounds occupying the same designated land mass and going about their daily lives is causally related to any of the things you mentioned.
Not all black people think the same way or share the same culture. Not all white people think the same or share the same culture. You haven't presented any evidence of aspects of particular black or whatever cultures that cause social ills. Also the article you posted only indicates that police are covering up racial profiling as it says "“whitewashing” of criminal data makes it virtually impossible for researchers to gauge whether police are dealing with racial and ethnic minority groups in an equitable manner." Racial profiling by law enforcement is common practice in Canada. Just look up "racial profiling Canada" in Google scholar if you want to read up on it and form a more educated opinion.
On August 11 2012 22:52 D10 wrote: I cant really fathom how most of western society works, because it must be so radically different from Brazil.
We are a multicultural society, unlike america and many countries where specific cultures are segretated, here its blend beyond recognition, and the ones who strive for their "original" culture are seen more like medieval reenactors than as a culture per se.
The secret I think is to be somewhat chauvinist while being broad minded.
Dont expect everyone to be the same/act the same and you wont be surprised.
lol that's because you have been living together for many generations in Brazil. Latin America, to me, while not perfect, is the as close as it gets to the end result of integration. I mean you guys have a majority who are mestizos in many countries.
This shit takes time. Just like how the mindset of my parents, grandparents and my generation towards others here in Malaysia are different as we slowly identify more with the place we've been living in for generations.
The first few generations can be quite hateful and while being undesirable, I find that completely normal and natural.
Although they aren't demonstrating in the streets, White people aren't exactly being model citizens everywhere else either. And yes, do they segregate themselves.
Governments allow immigration because they are corrupt. It is done to import voters, divide the lower classes against each other, and drive down wages.
You need to stop being so credulous and taking everything politicians say at face value. Of course they aren't going to come right out and say "we are doing this to reduce the social capital of the average citizen and make it harder to hold politicians accountable". Politicians are adept liars.
Why Diversity Destroys Social Capital
Putnam’s massive study concluded that greater diversity lead to less civic participation, less charity, less trust, less voting, less church attendance, less contribution to community projects. “In the presence of diversity, we hunker down”, he said. “We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us.”
On August 12 2012 00:57 Portlandian wrote: What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Sadly nobody ever asks about what the real tangible benefits are that could possibly justify the huge bureaucracy and infringements on basic rights like free speech and fair treatment under the law that multiculturalism entails.
Multiculturalism is a byproduct of immigration. The benefits of immigration are - when done correctly - improved economic output and talent acquisition. There is no alternative to multiculturalism when a country decides to open its doors to immigrants regardless of race, ethnicity, and religion because immigrants won't just erase their differences to the host population when they immigrate, and coercive attempts to suppress these differences only lead to their exacerbation.
Immigration and multiculturalism certainly do not go hand in hand. America had widespread immigration for a long time and maintained a homogenous European identity. It was the immigration act of 1965 which drastically changed their demographics.
So I ask yet again: What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Specifically, what is good about multiculturalism? Don't try to conflate it with something else like immigration. Specifically, I want to know what benefits come from multiculturalism? They would have to be pretty significant to make up for sacrificing freedom of speech, free association, freedom in hiring, fairness and equal treatment under the law, and other cornerstones of human rights.
On August 12 2012 00:57 Portlandian wrote: What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Sadly nobody ever asks about what the real tangible benefits are that could possibly justify the huge bureaucracy and infringements on basic rights like free speech and fair treatment under the law that multiculturalism entails.
Multiculturalism is a byproduct of immigration. The benefits of immigration are - when done correctly - improved economic output and talent acquisition. There is no alternative to multiculturalism when a country decides to open its doors to immigrants regardless of race, ethnicity, and religion because immigrants won't just erase their differences to the host population when they immigrate, and coercive attempts to suppress these differences only lead to their exacerbation.
Immigration and multiculturalism certainly do not go hand in hand. America had widespread immigration for a long time and maintained a homogenous European identity. It was the immigration act of 1965 which drastically changed their demographics.
So I ask yet again: What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Specifically, what is good about multiculturalism? Don't try to conflate it with something else like immigration. Specifically, I want to know what benefits come from multiculturalism? They would have to be pretty significant to make up for sacrificing freedom of speech, free association, freedom in hiring, fairness and equal treatment under the law, and other cornerstones of human rights.
I didn't conflate it with just immigration - read the rest of the response. I conflated it with an immigration policy that opens its doors to immigrants regardless of race, ethnicity, and religion, which is what the civil rights movement achieved. America did indeed maintain a policy of European exclusive immigration up to the 70s, but this was deemed discriminatory and bigoted around that time. Inclusive immigration went hand in hand with a general movement against racism and prejudice.
I maintain that to exclude immigrants based on race, ethnicity, and religion again is untenable in American society because it has become sufficiently diverse that any such move will be interpreted as an attack against minorities, who make up now 30-40% of the American public. This is why we won't stop this sort of immigration - because there is simply no way to do it without it raising red flags towards racism and prejudice in our cultural politics. We might slow down immigration as a whole, but there is no alternative to inclusive immigration in the US.
Governments allow immigration because they are corrupt. It is done to import voters, divide the lower classes against each other, and drive down wages.
You need to stop being so credulous and taking everything politicians say at face value. Of course they aren't going to come right out and say "we are doing this to reduce the social capital of the average citizen and make it harder to hold politicians accountable". Politicians are adept liars.
Why Diversity Destroys Social Capital
Putnam’s massive study concluded that greater diversity lead to less civic participation, less charity, less trust, less voting, less church attendance, less contribution to community projects. “In the presence of diversity, we hunker down”, he said. “We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us.”
I'm just as skeptical or cynical about politicians as the next guy, so I'm not basing my claim on government propaganda, but actual data that isn't at all hard to find. We do have a doctor shortage that is relieved to an extent by foreign-trained doctors (and would be relieved to a greater extent if foreign credentials were better recognized) http://www.fraserinstitute.org/publicationdisplay.aspx?id=17360
Most Canadian-born citizens would not qualify for immigration under the current point system. Most immigrants have professional degrees, can speak English and/or have a large amount of assets. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/assess/index.asp
Whether employers (who are completely independent of the state) want to hire individuals with foreign credentials is entirely up to them. The government doesn't care if people from China or Pakistan with PhDs are running convenience stores and driving cabs instead of being engineers and doctors, because they can't vote and thus have no voice in the democratic process. But by the time they've lived here long enough to become citizens, they've usually moved to the middle class burbs. Just look at the demographics for any Canadian upper middle class suburb of a metropolitan city http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond,_British_Columbia This doesn't make life harder for whitey McCanadian or drive down wages because it's not like their stealing jobs or preventing white/non-immigrant Canadian people from being involved in the political process.
Putnam's study is rife with confounds. You cannot infer causation from the correlation between increased diversity and, say decreased civic participation or charity, not just because of all of the other possible causal factors, but because "diversity" isn't even a variable that you can isolate. It's just rubbish.
On August 12 2012 00:57 Portlandian wrote: What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Sadly nobody ever asks about what the real tangible benefits are that could possibly justify the huge bureaucracy and infringements on basic rights like free speech and fair treatment under the law that multiculturalism entails.
Multiculturalism is a byproduct of immigration. The benefits of immigration are - when done correctly - improved economic output and talent acquisition. There is no alternative to multiculturalism when a country decides to open its doors to immigrants regardless of race, ethnicity, and religion because immigrants won't just erase their differences to the host population when they immigrate, and coercive attempts to suppress these differences only lead to their exacerbation.
Immigration and multiculturalism certainly do not go hand in hand. America had widespread immigration for a long time and maintained a homogenous European identity. It was the immigration act of 1965 which drastically changed their demographics.
So I ask yet again: What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Specifically, what is good about multiculturalism? Don't try to conflate it with something else like immigration. Specifically, I want to know what benefits come from multiculturalism? They would have to be pretty significant to make up for sacrificing freedom of speech, free association, freedom in hiring, fairness and equal treatment under the law, and other cornerstones of human rights.
There is nothing inherently good or bad about multiculturalism. It has no tangible effect on freedom of speech, free association, freedom in hiring, fairness and equal treatment under the law, and other cornerstones of human rights. You are positing that it does. The burden is thus on you to provide evidence. Immigration and multiculturalism certainly do go hand in hand, as immigrants have cultures that differ from those of the host country (i.e., there is a multitude of cultures resulting in large part from immigration).
On August 12 2012 00:57 Portlandian wrote: What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Sadly nobody ever asks about what the real tangible benefits are that could possibly justify the huge bureaucracy and infringements on basic rights like free speech and fair treatment under the law that multiculturalism entails.
Multiculturalism is a byproduct of immigration. The benefits of immigration are - when done correctly - improved economic output and talent acquisition. There is no alternative to multiculturalism when a country decides to open its doors to immigrants regardless of race, ethnicity, and religion because immigrants won't just erase their differences to the host population when they immigrate, and coercive attempts to suppress these differences only lead to their exacerbation.
Immigration and multiculturalism certainly do not go hand in hand. America had widespread immigration for a long time and maintained a homogenous European identity. It was the immigration act of 1965 which drastically changed their demographics.
So I ask yet again: What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Specifically, what is good about multiculturalism? Don't try to conflate it with something else like immigration. Specifically, I want to know what benefits come from multiculturalism? They would have to be pretty significant to make up for sacrificing freedom of speech, free association, freedom in hiring, fairness and equal treatment under the law, and other cornerstones of human rights.
I didn't conflate it with just immigration - read the rest of the response. I conflated it with an immigration policy that opens its doors to immigrants regardless of race, ethnicity, and religion, which is what the civil rights movement achieved. America did indeed maintain a policy of European exclusive immigration up to the 70s, but this was deemed discriminatory and bigoted around that time. It went hand in hand with a general movement against racism and prejudice.
I maintain that to exclude immigrants based on race, ethnicity, and religion again is untenable in American society because it has become sufficiently diverse that any such move will be interpreted as an attack against minorities, who make up now 30-40% of the American public. This is why we won't stop this sort of immigration. We might slow down immigration as a whole, but there is no alternative to inclusive immigration in the US.
I asked very specifically what are the benefits of multiculturalism.
You, replying to that, listed what you feel are the benefits of immigration, rather than multiculturalism as I had asked. Perhaps it was not deliberate, but you conflated the two.
Why would you respond to a question you have no answer to? Implicitly your answer is: "there are no benefits of multiculturalism at all."
And even the supposed benefits of immigration, much less multicultural immigration, are dubious.
Immigrants cost $23B a year: Fraser Institute report Immigrants to Canada cost the federal government as much as $23-billion annually and “impose a huge fiscal burden on Canadian taxpayers,” according to a think-tank report released Tuesday that was immediately criticized as telling only part of the story.
The Fraser Institute report (download the PDF here or see it below) says newcomers pay about half as much in income taxes as other Canadians but absorb nearly the same value of government services, costing taxpayers roughly $6,051 per immigrant and amounting to a total annual cost of somewhere between $16.3-billion and $23.6-billion.
Multiculturism can only function properly if everyone is sticking their reproductive organs in other ones and end up having some really mixed race that creates exotic people.
Muslims believe thieves should have their hands amputated, apostates should be executed, and those who commit adultery be stoned to death. Sane people don't. Ergo, multiculturalism doesn't work.
On August 11 2012 23:57 Portlandian wrote: Multiculturalism is a thinly veiled divide and conquer strategy. It is promoted by the wealthy and powerful to split the lower classes along racial, religious, and cultural lines.
People who go along with it just because it is couched in sweet sounding lies are useful idiots.
Good Fences: The Importance of Setting Boundaries for Peaceful Coexistence
Our analysis shows that peace does not depend on integrated coexistence, but rather on well defined topographical and political boundaries separating groups.
I agree, multiculturalism is just another tool to consilidate the power of those who enforce it on our societies
As is all social policy. What does that tell us though? That governments attempt to keep countries running in the way that they want them to (which is hopefully the way their constituents want their country to be run)? That's not really saying anything about anything. Governments allow immigration because it fills demands for skilled and unskilled labour. This can have all sorts of implications like those discussed in this thread already, but to simply point out that immigration policy is part of the state apparatus contributes nothing.
no, the original goal of social policy was to create equal opportunities (participation in cultural life, equal opportunities on the job market, social integration etc.). This is not the case anymore. Today's social policy, atleast in my country (of course i cannot say anything about Canada), aims towards the conservation of the status quo.
National governments do not run countries anymore, they are run by functional elites. The political system is a part of this elite, whether it plays a dominant role is up for debate. If you are interested in how modern "power" works, you could read stuff from Suzanne Keller, Charles Wright Mills, or even Pierre Bourdieu.
The immigration from workers is no problem. They pay the same taxes as all their coworkers. Their points of view might be different in some questions, but they are the same in others (where do all my taxes go to?).
In my country the constitution got degraded to a mere piece of paper. Let's just look at the latest "save the €" actions from european governments. The treaty of Lisbon clearly states the "no bailout" clause (art. 125 AEUV). Nobody even cared, politicians just go through with it. My own government is busy assuring me that there won't be Eurobonds because they would be unconstitutional in Germany. We'll have them in 5 years, unconstitutional or not.
Point is, our functional elites do not care about constitutions and law, we got sold out. The immigration in western countries from people who will land at the social bottom (often very religous but politically uninterested and uneducated) just makes sure that the people get divided socially, politically and culturally. It prevents society from finding common grounds which would lead the majority to saying "stop this shit right now".
Multiculturalism can work but mostly it doesn't. And religion is mostly the cause of it. People with different religions have very different opinions. It's really bad in Europe cause most of our immigrants are all Islamist. And most of the Islam are still trying to force their religion upon others.
In Belgium's capital Brussels, women can't even walk around for 100meters without being harassed and called a whore by Islamic men because they show too much skin. (even with a skirt that comes below the knees).
On August 12 2012 00:57 Portlandian wrote: What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Sadly nobody ever asks about what the real tangible benefits are that could possibly justify the huge bureaucracy and infringements on basic rights like free speech and fair treatment under the law that multiculturalism entails.
Multiculturalism is a byproduct of immigration. The benefits of immigration are - when done correctly - improved economic output and talent acquisition. There is no alternative to multiculturalism when a country decides to open its doors to immigrants regardless of race, ethnicity, and religion because immigrants won't just erase their differences to the host population when they immigrate, and coercive attempts to suppress these differences only lead to their exacerbation.
Immigration and multiculturalism certainly do not go hand in hand. America had widespread immigration for a long time and maintained a homogenous European identity. It was the immigration act of 1965 which drastically changed their demographics.
So I ask yet again: What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Specifically, what is good about multiculturalism? Don't try to conflate it with something else like immigration. Specifically, I want to know what benefits come from multiculturalism? They would have to be pretty significant to make up for sacrificing freedom of speech, free association, freedom in hiring, fairness and equal treatment under the law, and other cornerstones of human rights.
I didn't conflate it with just immigration - read the rest of the response. I conflated it with an immigration policy that opens its doors to immigrants regardless of race, ethnicity, and religion, which is what the civil rights movement achieved. America did indeed maintain a policy of European exclusive immigration up to the 70s, but this was deemed discriminatory and bigoted around that time. It went hand in hand with a general movement against racism and prejudice.
I maintain that to exclude immigrants based on race, ethnicity, and religion again is untenable in American society because it has become sufficiently diverse that any such move will be interpreted as an attack against minorities, who make up now 30-40% of the American public. This is why we won't stop this sort of immigration. We might slow down immigration as a whole, but there is no alternative to inclusive immigration in the US.
I asked very specifically what are the benefits of multiculturalism.
You, replying to that, listed what you feel are the benefits of immigration, rather than multiculturalism as I had asked. Perhaps it was not deliberate, but you conflated the two.
Why would you respond to a question you have no answer to? Implicitly your answer is: "there are no benefits of multiculturalism at all."
And even the supposed benefits of immigration, much less multicultural immigration, are dubious.
Immigrants cost $23B a year: Fraser Institute report Immigrants to Canada cost the federal government as much as $23-billion annually and “impose a huge fiscal burden on Canadian taxpayers,” according to a think-tank report released Tuesday that was immediately criticized as telling only part of the story.
The Fraser Institute report (download the PDF here or see it below) says newcomers pay about half as much in income taxes as other Canadians but absorb nearly the same value of government services, costing taxpayers roughly $6,051 per immigrant and amounting to a total annual cost of somewhere between $16.3-billion and $23.6-billion.
My contention is that multiculturalism is a byproduct of multicultural immigration, which happened because exclusive immigration was deemed discriminatory and morally repulsive. Multiculturalism is not a policy that you promote out of a vacuum; it is a policy that you adopt because of the effects of your immigration policy.
Governments allow immigration because they are corrupt. It is done to import voters, divide the lower classes against each other, and drive down wages.
You need to stop being so credulous and taking everything politicians say at face value. Of course they aren't going to come right out and say "we are doing this to reduce the social capital of the average citizen and make it harder to hold politicians accountable". Politicians are adept liars.
Why Diversity Destroys Social Capital
Putnam’s massive study concluded that greater diversity lead to less civic participation, less charity, less trust, less voting, less church attendance, less contribution to community projects. “In the presence of diversity, we hunker down”, he said. “We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us.”
I'm just as skeptical or cynical about politicians as the next guy, so I'm not basing my claim on government propaganda, but actual data that isn't at all hard to find. We do have a doctor shortage that is relieved to an extent by foreign-trained doctors (and would be relieved to a greater extent if foreign credentials were better recognized) http://www.fraserinstitute.org/publicationdisplay.aspx?id=17360
Most Canadian-born citizens would not qualify for immigration under the current point system. Most immigrants have professional degrees, can speak English and/or have a large amount of assets. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/assess/index.asp
Whether employers (who are completely independent of the state) want to hire individuals with foreign credentials is entirely up to them. The government doesn't care if people from China or Pakistan with PhDs are running convenience stores and driving cabs instead of being engineers and doctors, because they can't vote and thus have no voice in the democratic process. But by the time they've lived here long enough to become citizens, they've usually moved to the middle class burbs. Just look at the demographics for any Canadian upper middle class suburb of a metropolitan city http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond,_British_Columbia This doesn't make life harder for whitey McCanadian or drive down wages because it's not like their stealing jobs or preventing white/non-immigrant Canadian people from being involved in the political process.
Putnam's study is rife with confounds. You cannot infer causation from the correlation between increased diversity and, say decreased civic participation or charity, not just because of all of the other possible causal factors, but because "diversity" isn't even a variable that you can isolate. It's just rubbish.
On August 12 2012 00:57 Portlandian wrote: What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Sadly nobody ever asks about what the real tangible benefits are that could possibly justify the huge bureaucracy and infringements on basic rights like free speech and fair treatment under the law that multiculturalism entails.
Multiculturalism is a byproduct of immigration. The benefits of immigration are - when done correctly - improved economic output and talent acquisition. There is no alternative to multiculturalism when a country decides to open its doors to immigrants regardless of race, ethnicity, and religion because immigrants won't just erase their differences to the host population when they immigrate, and coercive attempts to suppress these differences only lead to their exacerbation.
Immigration and multiculturalism certainly do not go hand in hand. America had widespread immigration for a long time and maintained a homogenous European identity. It was the immigration act of 1965 which drastically changed their demographics.
So I ask yet again: What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Specifically, what is good about multiculturalism? Don't try to conflate it with something else like immigration. Specifically, I want to know what benefits come from multiculturalism? They would have to be pretty significant to make up for sacrificing freedom of speech, free association, freedom in hiring, fairness and equal treatment under the law, and other cornerstones of human rights.
There is nothing inherently good or bad about multiculturalism. It has no tangible effect on freedom of speech, free association, freedom in hiring, fairness and equal treatment under the law, and other cornerstones of human rights. You are positing that it does. The burden is thus on you to provide evidence. Immigration and multiculturalism certainly do go hand in hand, as immigrants have cultures that differ from those of the host country (i.e., there is a multitude of cultures resulting in large part from immigration).
I started reading your link and saw this:
"Even if government imposed restrictions on the number of doctors being trained in Canada are immediately removed, it won’t have an impact for much of the next decade given the time it takes to train a new doctor. The only short-term solution is to recruit more foreign-trained doctors."
So it seems like Canada could have just not implemented restrictions on how many doctors they train, and long term could just remove such restrictions. This is not a very good justification for immigration, much less multiculturalism.
Even if immigration were needed there's no reason to not target people from nations who share your culture or are similar enough to assimilate within a couple generations.
Canada has sacrificed so many fundamental human rights to promote multiculturalism. Speech crime laws are used to prevent "hate", enforced racial discrimination is used to grant equal income to people with unequal qualifications, billions are spent on advertising, diversity training, anti-racism, etc.
So for all these costs why can you not name one single benefit of multiculturalism? The only resort you have is to conflate multiculturalism with immigration, though they are not the same thing.
On August 12 2012 00:57 Portlandian wrote: What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Sadly nobody ever asks about what the real tangible benefits are that could possibly justify the huge bureaucracy and infringements on basic rights like free speech and fair treatment under the law that multiculturalism entails.
Multiculturalism is a byproduct of immigration. The benefits of immigration are - when done correctly - improved economic output and talent acquisition. There is no alternative to multiculturalism when a country decides to open its doors to immigrants regardless of race, ethnicity, and religion because immigrants won't just erase their differences to the host population when they immigrate, and coercive attempts to suppress these differences only lead to their exacerbation.
Immigration and multiculturalism certainly do not go hand in hand. America had widespread immigration for a long time and maintained a homogenous European identity. It was the immigration act of 1965 which drastically changed their demographics.
So I ask yet again: What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Specifically, what is good about multiculturalism? Don't try to conflate it with something else like immigration. Specifically, I want to know what benefits come from multiculturalism? They would have to be pretty significant to make up for sacrificing freedom of speech, free association, freedom in hiring, fairness and equal treatment under the law, and other cornerstones of human rights.
I didn't conflate it with just immigration - read the rest of the response. I conflated it with an immigration policy that opens its doors to immigrants regardless of race, ethnicity, and religion, which is what the civil rights movement achieved. America did indeed maintain a policy of European exclusive immigration up to the 70s, but this was deemed discriminatory and bigoted around that time. It went hand in hand with a general movement against racism and prejudice.
I maintain that to exclude immigrants based on race, ethnicity, and religion again is untenable in American society because it has become sufficiently diverse that any such move will be interpreted as an attack against minorities, who make up now 30-40% of the American public. This is why we won't stop this sort of immigration. We might slow down immigration as a whole, but there is no alternative to inclusive immigration in the US.
I asked very specifically what are the benefits of multiculturalism.
You, replying to that, listed what you feel are the benefits of immigration, rather than multiculturalism as I had asked. Perhaps it was not deliberate, but you conflated the two.
Why would you respond to a question you have no answer to? Implicitly your answer is: "there are no benefits of multiculturalism at all."
And even the supposed benefits of immigration, much less multicultural immigration, are dubious.
Immigrants cost $23B a year: Fraser Institute report Immigrants to Canada cost the federal government as much as $23-billion annually and “impose a huge fiscal burden on Canadian taxpayers,” according to a think-tank report released Tuesday that was immediately criticized as telling only part of the story.
The Fraser Institute report (download the PDF here or see it below) says newcomers pay about half as much in income taxes as other Canadians but absorb nearly the same value of government services, costing taxpayers roughly $6,051 per immigrant and amounting to a total annual cost of somewhere between $16.3-billion and $23.6-billion.
You can't isolate and determine absolute values for extremely complicated factors such as "cost of immigration". This is in part because you cannot calculate the amount of money that an immigrant has put into the economy indirectly via work, consumption, etc. Contrary to the report you posted, "Most empirical studies find that immigration has little or no impact on domestic labour markets and government fiscal balances." from: http://www.socialsciences.uottawa.ca/grei-rgei/eng/documents/Synthesis_wp_000.pdf
Governments allow immigration because they are corrupt. It is done to import voters, divide the lower classes against each other, and drive down wages.
You need to stop being so credulous and taking everything politicians say at face value. Of course they aren't going to come right out and say "we are doing this to reduce the social capital of the average citizen and make it harder to hold politicians accountable". Politicians are adept liars.
Why Diversity Destroys Social Capital
Putnam’s massive study concluded that greater diversity lead to less civic participation, less charity, less trust, less voting, less church attendance, less contribution to community projects. “In the presence of diversity, we hunker down”, he said. “We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us.”
I'm just as skeptical or cynical about politicians as the next guy, so I'm not basing my claim on government propaganda, but actual data that isn't at all hard to find. We do have a doctor shortage that is relieved to an extent by foreign-trained doctors (and would be relieved to a greater extent if foreign credentials were better recognized) http://www.fraserinstitute.org/publicationdisplay.aspx?id=17360
Most Canadian-born citizens would not qualify for immigration under the current point system. Most immigrants have professional degrees, can speak English and/or have a large amount of assets. http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/skilled/assess/index.asp
Whether employers (who are completely independent of the state) want to hire individuals with foreign credentials is entirely up to them. The government doesn't care if people from China or Pakistan with PhDs are running convenience stores and driving cabs instead of being engineers and doctors, because they can't vote and thus have no voice in the democratic process. But by the time they've lived here long enough to become citizens, they've usually moved to the middle class burbs. Just look at the demographics for any Canadian upper middle class suburb of a metropolitan city http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richmond,_British_Columbia This doesn't make life harder for whitey McCanadian or drive down wages because it's not like their stealing jobs or preventing white/non-immigrant Canadian people from being involved in the political process.
Putnam's study is rife with confounds. You cannot infer causation from the correlation between increased diversity and, say decreased civic participation or charity, not just because of all of the other possible causal factors, but because "diversity" isn't even a variable that you can isolate. It's just rubbish.
On August 12 2012 01:22 Portlandian wrote:
On August 12 2012 01:04 Azarkon wrote:
On August 12 2012 00:57 Portlandian wrote: What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Sadly nobody ever asks about what the real tangible benefits are that could possibly justify the huge bureaucracy and infringements on basic rights like free speech and fair treatment under the law that multiculturalism entails.
Multiculturalism is a byproduct of immigration. The benefits of immigration are - when done correctly - improved economic output and talent acquisition. There is no alternative to multiculturalism when a country decides to open its doors to immigrants regardless of race, ethnicity, and religion because immigrants won't just erase their differences to the host population when they immigrate, and coercive attempts to suppress these differences only lead to their exacerbation.
Immigration and multiculturalism certainly do not go hand in hand. America had widespread immigration for a long time and maintained a homogenous European identity. It was the immigration act of 1965 which drastically changed their demographics.
So I ask yet again: What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Specifically, what is good about multiculturalism? Don't try to conflate it with something else like immigration. Specifically, I want to know what benefits come from multiculturalism? They would have to be pretty significant to make up for sacrificing freedom of speech, free association, freedom in hiring, fairness and equal treatment under the law, and other cornerstones of human rights.
There is nothing inherently good or bad about multiculturalism. It has no tangible effect on freedom of speech, free association, freedom in hiring, fairness and equal treatment under the law, and other cornerstones of human rights. You are positing that it does. The burden is thus on you to provide evidence. Immigration and multiculturalism certainly do go hand in hand, as immigrants have cultures that differ from those of the host country (i.e., there is a multitude of cultures resulting in large part from immigration).
I started reading your link and saw this:
"Even if government imposed restrictions on the number of doctors being trained in Canada are immediately removed, it won’t have an impact for much of the next decade given the time it takes to train a new doctor. The only short-term solution is to recruit more foreign-trained doctors."
So it seems like Canada could have just not implemented restrictions on how many doctors they train, and long term could just remove such restrictions. This is not a very good justification for immigration, much less multiculturalism.
Even if immigration were needed there's no reason to not target people from nations who share your culture or are similar enough to assimilate within a couple generations.
Canada has sacrificed so many fundamental human rights to promote multiculturalism. Speech crime laws are used to prevent "hate", enforced racial discrimination is used to grant equal income to people with unequal qualifications, billions are spent on advertising, diversity training, anti-racism, etc.
So for all these costs why can you not name one single benefit of multiculturalism? The only resort you have is to conflate multiculturalism with immigration, though they are not the same thing.
What do you think these restrictions are? Quotas for the number of white/black/brown people you can admit into medical school? The article doesn't actually state what they are, because they have nothing to do with foreign-trained doctors or multiculturalism. The restrictions are lack of funding, which is due to conservative policies (cut taxes, cut spending). Canadian universities are substantially more meritocratic than American ones. Medical school entrance is based entirely on how well you do in school (e.g., GPA) and relevant experience (e.g., volunteering at a hospital, which doesn't have anything to do with culture).
Canadian universities (and thus medical schools) don't practice affirmative action, with the exception of Aboriginals, who make up a minuscule proportion of student populations. So even if they were favouring Joe Native or Joe Black over Whitey, they would still be letting in as many white people as would qualify as there would be hardly any under-qualified Aboriginals to steal their spot. The problem is that 1) our education system is underfunded and 2) most people don't qualify, because becoming a doctor isn't easy.
Thank god people have finally started accepting the obvious truth, that not all cultures are equal, that some cultures are downright harmful and detrimental to a progressing society.
People looked at racism and xenophobia in the past and then made a knee jerk reaction to support multiculturalism to try and counter that. The problem with that is that there is a big difference between judging people for things like their skin color or country of birth, and judging people for their ideology and behavior. One is justified and the other isn't. That's what's wrong with multiculturalism.
On August 12 2012 00:57 Portlandian wrote: What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Sadly nobody ever asks about what the real tangible benefits are that could possibly justify the huge bureaucracy and infringements on basic rights like free speech and fair treatment under the law that multiculturalism entails.
Multiculturalism is a byproduct of immigration. The benefits of immigration are - when done correctly - improved economic output and talent acquisition. There is no alternative to multiculturalism when a country decides to open its doors to immigrants regardless of race, ethnicity, and religion because immigrants won't just erase their differences to the host population when they immigrate, and coercive attempts to suppress these differences only lead to their exacerbation.
Immigration and multiculturalism certainly do not go hand in hand. America had widespread immigration for a long time and maintained a homogenous European identity. It was the immigration act of 1965 which drastically changed their demographics.
So I ask yet again: What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Specifically, what is good about multiculturalism? Don't try to conflate it with something else like immigration. Specifically, I want to know what benefits come from multiculturalism? They would have to be pretty significant to make up for sacrificing freedom of speech, free association, freedom in hiring, fairness and equal treatment under the law, and other cornerstones of human rights.
I didn't conflate it with just immigration - read the rest of the response. I conflated it with an immigration policy that opens its doors to immigrants regardless of race, ethnicity, and religion, which is what the civil rights movement achieved. America did indeed maintain a policy of European exclusive immigration up to the 70s, but this was deemed discriminatory and bigoted around that time. It went hand in hand with a general movement against racism and prejudice.
I maintain that to exclude immigrants based on race, ethnicity, and religion again is untenable in American society because it has become sufficiently diverse that any such move will be interpreted as an attack against minorities, who make up now 30-40% of the American public. This is why we won't stop this sort of immigration. We might slow down immigration as a whole, but there is no alternative to inclusive immigration in the US.
I asked very specifically what are the benefits of multiculturalism.
You, replying to that, listed what you feel are the benefits of immigration, rather than multiculturalism as I had asked. Perhaps it was not deliberate, but you conflated the two.
Why would you respond to a question you have no answer to? Implicitly your answer is: "there are no benefits of multiculturalism at all."
And even the supposed benefits of immigration, much less multicultural immigration, are dubious.
Immigrants cost $23B a year: Fraser Institute report Immigrants to Canada cost the federal government as much as $23-billion annually and “impose a huge fiscal burden on Canadian taxpayers,” according to a think-tank report released Tuesday that was immediately criticized as telling only part of the story.
The Fraser Institute report (download the PDF here or see it below) says newcomers pay about half as much in income taxes as other Canadians but absorb nearly the same value of government services, costing taxpayers roughly $6,051 per immigrant and amounting to a total annual cost of somewhere between $16.3-billion and $23.6-billion.
My contention is that multiculturalism is a byproduct of multicultural immigration, which happened because exclusive immigration was deemed discriminatory and morally repulsive. Multiculturalism is not a policy that you promote out of a vacuum; it is a policy that you adopt because of the effects of your immigration policy.
And yet there is no logical reason to adopt a multicultural immigration policy and be forced to deal with all the fallout from it.
All the supporters of multiculturalism have is emotional mush.
On August 11 2012 15:42 zalz wrote: Multiculturalism doesn't work. You need some form of cohession, some larger culture that everyone somehow feels a part of.
If not that, it is simply cultural segregation, something which is already a fact in many places in Europe.
Not all cultures are equal.
The Romans made it work. Then again, they did not have that stupid idea that skin color equals superiority or inferiority.
On a personal level I'm very fond of other cultures. There's a lot we can learn from them, especially from those cultures that are not as individualistic as western European or Northern American.
It's kind of obscene how some rich assholes (multi-millionaires) can make fun of poor people being tired of competing with poor people for increasingly shittier and less paid jobs.
On August 12 2012 00:57 Portlandian wrote: What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Sadly nobody ever asks about what the real tangible benefits are that could possibly justify the huge bureaucracy and infringements on basic rights like free speech and fair treatment under the law that multiculturalism entails.
Multiculturalism is a byproduct of immigration. The benefits of immigration are - when done correctly - improved economic output and talent acquisition. There is no alternative to multiculturalism when a country decides to open its doors to immigrants regardless of race, ethnicity, and religion because immigrants won't just erase their differences to the host population when they immigrate, and coercive attempts to suppress these differences only lead to their exacerbation.
Immigration and multiculturalism certainly do not go hand in hand. America had widespread immigration for a long time and maintained a homogenous European identity. It was the immigration act of 1965 which drastically changed their demographics.
So I ask yet again: What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Specifically, what is good about multiculturalism? Don't try to conflate it with something else like immigration. Specifically, I want to know what benefits come from multiculturalism? They would have to be pretty significant to make up for sacrificing freedom of speech, free association, freedom in hiring, fairness and equal treatment under the law, and other cornerstones of human rights.
I didn't conflate it with just immigration - read the rest of the response. I conflated it with an immigration policy that opens its doors to immigrants regardless of race, ethnicity, and religion, which is what the civil rights movement achieved. America did indeed maintain a policy of European exclusive immigration up to the 70s, but this was deemed discriminatory and bigoted around that time. It went hand in hand with a general movement against racism and prejudice.
I maintain that to exclude immigrants based on race, ethnicity, and religion again is untenable in American society because it has become sufficiently diverse that any such move will be interpreted as an attack against minorities, who make up now 30-40% of the American public. This is why we won't stop this sort of immigration. We might slow down immigration as a whole, but there is no alternative to inclusive immigration in the US.
I asked very specifically what are the benefits of multiculturalism.
You, replying to that, listed what you feel are the benefits of immigration, rather than multiculturalism as I had asked. Perhaps it was not deliberate, but you conflated the two.
Why would you respond to a question you have no answer to? Implicitly your answer is: "there are no benefits of multiculturalism at all."
And even the supposed benefits of immigration, much less multicultural immigration, are dubious.
Immigrants cost $23B a year: Fraser Institute report Immigrants to Canada cost the federal government as much as $23-billion annually and “impose a huge fiscal burden on Canadian taxpayers,” according to a think-tank report released Tuesday that was immediately criticized as telling only part of the story.
The Fraser Institute report (download the PDF here or see it below) says newcomers pay about half as much in income taxes as other Canadians but absorb nearly the same value of government services, costing taxpayers roughly $6,051 per immigrant and amounting to a total annual cost of somewhere between $16.3-billion and $23.6-billion.
My contention is that multiculturalism is a byproduct of multicultural immigration, which happened because exclusive immigration was deemed discriminatory and morally repulsive. Multiculturalism is not a policy that you promote out of a vacuum; it is a policy that you adopt because of the effects of your immigration policy.
And yet there is no logical reason to adopt a multicultural immigration policy and be forced to deal with all the fallout from it.
All the supporters of multiculturalism have is emotional mush.
There is - showing that the state is not discriminatory in a state that was already multi-ethnic / multi-cultural, which the US was in the 70s. Excluding people based on their race, ethnicity, culture, etc. invariably puts the majority population and the minority populations at odds against each other, which has always led to civil conflict. The civil rights movement wasn't promoted by the US government, you know - it was a grassroots movement that came about because minorities felt oppressed in the US.
The multi-culturalism that we have today in the US didn't just come about because of a few philanthropic white politicians. It was hard fought for by groups who were long suppressed, against great opposition from conservative segments of society who were finally defeated because the ideologies that underlay their opposition had fallen out of style.
On August 12 2012 00:57 Portlandian wrote: What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Sadly nobody ever asks about what the real tangible benefits are that could possibly justify the huge bureaucracy and infringements on basic rights like free speech and fair treatment under the law that multiculturalism entails.
Multiculturalism is a byproduct of immigration. The benefits of immigration are - when done correctly - improved economic output and talent acquisition. There is no alternative to multiculturalism when a country decides to open its doors to immigrants regardless of race, ethnicity, and religion because immigrants won't just erase their differences to the host population when they immigrate, and coercive attempts to suppress these differences only lead to their exacerbation.
Immigration and multiculturalism certainly do not go hand in hand. America had widespread immigration for a long time and maintained a homogenous European identity. It was the immigration act of 1965 which drastically changed their demographics.
So I ask yet again: What about some real substantive evidence that multiculturalism is any good? Does it lower crime rates? Improve scientific output? Lower taxes?
Specifically, what is good about multiculturalism? Don't try to conflate it with something else like immigration. Specifically, I want to know what benefits come from multiculturalism? They would have to be pretty significant to make up for sacrificing freedom of speech, free association, freedom in hiring, fairness and equal treatment under the law, and other cornerstones of human rights.
I didn't conflate it with just immigration - read the rest of the response. I conflated it with an immigration policy that opens its doors to immigrants regardless of race, ethnicity, and religion, which is what the civil rights movement achieved. America did indeed maintain a policy of European exclusive immigration up to the 70s, but this was deemed discriminatory and bigoted around that time. It went hand in hand with a general movement against racism and prejudice.
I maintain that to exclude immigrants based on race, ethnicity, and religion again is untenable in American society because it has become sufficiently diverse that any such move will be interpreted as an attack against minorities, who make up now 30-40% of the American public. This is why we won't stop this sort of immigration. We might slow down immigration as a whole, but there is no alternative to inclusive immigration in the US.
I asked very specifically what are the benefits of multiculturalism.
You, replying to that, listed what you feel are the benefits of immigration, rather than multiculturalism as I had asked. Perhaps it was not deliberate, but you conflated the two.
Why would you respond to a question you have no answer to? Implicitly your answer is: "there are no benefits of multiculturalism at all."
And even the supposed benefits of immigration, much less multicultural immigration, are dubious.
Immigrants cost $23B a year: Fraser Institute report Immigrants to Canada cost the federal government as much as $23-billion annually and “impose a huge fiscal burden on Canadian taxpayers,” according to a think-tank report released Tuesday that was immediately criticized as telling only part of the story.
The Fraser Institute report (download the PDF here or see it below) says newcomers pay about half as much in income taxes as other Canadians but absorb nearly the same value of government services, costing taxpayers roughly $6,051 per immigrant and amounting to a total annual cost of somewhere between $16.3-billion and $23.6-billion.
My contention is that multiculturalism is a byproduct of multicultural immigration, which happened because exclusive immigration was deemed discriminatory and morally repulsive. Multiculturalism is not a policy that you promote out of a vacuum; it is a policy that you adopt because of the effects of your immigration policy.
And yet there is no logical reason to adopt a multicultural immigration policy and be forced to deal with all the fallout from it.
All the supporters of multiculturalism have is emotional mush.
The logical reason is that we should accept any immigrants who qualify for immigration based on the point system regardless of what country they come from. The point system can be flawed, but you haven't even touched upon that.
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.
They both have no basis in reality. The correlation between race and social ills is just as spurious as what you call culture and social ills.
You're so wrong it's laughable.
If not by behaviour and values then by what is culture defined? If my culture tells me that women are objects to be used and discarded at will and all people who do not share my culture should be scorned and even be fought with violence, you are telling me my culture will not have any bearing on my behaviour towards others?
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.
They both have no basis in reality. The correlation between race and social ills is just as spurious as what you call culture and social ills.
You're so wrong it's laughable.
If not by behaviour and values then by what is culture defined?
I said culture is defined as a shared system of values. I was making sure we were on the same page in this discussion. What I'm pointing out is the fact that you cannot infer that people's value systems are the cause of social ills. More specifically, people do not hold one set of values. Individuals can easily hold conflicting values (e.g., be good to your fellow human, be bad to your fellow human if X) and activate various ones based on the external material conditions acting upon them (e.g., poverty, discrimination).
One example is your own conflicting values in this thread. I assume you hold the basic value/belief that human beings should be treated with dignity, yet you advocate forcible displacement of proponents of Sharia law. Islamic extremists also believe in peace and love and all that good shit, but at the same time believe infidels should be beheaded. You guys share a common ground in your eschewing of basic human rights for what you perceive to be the greater good.
To clarify, I believe that if you treat Islamic or Christian or whatever other religious belief systems as a form of culture (which you can), then you can make a good case for their inferiority to secular humanist belief systems/culture, but I don't think you can attribute socioeconomic woes to people's idiotic beliefs, as if just kicking out the baddies will solve your problems.
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.
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.
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.
How can you even believe crap like this? If my culture tells me that diseases are caused by babies and that the only way to cure a disease is to kill a baby, you are telling me it's okay because being different is okay? Some cultures are objectively inferior. Period. You aren't born with a culture like you are born with skin color and race. Religion and culture are both things that can be inferior. Race and skin color are not. The two are not comparable.
I'm telling others they should stop harming and oppressing others. Where is the wrong in that?
One example is your own conflicting values in this thread. I assume you hold the basic value/belief that human beings should be treated with dignity, yet you advocate forcible displacement of proponents of Sharia law. Islamic extremists also believe in peace and love and all that good shit, but at the same time believe infidels should be beheaded. You guys share a common ground in your eschewing of basic human rights for what you perceive to be the greater good.
I don't care because what I believe is objectively better. I am tolerant of everything except the harming and/or oppressing of others. I will not stand for the destruction of a peaceful society by people who want to oppress others. And besides, I have no wish to harm anyone. I just want them to not fuck up my country.
To clarify, I believe that if you treat Islamic or Christian or whatever other religious belief systems as a form of culture (which you can), then you can make a good case for their inferiority to secular humanist belief systems/culture, but I don't think you can attribute socioeconomic woes to people's idiotic beliefs, as if just kicking out the baddies will solve your problems.
I hope I'm understanding you correctly as I'm already having troubles conveying my thoughts on this matter into English. Where did I say anything about socioeconomic woes? I'm talking about culture here and how multiculturalism creates culture clashes. I'm talking about my fear that one particular inferior culture will become more prevalent (and is becoming more prevalent, althought not to the point of Sharia law introduction being imminent).
On August 11 2012 18:38 Psychobabas wrote: Multiculturalism has failed in Europe. Just visit London, probably the most multicultural capital in Europe.
You expect to see a harmonious cooexistence of cultures but what you get are completely segregated neighborhoods according to race and ethnicity. The Pakistanis are doing their own thing in east London, the Somalis their own, the Indians their own, the Africans their own, the Arabs their own, the Chinese their own etc etc all with little will to integrate to British culture, nevermind tolerating other cultures.
Some can barely speak a word of English.
I'm pretty sure this is okay. As long as no one breaks the law, there's nothing wrong with having cultural geographical groupings. There are generally locations where Aussies go, Polish go, Spanish go as well as Africans and Orientals. There are grouping areas for the English in almost every country. There are plenty who come from these areas who branch out, the next generation will intermarry with other cultures. It takes a while but divisions get broken down. And as a reward we get a shitload of talent across the gene pool of humanity. Worked for the US as far as I can see (although the incredible influx of Mexicans has sort of upset the apple cart).
On August 11 2012 19:58 Sepi wrote: I'm kinda disgusted about the people who just come to the country and leech ALL out of the social security system. There have been SO many cases in my country where people lie to the government, mainly about their childs and heatl condition etc. to get max support from the governemnt. We as tax payers must pay this all. And they still complain how they have just 60 square meter house FOR FREE. Its ridiculous.
Luckily there is a counterweight to this immigration, because there are a lot good people. Who acts just like us, does work and tries to proceed in their career. I higlhy respect these people as they can ADAPT to other enviroment and work their hart out to have what they deserve.
Even all the sexual crimes are mostly committed by immigrates. The studies that i have read, also indicate that its HIGHLY possible that they will continue to commit crimes. In my law system there is no way to kick any people out. They just get 1-2 years of probation and something like 1000 euros of indemnity or something like that.
Im no racist at all, but it just makes me sick how they can be so abusive, and yet so arrogant.
This isn't really a complaint about multiculturalism, rather a complaint about the state of the Finnish legal system and the weakness of its determination process for working out validity of benefit claims.
There is no need for more "shitload of talent" in this country.
OP or a mod please add include quotes of the talk because no one bothered to read or listen to it.
Malik really does have a few interesting points. However I'm feeling too lazy to summarise all of it.
He's main idea is to challenge the effectiveness (destructiveness) of the policy of multiculturalism:
He points to how the 1st gen Turks in Germany were very secular and more than 1/3 of them go for Friday prayers now. According to him multicultural policies basically fueled the present segregation and discrimination. Very few German Turks were granted citizenship which would make them actually feel like Germans so that they are accepted by the others.
His conclusion:
Multiculturalism, on the other hand, by reposing political problems in terms of culture or faith, transforms political conflicts into a form that makes them neither useful nor resolvable. Multicultural policies both constrain the kinds of clashes of opinion that could prove politically fruitful, and unleash the kinds of conflicts that are socially damaging. They transform political debates into cultural collisions and, by imprisoning individuals within their cultures and identities, make such collisions both inevitable and insoluble.
The lesson of Europe, it seems to me, is that if we want to preserve diversity as lived experience, we need also to challenge multiculturalism as a political process.
He supports it by disproving myths:
The first is the idea that European nations used to be homogenous but have become plural in a historically unique fashion.
The second claim is that contemporary immigration is different to previous waves, so much so that social structures need fundamental reorganization to accommodate it.
And third is the belief that European nations have adopted multicultural policies because minorities demanded it.
Both sides in the multiculturalism debate accept these claims. Where they differ is in whether they view immigration, and the social changes it has brought about, as a good or as an ill. Both sides, I want to suggest, are wrong, because these three premises upon which they base their arguments are flawed.
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.
Whole cultures arent shitty. Individuals, that belong to a certain culture can be shitty. For example you can´t identify a cultural group, that´s collective homophobic. Influential groups or even the majority might be, but not everybody. It leads inevitable to discrimination if you claim that for example, "the whole muslimic culture is sexist and thus shitty".
It only ever works when the cultures in question are reasonably similar. Something as diametrically opposed as a western democracy and islamic sharia law can never coexist peacefully. And neither should they. Ridding ourselves of intolerance and biggotry was never going to an easy process, conflicts are to be expected.
It is my firm belief that some cultures and values are just plain better than others, and can never be allowed to be diluted by misguided attempts to achieve integration.
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.
Whole cultures arent shitty. Individuals, that belong to a certain culture can be shitty. For example you can´t identify a cultural group, that´s collective homophobic. Influential groups or even the majority might be, but not everybody. It leads inevitable to discrimination if you claim that for example, "the whole muslimic culture is sexist and thus shitty".
Roleplay time. You are a homosexual woman who likes to travel alone and drive cars. Where would you rather live, Norway or Saudi Arabia?
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.
Whole cultures arent shitty. Individuals, that belong to a certain culture can be shitty. For example you can´t identify a cultural group, that´s collective homophobic. Influential groups or even the majority might be, but not everybody. It leads inevitable to discrimination if you claim that for example, "the whole muslimic culture is sexist and thus shitty".
That is just wrong. For example, in a generic Islamic culture the belief system itself will be homophobic regardless of what individuals who identify themselves with it believe.
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.
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.
In my younger days I was pro-multiculturalism all the way. In part because this is what we're taught in the school systems here. However as an older individual, I see a lot of problems with multiculturalism even in the peaceful city of Toronto. A lot of people are secretly racist, and only like to affliate with their own groups. And I find that when people DO put aside differences of background, its because they've found a stronger bond to tie them together: materialism! Yes, I find being a rich snob is what unites people most of all. If you're poor you're a racist, if you're rich you're only racist against the poor. End cynical rant.
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.
Whole cultures arent shitty. Individuals, that belong to a certain culture can be shitty. For example you can´t identify a cultural group, that´s collective homophobic. Influential groups or even the majority might be, but not everybody. It leads inevitable to discrimination if you claim that for example, "the whole muslimic culture is sexist and thus shitty".
Muslim culture is a misnomer, Islam is a religion. Modern arab culture is oppressive and bigoted, inferior to western culture in many ways.
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.
Whole cultures arent shitty. Individuals, that belong to a certain culture can be shitty. For example you can´t identify a cultural group, that´s collective homophobic. Influential groups or even the majority might be, but not everybody. It leads inevitable to discrimination if you claim that for example, "the whole muslimic culture is sexist and thus shitty".
Muslim culture is a misnomer, Islam is a religion. Modern arab culture is oppressive and bigoted, inferior to western culture in many ways.
Too bad you cant say that in modern Britain or the neohippies will stone you. Hence why nobody uttered a word when shit like the Rochdale rapes happened.
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.
Whole cultures arent shitty. Individuals, that belong to a certain culture can be shitty. For example you can´t identify a cultural group, that´s collective homophobic. Influential groups or even the majority might be, but not everybody. It leads inevitable to discrimination if you claim that for example, "the whole muslimic culture is sexist and thus shitty".
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
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.
Whole cultures arent shitty. Individuals, that belong to a certain culture can be shitty. For example you can´t identify a cultural group, that´s collective homophobic. Influential groups or even the majority might be, but not everybody. It leads inevitable to discrimination if you claim that for example, "the whole muslimic culture is sexist and thus shitty".
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
doesn't really matter what's going on, if you get in you get everything for free.
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.
Whole cultures arent shitty. Individuals, that belong to a certain culture can be shitty. For example you can´t identify a cultural group, that´s collective homophobic. Influential groups or even the majority might be, but not everybody. It leads inevitable to discrimination if you claim that for example, "the whole muslimic culture is sexist and thus shitty".
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
doesn't really matter what's going on, if you get in you get everything for free.
On August 11 2012 21:11 Bahamut1337 wrote: I think Finland has a model we should follow, it forces people to join society. Its not like Sweden where a Somali can get 8 kids and make the taxpayer pay for it.
Wrong. We pay much more than swedish people per immigrant. Our numbers just arent in the swedish level to match their overall expenses.
[Edit] Just to add, i read an article that we give something near to 2000 euros average per immigrant for month ( Grown ups with families). I think it was 2nd best rated in the world. It was more than twice compared to many other european countries. So we fully provide everything to them that they need in order to adapt to the society. I don't remember it exactly because it was more than a year ago in a newspaper, but it tells definately something.
There is a line of people trying to get in nordic countries, and you bet it isn't a short one.
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.
Whole cultures arent shitty. Individuals, that belong to a certain culture can be shitty. For example you can´t identify a cultural group, that´s collective homophobic. Influential groups or even the majority might be, but not everybody. It leads inevitable to discrimination if you claim that for example, "the whole muslimic culture is sexist and thus shitty".
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.
On August 12 2012 03:10 JeanLuc wrote: In my younger days I was pro-multiculturalism all the way. In part because this is what we're taught in the school systems here. However as an older individual, I see a lot of problems with multiculturalism even in the peaceful city of Toronto. A lot of people are secretly racist, and only like to affliate with their own groups. And I find that when people DO put aside differences of background, its because they've found a stronger bond to tie them together: materialism! Yes, I find being a rich snob is what unites people most of all. If you're poor you're a racist, if you're rich you're only racist against the poor. End cynical rant.
That isn't a problem with multiculturalism as much as a problem with the people of Toronto. For as much crap as the US gets for our Bible Belt population, multiculturalism is becoming a reality here. Living in the Mid-North East has probably skewed my perception a great deal, but in my community I see Indian, Korea, Chinese, White, Hispanic and Black kids playing together, being friends. It sounds like some sappy politically correct TV commercial, but it's happening. I'm half chinese, one of my neighboring families are black, the others are also half chinese (mainland china, I'm not). There is a half indian, half black family living 3 doors down and all 3 of their children are products of the Naval Academy and proud members of the Armed Forces. Even amongst my group of friends we have about every ethnicity represented. We all still hold on to our cultures and remain aware of the small differences. IMO, a lot of present day racism derives from strict adherence to religion, especially Christianity, which makes clear distinctions between "believers" and "non-believers". That and highly undeducated people who don't realize that genetically we are more than 99% alike.
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.
Whole cultures arent shitty. Individuals, that belong to a certain culture can be shitty. For example you can´t identify a cultural group, that´s collective homophobic. Influential groups or even the majority might be, but not everybody. It leads inevitable to discrimination if you claim that for example, "the whole muslimic culture is sexist and thus shitty".
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.
On August 12 2012 03:51 SupLilSon wrote:That isn't a problem with multiculturalism as much as a problem with the people of Toronto. For as much crap as the US gets for our Bible Belt population, multiculturalism is becoming a reality here. Living in the Mid-North East has probably skewed my perception a great deal, but in my community I see Indian, Korea, Chinese, White, Hispanic and Black kids playing together, being friends. It sounds like some sappy politically correct TV commercial, but it's happening. I'm half chinese, one of my neighboring families are black, the others are also half chinese (mainland china, I'm not). There is a half indian, half black family living 3 doors down and all 3 of their children are products of the Naval Academy and proud members of the Armed Forces. Even amongst my group of friends we have about every ethnicity represented. We all still hold on to our cultures and remain aware of the small differences. IMO, a lot of present day racism derives from strict adherence to religion, especially Christianity, which makes clear distinctions between "believers" and "non-believers". That and highly undeducated people who don't realize that genetically we are more than 99% alike.
On August 12 2012 03:58 SupLilSon wrote: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.
On August 11 2012 19:58 Sepi wrote: I'm kinda disgusted about the people who just come to the country and leech ALL out of the social security system. There have been SO many cases in my country where people lie to the government, mainly about their childs and heatl condition etc. to get max support from the governemnt. We as tax payers must pay this all. And they still complain how they have just 60 square meter house FOR FREE. Its ridiculous.
Luckily there is a counterweight to this immigration, because there are a lot good people. Who acts just like us, does work and tries to proceed in their career. I higlhy respect these people as they can ADAPT to other enviroment and work their hart out to have what they deserve.
Even all the sexual crimes are mostly committed by immigrates. The studies that i have read, also indicate that its HIGHLY possible that they will continue to commit crimes. In my law system there is no way to kick any people out. They just get 1-2 years of probation and something like 1000 euros of indemnity or something like that.
Im no racist at all, but it just makes me sick how they can be so abusive, and yet so arrogant.
Wow really? Do you actually live in Finland? Holy shit that's just sad. You're famous for having one of the most racist social policies, and one of the absolute smallest immigration rates in all of Europe, and yet you complain there's too much? You have 150k immigrants and children of immigrants total, which equals a 2% of the population. Don't you have more serious issues than that? Alcoholism for instance? I seem to recall that just about every hobo in Sweden speaks with a Finnish accent.
Well, when almost all the sexual crimes are comitted by immigrants, some people might consider that a problem worth adressing.
Is this actually a fact? Do you have numbers backing up (from a legit source) that 'almost all' sexual crimes are commited by immigrants? By immigrant I assume you mean people who don't have white skin. Afaik most of this is propaganda made up by the far right. That's atleast the case in Sweden. Time and time again the far right nut jobs make up their own statistics which gets shut down in the parliament as it's not based in facts.
On August 11 2012 19:58 Sepi wrote: I'm kinda disgusted about the people who just come to the country and leech ALL out of the social security system. There have been SO many cases in my country where people lie to the government, mainly about their childs and heatl condition etc. to get max support from the governemnt. We as tax payers must pay this all. And they still complain how they have just 60 square meter house FOR FREE. Its ridiculous.
Luckily there is a counterweight to this immigration, because there are a lot good people. Who acts just like us, does work and tries to proceed in their career. I higlhy respect these people as they can ADAPT to other enviroment and work their hart out to have what they deserve.
Even all the sexual crimes are mostly committed by immigrates. The studies that i have read, also indicate that its HIGHLY possible that they will continue to commit crimes. In my law system there is no way to kick any people out. They just get 1-2 years of probation and something like 1000 euros of indemnity or something like that.
Im no racist at all, but it just makes me sick how they can be so abusive, and yet so arrogant.
Wow really? Do you actually live in Finland? Holy shit that's just sad. You're famous for having one of the most racist social policies, and one of the absolute smallest immigration rates in all of Europe, and yet you complain there's too much? You have 150k immigrants and children of immigrants total, which equals a 2% of the population. Don't you have more serious issues than that? Alcoholism for instance? I seem to recall that just about every hobo in Sweden speaks with a Finnish accent.
I think Finland has a model we should follow, it forces people to join society. Its not like Sweden where a Somali can get 8 kids and make the taxpayer pay for it.
You seem to avoid the rest of his post, Immigrants are more criminal, less educated, cheat the system more, rape more etc. If you would have a society with 30-40 percent immigrants it would be unliveable.
Also Where are the Swedish Jews? Oh most left due to immigration from intolerant groups? Oh wow that is something to be proud off!
I think pretty much everyone here is free to get as many children as they want. You don't have to be Somali to have 8 children. Once again I would like to point out that crimes don't originate from your skin colour or country of origin, but rather what education you have and how you're treated by society. With good integration there isn't a difference in crime rates.
Malmö is pretty much the texas of Sweden to begin with. Now with an added bonus that a lot of our immigrants end up there. It's not a very good situation for anyone. The integration definitely failed. I know for instance that the ministry of integration or however you translate it had a banquet when they managed to deport X amount of people. The suburbs there are just a really bad place to be nowadays.
On August 11 2012 20:47 Euronyme wrote: Wow really? Do you actually live in Finland? Holy shit that's just sad. You're famous for having one of the most racist social policies, and one of the absolute smallest immigration rates in all of Europe, and yet you complain there's too much? You have 150k immigrants and children of immigrants total, which equals a 2% of the population. Don't you have more serious issues than that? Alcoholism for instance? I seem to recall that just about every hobo in Sweden speaks with a Finnish accent.
[...]
Haha, now its you who brings up the mileading stereotypes that doesnt belong in this discussion. Dont know anything about your hobos really and i dont care. Just to note that we dont see that much of them here on public lol.
I do not see how its racist policy if you dont let everyone to come to LIVE in your country whitout working or doing any good to the society like swedish do. Its not like the all of them is unemployed, but you cant deny that there is MUCH of them in your society. The multiculturaliaism is part of your society now, and there is no denying it but i cannot see why you see it as racist policy if everyone doesn't follow?
I do not complain about immigrants, and i think its a good thing. It just my personal opinion, that in long time run they should be forced to try to earn their living by them selves. I get it that it takes time to settle in new enviroment and society, but majority of unemployed foreign people even do not try really to get any work, its just that our social security system encourages that kind of life style. Its not because of multiculturalism.
What im trying to point out is, do they really need the 1/4-1/3 or more to be immigrants to get that actual multicultural feeling, which could lead to them blending in to the society better? Or is it just that many of these people are lazy when they suddenly get all these benefits, so they don't have to contribute any good in the foreign society? Don't really know. I bet there is no answer : (
Obviously no country lets everyone come to live. Sweden and a lot of other countries see it as helping people out of a rough spot. It's the same reason people donate to charity. I guess there isn't a lot of charity going on in Finland. Finland is largely considered racist because you basically don't let anyone in. You have a country with 2% immigrants. That's including Scandinavians, Europeans, Americans, Asians and such. I assume by 'immigrants' you mean muslims. I guess you don't see your hobos because alcohol is cheaper in Sweden.
What exactly do you actually know about foreign people? What are your experiences that have lead to you believe that they do not try and do not work? It is true however that the social security system often encourages it.
On August 11 2012 19:58 Sepi wrote: I'm kinda disgusted about the people who just come to the country and leech ALL out of the social security system. There have been SO many cases in my country where people lie to the government, mainly about their childs and heatl condition etc. to get max support from the governemnt. We as tax payers must pay this all. And they still complain how they have just 60 square meter house FOR FREE. Its ridiculous.
Luckily there is a counterweight to this immigration, because there are a lot good people. Who acts just like us, does work and tries to proceed in their career. I higlhy respect these people as they can ADAPT to other enviroment and work their hart out to have what they deserve.
Even all the sexual crimes are mostly committed by immigrates. The studies that i have read, also indicate that its HIGHLY possible that they will continue to commit crimes. In my law system there is no way to kick any people out. They just get 1-2 years of probation and something like 1000 euros of indemnity or something like that.
Im no racist at all, but it just makes me sick how they can be so abusive, and yet so arrogant.
Wow really? Do you actually live in Finland? Holy shit that's just sad. You're famous for having one of the most racist social policies, and one of the absolute smallest immigration rates in all of Europe, and yet you complain there's too much? You have 150k immigrants and children of immigrants total, which equals a 2% of the population. Don't you have more serious issues than that? Alcoholism for instance? I seem to recall that just about every hobo in Sweden speaks with a Finnish accent.
Irony at it's finest.
Is it? I'm pretty sure Swedish and Finns have the same pasty white skin colour last time I checked. The issue is racism, because the only group targeted is arab muslims and black people. When people throw the word 'immigrant' around, I don't think they would include a German guy. _____
Sorry for throwing in a mega post late. I had to run.
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 conversions to Islam are skyrocketting in Europe.
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.
Whole cultures arent shitty. Individuals, that belong to a certain culture can be shitty. For example you can´t identify a cultural group, that´s collective homophobic. Influential groups or even the majority might be, but not everybody. It leads inevitable to discrimination if you claim that for example, "the whole muslimic culture is sexist and thus shitty".
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.
On August 12 2012 03:51 SupLilSon wrote:That isn't a problem with multiculturalism as much as a problem with the people of Toronto. For as much crap as the US gets for our Bible Belt population, multiculturalism is becoming a reality here. Living in the Mid-North East has probably skewed my perception a great deal, but in my community I see Indian, Korea, Chinese, White, Hispanic and Black kids playing together, being friends. It sounds like some sappy politically correct TV commercial, but it's happening. I'm half chinese, one of my neighboring families are black, the others are also half chinese (mainland china, I'm not). There is a half indian, half black family living 3 doors down and all 3 of their children are products of the Naval Academy and proud members of the Armed Forces. Even amongst my group of friends we have about every ethnicity represented. We all still hold on to our cultures and remain aware of the small differences. IMO, a lot of present day racism derives from strict adherence to religion, especially Christianity, which makes clear distinctions between "believers" and "non-believers". That and highly undeducated people who don't realize that genetically we are more than 99% alike.
On August 12 2012 03:58 SupLilSon wrote: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.
ethnicity != culture
Each of these ethnic groups carries a different culture..
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.
On August 12 2012 03:51 SupLilSon wrote:That isn't a problem with multiculturalism as much as a problem with the people of Toronto. For as much crap as the US gets for our Bible Belt population, multiculturalism is becoming a reality here. Living in the Mid-North East has probably skewed my perception a great deal, but in my community I see Indian, Korea, Chinese, White, Hispanic and Black kids playing together, being friends. It sounds like some sappy politically correct TV commercial, but it's happening. I'm half chinese, one of my neighboring families are black, the others are also half chinese (mainland china, I'm not). There is a half indian, half black family living 3 doors down and all 3 of their children are products of the Naval Academy and proud members of the Armed Forces. Even amongst my group of friends we have about every ethnicity represented. We all still hold on to our cultures and remain aware of the small differences. IMO, a lot of present day racism derives from strict adherence to religion, especially Christianity, which makes clear distinctions between "believers" and "non-believers". That and highly undeducated people who don't realize that genetically we are more than 99% alike.
On August 12 2012 03:58 SupLilSon wrote: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.
ethnicity != culture
Each of these ethnic groups carries a different culture..
On August 12 2012 03:51 SupLilSon wrote:That isn't a problem with multiculturalism as much as a problem with the people of Toronto. For as much crap as the US gets for our Bible Belt population, multiculturalism is becoming a reality here. Living in the Mid-North East has probably skewed my perception a great deal, but in my community I see Indian, Korea, Chinese, White, Hispanic and Black kids playing together, being friends. It sounds like some sappy politically correct TV commercial, but it's happening. I'm half chinese, one of my neighboring families are black, the others are also half chinese (mainland china, I'm not). There is a half indian, half black family living 3 doors down and all 3 of their children are products of the Naval Academy and proud members of the Armed Forces. Even amongst my group of friends we have about every ethnicity represented. We all still hold on to our cultures and remain aware of the small differences. IMO, a lot of present day racism derives from strict adherence to religion, especially Christianity, which makes clear distinctions between "believers" and "non-believers". That and highly undeducated people who don't realize that genetically we are more than 99% alike.
On August 12 2012 03:58 SupLilSon wrote: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.
ethnicity != culture
Each of these ethnic groups carries a different culture..
...that is not bounded by their ethnicity. By confusing the 2 facts you are either disqualifying yourself from the discussion or deliberately trying to steer it into a direction where anyone that think multiculturalism isn't all that is a blatant racist.
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.
Whole cultures arent shitty. Individuals, that belong to a certain culture can be shitty. For example you can´t identify a cultural group, that´s collective homophobic. Influential groups or even the majority might be, but not everybody. It leads inevitable to discrimination if you claim that for example, "the whole muslimic culture is sexist and thus shitty".
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
In Sweden it's fairly small at least. They are in fact in parliament, but only with 4-5% of votes or so. There are a tonne of them on the internet though for some reason. There's a big Swedish forum where a huge percent are pretty hard core racist. I think it has to do with not going out very often. The overwhelming majority of people you'd actually meet don't have a problem with foreigners. There is often some prejudice of some kind though. I think that's very hard to avoid though.
On August 12 2012 03:51 SupLilSon wrote:That isn't a problem with multiculturalism as much as a problem with the people of Toronto. For as much crap as the US gets for our Bible Belt population, multiculturalism is becoming a reality here. Living in the Mid-North East has probably skewed my perception a great deal, but in my community I see Indian, Korea, Chinese, White, Hispanic and Black kids playing together, being friends. It sounds like some sappy politically correct TV commercial, but it's happening. I'm half chinese, one of my neighboring families are black, the others are also half chinese (mainland china, I'm not). There is a half indian, half black family living 3 doors down and all 3 of their children are products of the Naval Academy and proud members of the Armed Forces. Even amongst my group of friends we have about every ethnicity represented. We all still hold on to our cultures and remain aware of the small differences. IMO, a lot of present day racism derives from strict adherence to religion, especially Christianity, which makes clear distinctions between "believers" and "non-believers". That and highly undeducated people who don't realize that genetically we are more than 99% alike.
On August 12 2012 03:58 SupLilSon wrote: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.
ethnicity != culture
Each of these ethnic groups carries a different culture..
...that is not bounded by their ethnicity. By confusing the 2 facts you are either disqualifying yourself from the discussion or deliberately trying to steer it into a direction where anyone that think multiculturalism isn't all that is a blatant racist.
Not bounded but correlated at the very least. In my experience ethnic groups tend to carry culture with them at least in the U.S.
Further it's probably a mistake to continually compare U.S. to Europe where the U.S. is strange in that it is both multicultural and a melting pot concurrently. Example being veils are simply not controversial here (at least on a national level), especially in schools yet in the college I went to alot of Islamic women voluntarily or out of spite rid themselves of the veil and retained other Islamic habits.
On August 12 2012 03:51 SupLilSon wrote:That isn't a problem with multiculturalism as much as a problem with the people of Toronto. For as much crap as the US gets for our Bible Belt population, multiculturalism is becoming a reality here. Living in the Mid-North East has probably skewed my perception a great deal, but in my community I see Indian, Korea, Chinese, White, Hispanic and Black kids playing together, being friends. It sounds like some sappy politically correct TV commercial, but it's happening. I'm half chinese, one of my neighboring families are black, the others are also half chinese (mainland china, I'm not). There is a half indian, half black family living 3 doors down and all 3 of their children are products of the Naval Academy and proud members of the Armed Forces. Even amongst my group of friends we have about every ethnicity represented. We all still hold on to our cultures and remain aware of the small differences. IMO, a lot of present day racism derives from strict adherence to religion, especially Christianity, which makes clear distinctions between "believers" and "non-believers". That and highly undeducated people who don't realize that genetically we are more than 99% alike.
On August 12 2012 03:58 SupLilSon wrote: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.
ethnicity != culture
Each of these ethnic groups carries a different culture..
...that is not bounded by their ethnicity. By confusing the 2 facts you are either disqualifying yourself from the discussion or deliberately trying to steer it into a direction where anyone that think multiculturalism isn't all that is a blatant racist.
Historically ethnicity and culture go hand in hand. In today's age that has become a bit less defined, but by separating the two, you are being able to say, hey I'm not racist, but I hate everything about this person's culture. Since genetically we are all the same, culture is the only thing that really distinguishes us.
Seriously... shut this thread down. Conspiratory cries about plans of "multiculturalism" among governments are bad excuses for racism and radical conservatism.
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.
Whole cultures arent shitty. Individuals, that belong to a certain culture can be shitty. For example you can´t identify a cultural group, that´s collective homophobic. Influential groups or even the majority might be, but not everybody. It leads inevitable to discrimination if you claim that for example, "the whole muslimic culture is sexist and thus shitty".
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
In Sweden it's fairly small at least. They are in fact in parliament, but only with 4-5% of votes or so. There are a tonne of them on the internet though for some reason. There's a big Swedish forum where a huge percent are pretty hard core racist. I think it has to do with not going out very often. The overwhelming majority of people you'd actually meet don't have a problem with foreigners. There is often some prejudice of some kind though. I think that's very hard to avoid though.
That's my take on it at least.
Yeah this pretty much mirrors my experience. Flashback can be entertaining though, it's like entering a different reality.
On August 12 2012 03:51 SupLilSon wrote:That isn't a problem with multiculturalism as much as a problem with the people of Toronto. For as much crap as the US gets for our Bible Belt population, multiculturalism is becoming a reality here. Living in the Mid-North East has probably skewed my perception a great deal, but in my community I see Indian, Korea, Chinese, White, Hispanic and Black kids playing together, being friends. It sounds like some sappy politically correct TV commercial, but it's happening. I'm half chinese, one of my neighboring families are black, the others are also half chinese (mainland china, I'm not). There is a half indian, half black family living 3 doors down and all 3 of their children are products of the Naval Academy and proud members of the Armed Forces. Even amongst my group of friends we have about every ethnicity represented. We all still hold on to our cultures and remain aware of the small differences. IMO, a lot of present day racism derives from strict adherence to religion, especially Christianity, which makes clear distinctions between "believers" and "non-believers". That and highly undeducated people who don't realize that genetically we are more than 99% alike.
On August 12 2012 03:58 SupLilSon wrote: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.
ethnicity != culture
Each of these ethnic groups carries a different culture..
...that is not bounded by their ethnicity. By confusing the 2 facts you are either disqualifying yourself from the discussion or deliberately trying to steer it into a direction where anyone that think multiculturalism isn't all that is a blatant racist.
Historically ethnicity and culture go hand in hand. In today's age that has become a bit less defined, but by separating the two, you are being able to say, hey I'm not racist, but I hate everything about this person's culture. Since genetically we are all the same, culture is the only thing that really distinguishes us.
And there is nothing wrong with that at all since culture is something you chose. Race is not. I am perfectly allowed to dislike an oppressive and hateful culture.
On August 12 2012 03:51 SupLilSon wrote:That isn't a problem with multiculturalism as much as a problem with the people of Toronto. For as much crap as the US gets for our Bible Belt population, multiculturalism is becoming a reality here. Living in the Mid-North East has probably skewed my perception a great deal, but in my community I see Indian, Korea, Chinese, White, Hispanic and Black kids playing together, being friends. It sounds like some sappy politically correct TV commercial, but it's happening. I'm half chinese, one of my neighboring families are black, the others are also half chinese (mainland china, I'm not). There is a half indian, half black family living 3 doors down and all 3 of their children are products of the Naval Academy and proud members of the Armed Forces. Even amongst my group of friends we have about every ethnicity represented. We all still hold on to our cultures and remain aware of the small differences. IMO, a lot of present day racism derives from strict adherence to religion, especially Christianity, which makes clear distinctions between "believers" and "non-believers". That and highly undeducated people who don't realize that genetically we are more than 99% alike.
On August 12 2012 03:58 SupLilSon wrote: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.
ethnicity != culture
Each of these ethnic groups carries a different culture..
...that is not bounded by their ethnicity. By confusing the 2 facts you are either disqualifying yourself from the discussion or deliberately trying to steer it into a direction where anyone that think multiculturalism isn't all that is a blatant racist.
Not bounded but correlated at the very least. In my experience ethnic groups tend to carry culture with them at least in the U.S.
Further it's probably a mistake to continually compare U.S. to Europe where the U.S. is strange in that it is both multicultural and a melting pot concurrently. Example being veils are simply not controversial here (at least on a national level), especially in schools yet in the college I went to alot of Islamic women voluntarily or out of spite rid themselves of the veil and retained other Islamic habits.
In a normal school environment the parents pick their children's clothes. As you progress to College/University you find that they are free to choose for themselves. Many probably rebel and test alternatives out when they can without constant supervision. At least to me your experience seems logical.
It could also be a case of the ones getting more education having more American culture, the ones without not getting the education.
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.
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.
How can you even believe crap like this? If my culture tells me that diseases are caused by babies and that the only way to cure a disease is to kill a baby, you are telling me it's okay because being different is okay? Some cultures are objectively inferior. Period. You aren't born with a culture like you are born with skin color and race. Religion and culture are both things that can be inferior. Race and skin color are not. The two are not comparable.
I'm telling others they should stop harming and oppressing others. Where is the wrong in that?
One example is your own conflicting values in this thread. I assume you hold the basic value/belief that human beings should be treated with dignity, yet you advocate forcible displacement of proponents of Sharia law. Islamic extremists also believe in peace and love and all that good shit, but at the same time believe infidels should be beheaded. You guys share a common ground in your eschewing of basic human rights for what you perceive to be the greater good.
I don't care because what I believe is objectively better. I am tolerant of everything except the harming and/or oppressing of others. I will not stand for the destruction of a peaceful society by people who want to oppress others. And besides, I have no wish to harm anyone. I just want them to not fuck up my country.
To clarify, I believe that if you treat Islamic or Christian or whatever other religious belief systems as a form of culture (which you can), then you can make a good case for their inferiority to secular humanist belief systems/culture, but I don't think you can attribute socioeconomic woes to people's idiotic beliefs, as if just kicking out the baddies will solve your problems.
I hope I'm understanding you correctly as I'm already having troubles conveying my thoughts on this matter into English. Where did I say anything about socioeconomic woes? I'm talking about culture here and how multiculturalism creates culture clashes. I'm talking about my fear that one particular inferior culture will become more prevalent (and is becoming more prevalent, althought not to the point of Sharia law introduction being imminent).
Deteriorating cities and increased crime are socioeconomic issues.
On August 11 2012 18:38 Psychobabas wrote: Multiculturalism has failed in Europe. Just visit London, probably the most multicultural capital in Europe.
You expect to see a harmonious cooexistence of cultures but what you get are completely segregated neighborhoods according to race and ethnicity. The Pakistanis are doing their own thing in east London, the Somalis their own, the Indians their own, the Africans their own, the Arabs their own, the Chinese their own etc etc all with little will to integrate to British culture, nevermind tolerating other cultures.
Some can barely speak a word of English.
I'm pretty sure this is okay. As long as no one breaks the law, there's nothing wrong with having cultural geographical groupings. There are generally locations where Aussies go, Polish go, Spanish go as well as Africans and Orientals. There are grouping areas for the English in almost every country. There are plenty who come from these areas who branch out, the next generation will intermarry with other cultures. It takes a while but divisions get broken down. And as a reward we get a shitload of talent across the gene pool of humanity. Worked for the US as far as I can see (although the incredible influx of Mexicans has sort of upset the apple cart).
On August 11 2012 19:58 Sepi wrote: I'm kinda disgusted about the people who just come to the country and leech ALL out of the social security system. There have been SO many cases in my country where people lie to the government, mainly about their childs and heatl condition etc. to get max support from the governemnt. We as tax payers must pay this all. And they still complain how they have just 60 square meter house FOR FREE. Its ridiculous.
Luckily there is a counterweight to this immigration, because there are a lot good people. Who acts just like us, does work and tries to proceed in their career. I higlhy respect these people as they can ADAPT to other enviroment and work their hart out to have what they deserve.
Even all the sexual crimes are mostly committed by immigrates. The studies that i have read, also indicate that its HIGHLY possible that they will continue to commit crimes. In my law system there is no way to kick any people out. They just get 1-2 years of probation and something like 1000 euros of indemnity or something like that.
Im no racist at all, but it just makes me sick how they can be so abusive, and yet so arrogant.
This isn't really a complaint about multiculturalism, rather a complaint about the state of the Finnish legal system and the weakness of its determination process for working out validity of benefit claims.
There is no need for more "shitload of talent" in this country.
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.
I don't see anything wrong with those things being part of a larger culture of tolerance and acceptance of peoples values. As long as people are willing to fight for everybody having the chance to follow those values instead of accepting that others have other values and violently oppose them.
On August 12 2012 03:51 SupLilSon wrote:That isn't a problem with multiculturalism as much as a problem with the people of Toronto. For as much crap as the US gets for our Bible Belt population, multiculturalism is becoming a reality here. Living in the Mid-North East has probably skewed my perception a great deal, but in my community I see Indian, Korea, Chinese, White, Hispanic and Black kids playing together, being friends. It sounds like some sappy politically correct TV commercial, but it's happening. I'm half chinese, one of my neighboring families are black, the others are also half chinese (mainland china, I'm not). There is a half indian, half black family living 3 doors down and all 3 of their children are products of the Naval Academy and proud members of the Armed Forces. Even amongst my group of friends we have about every ethnicity represented. We all still hold on to our cultures and remain aware of the small differences. IMO, a lot of present day racism derives from strict adherence to religion, especially Christianity, which makes clear distinctions between "believers" and "non-believers". That and highly undeducated people who don't realize that genetically we are more than 99% alike.
On August 12 2012 03:58 SupLilSon wrote: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.
ethnicity != culture
Each of these ethnic groups carries a different culture..
...that is not bounded by their ethnicity. By confusing the 2 facts you are either disqualifying yourself from the discussion or deliberately trying to steer it into a direction where anyone that think multiculturalism isn't all that is a blatant racist.
Historically ethnicity and culture go hand in hand. In today's age that has become a bit less defined, but by separating the two, you are being able to say, hey I'm not racist, but I hate everything about this person's culture. Since genetically we are all the same, culture is the only thing that really distinguishes us.
And there is nothing wrong with that at all since culture is something you chose. Race is not. I am perfectly allowed to dislike an oppressive and hateful culture.
But you don't get to choose culture, not 100%. The whole reason you see a culture as oppressive and hateful is because of your own upbringing. Culture is something you are exposed to since the day you are born, many times without you even noticing. Yea, once you get older you may shed aspects of that culture, but it has to be a conscious effort. And like I said, most of these oppressive/hateful cultures are just products of religion. There is much more to culture than that.
On August 12 2012 03:51 SupLilSon wrote:That isn't a problem with multiculturalism as much as a problem with the people of Toronto. For as much crap as the US gets for our Bible Belt population, multiculturalism is becoming a reality here. Living in the Mid-North East has probably skewed my perception a great deal, but in my community I see Indian, Korea, Chinese, White, Hispanic and Black kids playing together, being friends. It sounds like some sappy politically correct TV commercial, but it's happening. I'm half chinese, one of my neighboring families are black, the others are also half chinese (mainland china, I'm not). There is a half indian, half black family living 3 doors down and all 3 of their children are products of the Naval Academy and proud members of the Armed Forces. Even amongst my group of friends we have about every ethnicity represented. We all still hold on to our cultures and remain aware of the small differences. IMO, a lot of present day racism derives from strict adherence to religion, especially Christianity, which makes clear distinctions between "believers" and "non-believers". That and highly undeducated people who don't realize that genetically we are more than 99% alike.
On August 12 2012 03:58 SupLilSon wrote: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.
ethnicity != culture
Each of these ethnic groups carries a different culture..
...that is not bounded by their ethnicity. By confusing the 2 facts you are either disqualifying yourself from the discussion or deliberately trying to steer it into a direction where anyone that think multiculturalism isn't all that is a blatant racist.
Not bounded but correlated at the very least. In my experience ethnic groups tend to carry culture with them at least in the U.S.
Further it's probably a mistake to continually compare U.S. to Europe where the U.S. is strange in that it is both multicultural and a melting pot concurrently. Example being veils are simply not controversial here (at least on a national level), especially in schools yet in the college I went to alot of Islamic women voluntarily or out of spite rid themselves of the veil and retained other Islamic habits.
In a normal school environment the parents pick their children's clothes. As you progress to College/University you find that they are free to choose for themselves. Many probably rebel and test alternatives out when they can without constant supervision. At least to me your experience seems logical.
It could also be a case of the ones getting more education having more American culture, the ones without not getting the education.
That's a good point. I'm too lazy to check but I would be a betting man increasing education and income decrease cultural attachment and religiosity up to a certain level.
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.
Uhh what...?
But you don't get to choose culture, not 100%.
That is absolutely true and that's why eduction and critical thinking are so important. Any adult is responsible for his values though, when shown his old set of values is bigoted and oppressive.
The whole reason you see a culture as oppressive and hateful is because of your own upbringing.
No. The definitions of oppressive and hateful don't change whether I'm brought up with culture A or culture B.
On August 12 2012 03:51 SupLilSon wrote:That isn't a problem with multiculturalism as much as a problem with the people of Toronto. For as much crap as the US gets for our Bible Belt population, multiculturalism is becoming a reality here. Living in the Mid-North East has probably skewed my perception a great deal, but in my community I see Indian, Korea, Chinese, White, Hispanic and Black kids playing together, being friends. It sounds like some sappy politically correct TV commercial, but it's happening. I'm half chinese, one of my neighboring families are black, the others are also half chinese (mainland china, I'm not). There is a half indian, half black family living 3 doors down and all 3 of their children are products of the Naval Academy and proud members of the Armed Forces. Even amongst my group of friends we have about every ethnicity represented. We all still hold on to our cultures and remain aware of the small differences. IMO, a lot of present day racism derives from strict adherence to religion, especially Christianity, which makes clear distinctions between "believers" and "non-believers". That and highly undeducated people who don't realize that genetically we are more than 99% alike.
On August 12 2012 03:58 SupLilSon wrote: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.
ethnicity != culture
Each of these ethnic groups carries a different culture..
...that is not bounded by their ethnicity. By confusing the 2 facts you are either disqualifying yourself from the discussion or deliberately trying to steer it into a direction where anyone that think multiculturalism isn't all that is a blatant racist.
Historically ethnicity and culture go hand in hand. In today's age that has become a bit less defined, but by separating the two, you are being able to say, hey I'm not racist, but I hate everything about this person's culture. Since genetically we are all the same, culture is the only thing that really distinguishes us.
And there is nothing wrong with that at all since culture is something you chose. Race is not. I am perfectly allowed to dislike an oppressive and hateful culture.
But you don't get to choose culture, not 100%. The whole reason you see a culture as oppressive and hateful is because of your own upbringing. Culture is something you are exposed to since the day you are born, many times without you even noticing. Yea, once you get older you may shed aspects of that culture, but it has to be a conscious effort. And like I said, most of these oppressive/hateful cultures are just products of religion. There is much more to culture than that.
Let's pretend that all you just said is true. What exactly is your point?
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
On August 12 2012 03:51 SupLilSon wrote:That isn't a problem with multiculturalism as much as a problem with the people of Toronto. For as much crap as the US gets for our Bible Belt population, multiculturalism is becoming a reality here. Living in the Mid-North East has probably skewed my perception a great deal, but in my community I see Indian, Korea, Chinese, White, Hispanic and Black kids playing together, being friends. It sounds like some sappy politically correct TV commercial, but it's happening. I'm half chinese, one of my neighboring families are black, the others are also half chinese (mainland china, I'm not). There is a half indian, half black family living 3 doors down and all 3 of their children are products of the Naval Academy and proud members of the Armed Forces. Even amongst my group of friends we have about every ethnicity represented. We all still hold on to our cultures and remain aware of the small differences. IMO, a lot of present day racism derives from strict adherence to religion, especially Christianity, which makes clear distinctions between "believers" and "non-believers". That and highly undeducated people who don't realize that genetically we are more than 99% alike.
On August 12 2012 03:58 SupLilSon wrote: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.
ethnicity != culture
Each of these ethnic groups carries a different culture..
...that is not bounded by their ethnicity. By confusing the 2 facts you are either disqualifying yourself from the discussion or deliberately trying to steer it into a direction where anyone that think multiculturalism isn't all that is a blatant racist.
Not bounded but correlated at the very least. In my experience ethnic groups tend to carry culture with them at least in the U.S.
Further it's probably a mistake to continually compare U.S. to Europe where the U.S. is strange in that it is both multicultural and a melting pot concurrently. Example being veils are simply not controversial here (at least on a national level), especially in schools yet in the college I went to alot of Islamic women voluntarily or out of spite rid themselves of the veil and retained other Islamic habits.
In a normal school environment the parents pick their children's clothes. As you progress to College/University you find that they are free to choose for themselves. Many probably rebel and test alternatives out when they can without constant supervision. At least to me your experience seems logical.
It could also be a case of the ones getting more education having more American culture, the ones without not getting the education.
That's a good point. I'm too lazy to check but I would be a betting man increasing education and income decrease cultural attachment and religiosity up to a certain level.
Religious fervor and oppression/discrimination tend to coincide, secular regions tend to be more progressive in social issues particularly. Nothing spectacularly revealing about that.
On August 12 2012 03:51 SupLilSon wrote:That isn't a problem with multiculturalism as much as a problem with the people of Toronto. For as much crap as the US gets for our Bible Belt population, multiculturalism is becoming a reality here. Living in the Mid-North East has probably skewed my perception a great deal, but in my community I see Indian, Korea, Chinese, White, Hispanic and Black kids playing together, being friends. It sounds like some sappy politically correct TV commercial, but it's happening. I'm half chinese, one of my neighboring families are black, the others are also half chinese (mainland china, I'm not). There is a half indian, half black family living 3 doors down and all 3 of their children are products of the Naval Academy and proud members of the Armed Forces. Even amongst my group of friends we have about every ethnicity represented. We all still hold on to our cultures and remain aware of the small differences. IMO, a lot of present day racism derives from strict adherence to religion, especially Christianity, which makes clear distinctions between "believers" and "non-believers". That and highly undeducated people who don't realize that genetically we are more than 99% alike.
On August 12 2012 03:58 SupLilSon wrote: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.
ethnicity != culture
Each of these ethnic groups carries a different culture..
...that is not bounded by their ethnicity. By confusing the 2 facts you are either disqualifying yourself from the discussion or deliberately trying to steer it into a direction where anyone that think multiculturalism isn't all that is a blatant racist.
Not bounded but correlated at the very least. In my experience ethnic groups tend to carry culture with them at least in the U.S.
Further it's probably a mistake to continually compare U.S. to Europe where the U.S. is strange in that it is both multicultural and a melting pot concurrently. Example being veils are simply not controversial here (at least on a national level), especially in schools yet in the college I went to alot of Islamic women voluntarily or out of spite rid themselves of the veil and retained other Islamic habits.
In a normal school environment the parents pick their children's clothes. As you progress to College/University you find that they are free to choose for themselves. Many probably rebel and test alternatives out when they can without constant supervision. At least to me your experience seems logical.
It could also be a case of the ones getting more education having more American culture, the ones without not getting the education.
That's a good point. I'm too lazy to check but I would be a betting man increasing education and income decrease cultural attachment and religiosity up to a certain level.
I wouldn't bet against that. Moreso than the actually education, I think the college environment is pretty condusive to change and people get exposed to a shitton of different cultures when first entering college.
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.
I don't see anything wrong with those things being part of a larger culture of tolerance and acceptance of peoples values. As long as people are willing to fight for everybody having the chance to follow those values instead of accepting that others have other values and violently oppose them.
My point is that foreign people wouldn't abundon their culture without something to recover lost ground. This can't be this vast nothingness masquerading itself as "tolerance" and which in fact corresponds to an individualistic apathy.
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.
Whole cultures arent shitty. Individuals, that belong to a certain culture can be shitty. For example you can´t identify a cultural group, that´s collective homophobic. Influential groups or even the majority might be, but not everybody. It leads inevitable to discrimination if you claim that for example, "the whole muslimic culture is sexist and thus shitty".
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'.
On August 12 2012 03:51 SupLilSon wrote:That isn't a problem with multiculturalism as much as a problem with the people of Toronto. For as much crap as the US gets for our Bible Belt population, multiculturalism is becoming a reality here. Living in the Mid-North East has probably skewed my perception a great deal, but in my community I see Indian, Korea, Chinese, White, Hispanic and Black kids playing together, being friends. It sounds like some sappy politically correct TV commercial, but it's happening. I'm half chinese, one of my neighboring families are black, the others are also half chinese (mainland china, I'm not). There is a half indian, half black family living 3 doors down and all 3 of their children are products of the Naval Academy and proud members of the Armed Forces. Even amongst my group of friends we have about every ethnicity represented. We all still hold on to our cultures and remain aware of the small differences. IMO, a lot of present day racism derives from strict adherence to religion, especially Christianity, which makes clear distinctions between "believers" and "non-believers". That and highly undeducated people who don't realize that genetically we are more than 99% alike.
On August 12 2012 03:58 SupLilSon wrote: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.
ethnicity != culture
Each of these ethnic groups carries a different culture..
...that is not bounded by their ethnicity. By confusing the 2 facts you are either disqualifying yourself from the discussion or deliberately trying to steer it into a direction where anyone that think multiculturalism isn't all that is a blatant racist.
Historically ethnicity and culture go hand in hand. In today's age that has become a bit less defined, but by separating the two, you are being able to say, hey I'm not racist, but I hate everything about this person's culture. Since genetically we are all the same, culture is the only thing that really distinguishes us.
And there is nothing wrong with that at all since culture is something you chose. Race is not. I am perfectly allowed to dislike an oppressive and hateful culture.
But you don't get to choose culture, not 100%. The whole reason you see a culture as oppressive and hateful is because of your own upbringing. Culture is something you are exposed to since the day you are born, many times without you even noticing. Yea, once you get older you may shed aspects of that culture, but it has to be a conscious effort. And like I said, most of these oppressive/hateful cultures are just products of religion. There is much more to culture than that.
Let's pretend that all you just said is true. What exactly is your point?
That you are dismissing entire cultures based on one small/probably not universial/ mostly likely highly religion dependent aspect. Or that is the impression I am getting. But since you never really made a point, just tried to put mine down, it's kinda hard for me to identify the point of my dialogue with you. How do you not see the irony and hipocrisy in what you are saying?
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.
I don't see anything wrong with those things being part of a larger culture of tolerance and acceptance of peoples values. As long as people are willing to fight for everybody having the chance to follow those values instead of accepting that others have other values and violently oppose them.
My point is that foreign people wouldn't abundon their culture without something to recover lost ground. This can't be this vast nothingness masquerading itself as "tolerance" and which in fact corresponds to an individualistic apathy.
But you surely cannot mean we, as 'the West', have to change our nonoppressive, nonhateful and rational ways of life, in order to make immigrants with hate cultures feel at home, do you???? That is the most backwards way of thinking I've ever seen. They should adapt to us, not the other way around.
Your way of thinking is exactly why our countries are going down the shitter.
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.
Whole cultures arent shitty. Individuals, that belong to a certain culture can be shitty. For example you can´t identify a cultural group, that´s collective homophobic. Influential groups or even the majority might be, but not everybody. It leads inevitable to discrimination if you claim that for example, "the whole muslimic culture is sexist and thus shitty".
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
In Sweden it's fairly small at least. They are in fact in parliament, but only with 4-5% of votes or so. There are a tonne of them on the internet though for some reason. There's a big Swedish forum where a huge percent are pretty hard core racist. I think it has to do with not going out very often. The overwhelming majority of people you'd actually meet don't have a problem with foreigners. There is often some prejudice of some kind though. I think that's very hard to avoid though.
That's my take on it at least.
Yeah this pretty much mirrors my experience. Flashback can be entertaining though, it's like entering a different reality.
I think you're right to a certain point, I think that most people are afraid to discuss immigration and multiculturism in public because of the political climate that actually exists in Sweden, if anyone criticise the immigration politics they will immediately be branded with "RACIST" and so has the climate been for a long time in Sweden, now the climate has changed a bit since SD has taken part in the parlament but the climate is almost the same, its sad that a real open debate cannot happen because of this witch hunt on everyone who's criticising the immigration and multicultarism.
That's just really strange. I haven't met anyone who's antisemitic, but almost everyone (actually everyone) I know are very much so against the politics of the state of Israel. Just as they're against the foreign politics of USA. Calling that antisemitism is very odd imo.
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.
Whole cultures arent shitty. Individuals, that belong to a certain culture can be shitty. For example you can´t identify a cultural group, that´s collective homophobic. Influential groups or even the majority might be, but not everybody. It leads inevitable to discrimination if you claim that for example, "the whole muslimic culture is sexist and thus shitty".
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.
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.
Whole cultures arent shitty. Individuals, that belong to a certain culture can be shitty. For example you can´t identify a cultural group, that´s collective homophobic. Influential groups or even the majority might be, but not everybody. It leads inevitable to discrimination if you claim that for example, "the whole muslimic culture is sexist and thus shitty".
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.
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.
Edit 2. Wait what? That doesn't make sense either. Could you clarify please?
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.
I'm argueing that even if a culture is homophobic or sexist it's a very thin line to judge them coming from a different culture. Personally I believe that any culture where one persons freedom ends where another persons freedom begins is superior to one without that built in premise.
However, once I go out on the streets and start threatening anyone who doesn't agree with me I'm being a "culturalist" who is not better than a racist.
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.
How can you even believe crap like this? If my culture tells me that diseases are caused by babies and that the only way to cure a disease is to kill a baby, you are telling me it's okay because being different is okay? Some cultures are objectively inferior. Period. You aren't born with a culture like you are born with skin color and race. Religion and culture are both things that can be inferior. Race and skin color are not. The two are not comparable.
I'm telling others they should stop harming and oppressing others. Where is the wrong in that?
Most of the nobel prices went to jewish people. Are you saying that the jewish religion is clearly superior from a scientific point of view and that all scientists should consider converting?
I'm not on an internet where I can doublecheck right now so smack me in the face if I'm wrong - last time I checked most of the sprinters/runners in the olympics were black. Would you say that this is because of their upbringing, religion, culture or race?
As I just said, I would love to see a culture spread all over this planet where the basic premise is that hurting other beings is bad. However, that doesn't give me the right to impose that on everyone just because I personally think it's the best way to solve most of earths problems. I'm lucky that I live in a country (like probably most of us) where I can stop someone from hurting another person and have the law and the gouvernment on my side. That doesn't mean I can walk into a place where this isn't the case, act as if it is and then be surprised if I'm the one who ends up being jailed.
"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.
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.
Whole cultures arent shitty. Individuals, that belong to a certain culture can be shitty. For example you can´t identify a cultural group, that´s collective homophobic. Influential groups or even the majority might be, but not everybody. It leads inevitable to discrimination if you claim that for example, "the whole muslimic culture is sexist and thus shitty".
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."
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.
I don't see anything wrong with those things being part of a larger culture of tolerance and acceptance of peoples values. As long as people are willing to fight for everybody having the chance to follow those values instead of accepting that others have other values and violently oppose them.
My point is that foreign people wouldn't abundon their culture without something to recover lost ground. This can't be this vast nothingness masquerading itself as "tolerance" and which in fact corresponds to an individualistic apathy.
But you surely cannot mean we, as 'the West', have to change our nonoppressive, nonhateful and rational ways of life, in order to make immigrants with hate cultures feel at home, do you???? That is the most backwards way of thinking I've ever seen. They should adapt to us, not the other way around.
Your way of thinking is exactly why our countries are going down the shitter.
Ok. Here is one of my previous comment for you.
On ... SiroKO wrote 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.
You know the principle of Paracelse ? One of the fundamentals of pharmacology.
"Everything is poison, nothing is poison. The dose makes the poison" In other words, too few tolerance is nefast, but tolerating everything is equally harmful in the long run.
You see the world binarily. I've already commented on that. People are either pro-shariah, pro-stoning, pro-homosexual murdering, or on your side. Let me tell you my friends, they're subtleties. Even among the fundamentals Islamists, they're a lot of divergences on pretty much all issues.
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.
Whole cultures arent shitty. Individuals, that belong to a certain culture can be shitty. For example you can´t identify a cultural group, that´s collective homophobic. Influential groups or even the majority might be, but not everybody. It leads inevitable to discrimination if you claim that for example, "the whole muslimic culture is sexist and thus shitty".
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.
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.
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.
Whole cultures arent shitty. Individuals, that belong to a certain culture can be shitty. For example you can´t identify a cultural group, that´s collective homophobic. Influential groups or even the majority might be, but not everybody. It leads inevitable to discrimination if you claim that for example, "the whole muslimic culture is sexist and thus shitty".
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.
That's just really strange. I haven't met anyone who's antisemitic, but almost everyone (actually everyone) I know are very much so against the politics of the state of Israel. Just as they're against the foreign politics of USA. Calling that antisemitism is very odd imo.
I will link it once more. Note how schools for Jews need extra securty due to the Anti Semitic nature of Islam.
Whole cultures arent shitty. Individuals, that belong to a certain culture can be shitty. For example you can´t identify a cultural group, that´s collective homophobic. Influential groups or even the majority might be, but not everybody. It leads inevitable to discrimination if you claim that for example, "the whole muslimic culture is sexist and thus shitty".
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.
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.
That's just really strange. I haven't met anyone who's antisemitic, but almost everyone (actually everyone) I know are very much so against the politics of the state of Israel. Just as they're against the foreign politics of USA. Calling that antisemitism is very odd imo.
I will link it once more. Note how schools for Jews need extra securty due to the Anti Semitic nature of Islam.
Those are single experiences from a town with the worst suburbs in the country, and quite possibly all of northern Europe. It's basically the shit hole of Scandinavia. None is treated well there. What's your point?
The video I quoted was about Swedes being antisemitic which I don't think is true. There is however a very big dislike towards the behaviour of the state of Israel, but that's not being antisemitic.
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.
You know the principle of Paracelse ? One of the fundamentals of pharmacology.
"Everything is poison, nothing is poison. The dose makes the poison"
Pharmacology has no relevance at all to this discussion.
"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!
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.
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.
Whole cultures arent shitty. Individuals, that belong to a certain culture can be shitty. For example you can´t identify a cultural group, that´s collective homophobic. Influential groups or even the majority might be, but not everybody. It leads inevitable to discrimination if you claim that for example, "the whole muslimic culture is sexist and thus shitty".
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.
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.
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).
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.
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?
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.
"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.
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.
"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.
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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)
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.
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.
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...
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)
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?
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.
Well i never said that immigration between similar cultures was bad , but the thing is Europe will struggle to sustain just the people living there now because it is tapped out resource wise.I know that in the UK coal production peaked around 100 years ago , back in 1913.North sea oil and gas production peaked around 10 years ago , UK just announced it's worst monthly trade deficit on record last month a large part of it due to declining resource take in the north sea , the UK is now a net importer of oil and gas.
If you recall one of the main reasons the Romans invaded Britain was for it's vast resource of tin.Of course this was 2000 year ago and it's all gone now.So you've got a country with no resources left , barely any manufacturing left (Rolls Royce opened a brand new aircraft engine plant in Singapore last year by the way) and a financial sector that caused the GFC.
Of course the UK has a mild climate good for agriculture.Still , only 60% of food eaten in the UK was domestic , 40% was imported.Point is the UK has 60 million people living there but enough resources for 10 to 20 million living a lower standard of living.I make the same conclusion for the rest of Europe , no more immigration needed.
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)
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? inevi
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?
Since you felt justified in making large assumptions about me based on limited information, I'll do the same for you. I'm gonna assume you've lived in the US for your whole life. I'm going to assume you've barely experienced the outside world and have no idea what the cultural climate in other countries is like. I'm going to assume that Colbert and Jon Stewert constitute roughly 75% of your current news intake. You sound like some high school kid who just learned about the industrial revolution and now thinks everything works on exploitation. Yea, those Mexican Immigrants who do landscaping everywhere? News flash, they came here so their kids could get an American education and grow up without drug wars in their streets. They came here because even a minimum wage job can bring in more money for their family back in Mexico than a job there can. My dad's half of my family fled to America to escape religious persecution and inevitable death in Europe, while my mom came here because in Malaysia women had about as much chance of a meaningful education as dirt. They came here from poverty and worked their asses off and now I get have the luxury of bitching at you on TL because of that. If you really think the US runs on exploitation of it's lower class you need to wake up and take a look at some of the rest of the world.
On August 13 2012 00:50 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Well i never said that immigration between similar cultures was bad , but the thing is Europe will struggle to sustain just the people living there now because it is tapped out resource wise.I know that in the UK coal production peaked around 100 years ago , back in 1913.North sea oil and gas production peaked around 10 years ago , UK just announced it's worst monthly trade deficit on record last month a large part of it due to declining resource take in the north sea , the UK is now a net importer of oil and gas.
If you recall one of the main reasons the Romans invaded Britain was for it's vast resource of tin.Of course this was 2000 year ago and it's all gone now.So you've got a country with no resources left , barely any manufacturing left (Rolls Royce opened a brand new aircraft engine plant in Singapore last year by the way) and a financial sector that caused the GFC.
Of course the UK has a mild climate good for agriculture.Still , only 60% of food eaten in the UK was domestic , 40% was imported.Point is the UK has 60 million people living there but enough resources for 10 to 20 million living a lower standard of living.I make the same conclusion for the rest of Europe , no more immigration needed.
Isn't the problem that getting these ressources from China/Asia/Africa/Wherever is just WAY cheaper?
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.
Whole cultures arent shitty. Individuals, that belong to a certain culture can be shitty. For example you can´t identify a cultural group, that´s collective homophobic. Influential groups or even the majority might be, but not everybody. It leads inevitable to discrimination if you claim that for example, "the whole muslimic culture is sexist and thus shitty".
That is just wrong. For example, in a generic Islamic culture the belief system itself will be homophobic regardless of what individuals who identify themselves with it believe.
That´s utterly wrong. As every religion, Islam needs to be interpreted in a fashion, that suits you. And this interpretation makes the culture sexist/homophobic or not. You could argue in the same fashion, that Christianity is sexist and homophobic.
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.
Whole cultures arent shitty. Individuals, that belong to a certain culture can be shitty. For example you can´t identify a cultural group, that´s collective homophobic. Influential groups or even the majority might be, but not everybody. It leads inevitable to discrimination if you claim that for example, "the whole muslimic culture is sexist and thus shitty".
Roleplay time. You are a homosexual woman who likes to travel alone and drive cars. Where would you rather live, Norway or Saudi Arabia?
Where would you rather live as a muslim: in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin, where this guy shot sikhs, mistaking them for muslims? And does this mean every US Citizen hates muslims? It doesnt. And the same is true for you roleplay.
On August 13 2012 01:27 SupLilSon wrote: Since you felt justified in making large assumptions about me based on limited information, I'll do the same for you. I'm gonna assume you've lived in the US for your whole life. I'm going to assume you've barely experienced the outside world and have no idea what the cultural climate in other countries is like. I'm going to assume that Colbert and Jon Stewert constitute roughly 75% of your current news intake. You sound like some high school kid who just learned about the industrial revolution and now thinks everything works on exploitation. Yea, those Mexican Immigrants who do landscaping everywhere? News flash, they came here so their kids could get an American education and grow up without drug wars in their streets. They came here because even a minimum wage job can bring in more money for their family back in Mexico than a job there can. My dad's half of my family fled to America to escape religious persecution and inevitable death in Europe, while my mom came here because in Malaysia women had about as much chance of a meaningful education as dirt. They came here from poverty and worked their asses off and now I get have the luxury of bitching at you on TL because of that. If you really think the US runs on exploitation of it's lower class you need to wake up and take a look at some of the rest of the world.
But how can the US provide such good opportunities, such quality of life? For someone to win something in a short period of time, someone else has to lose it.
On August 13 2012 01:27 SupLilSon wrote: Since you felt justified in making large assumptions about me based on limited information, I'll do the same for you. I'm gonna assume you've lived in the US for your whole life. I'm going to assume you've barely experienced the outside world and have no idea what the cultural climate in other countries is like. I'm going to assume that Colbert and Jon Stewert constitute roughly 75% of your current news intake. You sound like some high school kid who just learned about the industrial revolution and now thinks everything works on exploitation. Yea, those Mexican Immigrants who do landscaping everywhere? News flash, they came here so their kids could get an American education and grow up without drug wars in their streets. They came here because even a minimum wage job can bring in more money for their family back in Mexico than a job there can. My dad's half of my family fled to America to escape religious persecution and inevitable death in Europe, while my mom came here because in Malaysia women had about as much chance of a meaningful education as dirt. They came here from poverty and worked their asses off and now I get have the luxury of bitching at you on TL because of that. If you really think the US runs on exploitation of it's lower class you need to wake up and take a look at some of the rest of the world.
But how can the US provide such good opportunities, such quality of life? For someone to win something in a short period of time, someone else has to lose it.
Wow, is this how people actually think economics works?
News flash, economics is not a zero-sum game. Especially when you have the infrastructure that's in America.
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.
Whole cultures arent shitty. Individuals, that belong to a certain culture can be shitty. For example you can´t identify a cultural group, that´s collective homophobic. Influential groups or even the majority might be, but not everybody. It leads inevitable to discrimination if you claim that for example, "the whole muslimic culture is sexist and thus shitty".
Muslim culture is a misnomer, Islam is a religion. Modern arab culture is oppressive and bigoted, inferior to western culture in many ways.
Cultural Inferiority, uh? As a german i dislike any talk of cultural inferiority by definition. i highly doubt it makes any sense to continue this conversation here.
On August 13 2012 01:27 SupLilSon wrote: Since you felt justified in making large assumptions about me based on limited information, I'll do the same for you. I'm gonna assume you've lived in the US for your whole life. I'm going to assume you've barely experienced the outside world and have no idea what the cultural climate in other countries is like. I'm going to assume that Colbert and Jon Stewert constitute roughly 75% of your current news intake. You sound like some high school kid who just learned about the industrial revolution and now thinks everything works on exploitation. Yea, those Mexican Immigrants who do landscaping everywhere? News flash, they came here so their kids could get an American education and grow up without drug wars in their streets. They came here because even a minimum wage job can bring in more money for their family back in Mexico than a job there can. My dad's half of my family fled to America to escape religious persecution and inevitable death in Europe, while my mom came here because in Malaysia women had about as much chance of a meaningful education as dirt. They came here from poverty and worked their asses off and now I get have the luxury of bitching at you on TL because of that. If you really think the US runs on exploitation of it's lower class you need to wake up and take a look at some of the rest of the world.
But how can the US provide such good opportunities, such quality of life? For someone to win something in a short period of time, someone else has to lose it.
On August 13 2012 01:27 SupLilSon wrote: Since you felt justified in making large assumptions about me based on limited information, I'll do the same for you. I'm gonna assume you've lived in the US for your whole life. I'm going to assume you've barely experienced the outside world and have no idea what the cultural climate in other countries is like. I'm going to assume that Colbert and Jon Stewert constitute roughly 75% of your current news intake. You sound like some high school kid who just learned about the industrial revolution and now thinks everything works on exploitation. Yea, those Mexican Immigrants who do landscaping everywhere? News flash, they came here so their kids could get an American education and grow up without drug wars in their streets. They came here because even a minimum wage job can bring in more money for their family back in Mexico than a job there can. My dad's half of my family fled to America to escape religious persecution and inevitable death in Europe, while my mom came here because in Malaysia women had about as much chance of a meaningful education as dirt. They came here from poverty and worked their asses off and now I get have the luxury of bitching at you on TL because of that. If you really think the US runs on exploitation of it's lower class you need to wake up and take a look at some of the rest of the world.
But how can the US provide such good opportunities, such quality of life? For someone to win something in a short period of time, someone else has to lose it.
Uh... no.
If you do productive labor, and get paid less than the added value from your labor, you are a useful contributor. Making value =/= taking value.
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.
Whole cultures arent shitty. Individuals, that belong to a certain culture can be shitty. For example you can´t identify a cultural group, that´s collective homophobic. Influential groups or even the majority might be, but not everybody. It leads inevitable to discrimination if you claim that for example, "the whole muslimic culture is sexist and thus shitty".
Muslim culture is a misnomer, Islam is a religion. Modern arab culture is oppressive and bigoted, inferior to western culture in many ways.
Cultural Inferiority, uh? As a german i dislike any talk of cultural inferiority by definition. i highly doubt it makes any sense to continue this conversation here.
Ehhh... you have to think of it more of a human well-being standpoint. I mean a culture that, say, doesn't let women drive would be inferior to the same culture but allowing women to drive, right? Think of it more like objectivity of human rights.
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.
Whole cultures arent shitty. Individuals, that belong to a certain culture can be shitty. For example you can´t identify a cultural group, that´s collective homophobic. Influential groups or even the majority might be, but not everybody. It leads inevitable to discrimination if you claim that for example, "the whole muslimic culture is sexist and thus shitty".
Muslim culture is a misnomer, Islam is a religion. Modern arab culture is oppressive and bigoted, inferior to western culture in many ways.
Cultural Inferiority, uh? As a german i dislike any talk of cultural inferiority by definition. i highly doubt it makes any sense to continue this conversation here.
Ehhh... you have to think of it more of a human well-being standpoint. I mean a culture that, say, doesn't let women drive would be inferior to the same culture but allowing women to drive, right? Think of it more like objectivity of human rights.
Well the point is, you can´t identify this to a whole culture. Of course there are those states in the arabic world, that have such laws. But it doesnt many the culture itself falls for the same faults as some people or even a government. There are liberal and modern movements in the arabic societies as well. Furthermore this kind of thinking dangerously leads to a feeling of superiority. And superiority can be used to legitimize the use of force.
The big problem with multiculturalism is that is attempts to compromise between different views of reality through advocacy of everything. A big part of thinking you are right is knowing that others are wrong. The rampant indiscriminate advocacy of all values, regardless of their more objective value, gives people the small push they need to be uncompromising and thus divisive. True multiculturalism in my mind is the universal devaluation of cultural values in favor of personal values (which is actually what has/is happening in America).
On August 13 2012 01:27 SupLilSon wrote: Since you felt justified in making large assumptions about me based on limited information, I'll do the same for you. I'm gonna assume you've lived in the US for your whole life. I'm going to assume you've barely experienced the outside world and have no idea what the cultural climate in other countries is like. I'm going to assume that Colbert and Jon Stewert constitute roughly 75% of your current news intake. You sound like some high school kid who just learned about the industrial revolution and now thinks everything works on exploitation. Yea, those Mexican Immigrants who do landscaping everywhere? News flash, they came here so their kids could get an American education and grow up without drug wars in their streets. They came here because even a minimum wage job can bring in more money for their family back in Mexico than a job there can. My dad's half of my family fled to America to escape religious persecution and inevitable death in Europe, while my mom came here because in Malaysia women had about as much chance of a meaningful education as dirt. They came here from poverty and worked their asses off and now I get have the luxury of bitching at you on TL because of that. If you really think the US runs on exploitation of it's lower class you need to wake up and take a look at some of the rest of the world.
But how can the US provide such good opportunities, such quality of life? For someone to win something in a short period of time, someone else has to lose it.
Wow, is this how people actually think economics works?
News flash, economics is not a zero-sum game. Especially when you have the infrastructure that's in America.
This is not a matter of economics, it's a matter of history.
America's rise was only made possible by the European downfall, american domination is enforced and secured by a strong military presence worldwide. If anything, the US is the country that uses the most force in its economical relations to other nations.
If you only consider the economical perspective, than you can't explain how the giant became so big.
On August 13 2012 01:27 SupLilSon wrote: Since you felt justified in making large assumptions about me based on limited information, I'll do the same for you. I'm gonna assume you've lived in the US for your whole life. I'm going to assume you've barely experienced the outside world and have no idea what the cultural climate in other countries is like. I'm going to assume that Colbert and Jon Stewert constitute roughly 75% of your current news intake. You sound like some high school kid who just learned about the industrial revolution and now thinks everything works on exploitation. Yea, those Mexican Immigrants who do landscaping everywhere? News flash, they came here so their kids could get an American education and grow up without drug wars in their streets. They came here because even a minimum wage job can bring in more money for their family back in Mexico than a job there can. My dad's half of my family fled to America to escape religious persecution and inevitable death in Europe, while my mom came here because in Malaysia women had about as much chance of a meaningful education as dirt. They came here from poverty and worked their asses off and now I get have the luxury of bitching at you on TL because of that. If you really think the US runs on exploitation of it's lower class you need to wake up and take a look at some of the rest of the world.
But how can the US provide such good opportunities, such quality of life? For someone to win something in a short period of time, someone else has to lose it.
Uh... no.
If you do productive labor, and get paid less than the added value from your labor, you are a useful contributor. Making value =/= taking value.
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.
Whole cultures arent shitty. Individuals, that belong to a certain culture can be shitty. For example you can´t identify a cultural group, that´s collective homophobic. Influential groups or even the majority might be, but not everybody. It leads inevitable to discrimination if you claim that for example, "the whole muslimic culture is sexist and thus shitty".
Muslim culture is a misnomer, Islam is a religion. Modern arab culture is oppressive and bigoted, inferior to western culture in many ways.
Cultural Inferiority, uh? As a german i dislike any talk of cultural inferiority by definition. i highly doubt it makes any sense to continue this conversation here.
That was about race. Cultures can be objectively inferior. Race can not.
That is just wrong. For example, in a generic Islamic culture the belief system itself will be homophobic regardless of what individuals who identify themselves with it believe.
That´s utterly wrong. As every religion, Islam needs to be interpreted in a fashion, that suits you. And this interpretation makes the culture sexist/homophobic or not. You could argue in the same fashion, that Christianity is sexist and homophobic.
You just said exactly what I said.
Well the point is, you can´t identify this to a whole culture. Of course there are those states in the arabic world, that have such laws. But it doesnt many the culture itself falls for the same faults as some people or even a government. There are liberal and modern movements in the arabic societies as well. Furthermore this kind of thinking dangerously leads to a feeling of superiority. And superiority can be used to legitimize the use of force.
'Arab' is not a culture. Those liberal and modern movements are a different culture. You need to distinguish between race/origin and culture (and culture being a shared system of values, beliefs and norms).
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.
Whole cultures arent shitty. Individuals, that belong to a certain culture can be shitty. For example you can´t identify a cultural group, that´s collective homophobic. Influential groups or even the majority might be, but not everybody. It leads inevitable to discrimination if you claim that for example, "the whole muslimic culture is sexist and thus shitty".
Muslim culture is a misnomer, Islam is a religion. Modern arab culture is oppressive and bigoted, inferior to western culture in many ways.
Cultural Inferiority, uh? As a german i dislike any talk of cultural inferiority by definition. i highly doubt it makes any sense to continue this conversation here.
That was about race. Cultures can be objectively inferior. Race can not.
That is just wrong. For example, in a generic Islamic culture the belief system itself will be homophobic regardless of what individuals who identify themselves with it believe.
That´s utterly wrong. As every religion, Islam needs to be interpreted in a fashion, that suits you. And this interpretation makes the culture sexist/homophobic or not. You could argue in the same fashion, that Christianity is sexist and homophobic.
You just said exactly what I said.
Why is monogamy and sexual equality objectively superior? In other species, male and female are almost never equal. Why is pro gay rights objectively better than homophobia? Because it's aligned with humanitarian beliefs? Or is it aligned with the specific cultural hegemony you were raised in? '
'Arab' is not a culture. Those liberal and modern movements are a different culture. You need to distinguish between race/origin and culture (and culture being a shared system of values, beliefs and norms).
It is though. Most people are multicultural and don't even think about it. You are the product of many cultures and subcultures, depending on your generally unique set of life experiences. Trying to separate culture from any of the ways of grouping people is just silly. Culture is the direct product of those differences.
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.
Whole cultures arent shitty. Individuals, that belong to a certain culture can be shitty. For example you can´t identify a cultural group, that´s collective homophobic. Influential groups or even the majority might be, but not everybody. It leads inevitable to discrimination if you claim that for example, "the whole muslimic culture is sexist and thus shitty".
Muslim culture is a misnomer, Islam is a religion. Modern arab culture is oppressive and bigoted, inferior to western culture in many ways.
Cultural Inferiority, uh? As a german i dislike any talk of cultural inferiority by definition. i highly doubt it makes any sense to continue this conversation here.
That was about race. Cultures can be objectively inferior. Race can not.
That is just wrong. For example, in a generic Islamic culture the belief system itself will be homophobic regardless of what individuals who identify themselves with it believe.
That´s utterly wrong. As every religion, Islam needs to be interpreted in a fashion, that suits you. And this interpretation makes the culture sexist/homophobic or not. You could argue in the same fashion, that Christianity is sexist and homophobic.
You just said exactly what I said.
Why is monogamy and sexual equality objectively superior? In other species, male and female are almost never equal. Why is pro gay rights objectively better than homophobia? Because it's aligned with humanitarian beliefs? Or is it aligned with the specific cultural hegemony you were raised in?
I'd rather have you show me why human (because that's what we're talking about here) males and females are not equal. There is not a single rational reason why women (for example) should not be allowed a job, walk without male supervision on the street, drive a car, you name it.
It's the same for homophobia. There is not a single rational reason why gay = bad.
On August 13 2012 03:09 Thorakh wrote: I'd rather have you show me why human (because that's what we're talking about here) males and females are not equal. There is not a single rational reason why women (for example) should not be allowed a job, walk without male supervision on the street, drive a car, you name it.
It's the same for homophobia. There is not a single rational reason why gay = bad.
Yes, I believe moral relativism is bullshit.
One can argue that gay is bad because if everyone was gay, our species would go extinct. That is a rational argument. Opposing to that is the fact that this is never ever going to be the case, so gays don't matter in the reproduction part of our species.
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.
Whole cultures arent shitty. Individuals, that belong to a certain culture can be shitty. For example you can´t identify a cultural group, that´s collective homophobic. Influential groups or even the majority might be, but not everybody. It leads inevitable to discrimination if you claim that for example, "the whole muslimic culture is sexist and thus shitty".
Muslim culture is a misnomer, Islam is a religion. Modern arab culture is oppressive and bigoted, inferior to western culture in many ways.
Cultural Inferiority, uh? As a german i dislike any talk of cultural inferiority by definition. i highly doubt it makes any sense to continue this conversation here.
That was about race. Cultures can be objectively inferior. Race can not.
That is just wrong. For example, in a generic Islamic culture the belief system itself will be homophobic regardless of what individuals who identify themselves with it believe.
That´s utterly wrong. As every religion, Islam needs to be interpreted in a fashion, that suits you. And this interpretation makes the culture sexist/homophobic or not. You could argue in the same fashion, that Christianity is sexist and homophobic.
You just said exactly what I said.
Why is monogamy and sexual equality objectively superior? In other species, male and female are almost never equal. Why is pro gay rights objectively better than homophobia? Because it's aligned with humanitarian beliefs? Or is it aligned with the specific cultural hegemony you were raised in?
I'd rather have you show me why human (because that's what we're talking about here) males and females are not equal. There is not a single rational reason why women (for example) should not be allowed a job, walk without male supervision on the street, drive a car, you name it.
It's the same for homophobia. There is not a single rational reason why gay = bad.
Yes, I believe moral relativism is bullshit.
If the strongest men were alowd to breed with as many females as they possibly could, without disgression and those women soley focused on the survival of those children, some may argue that would bring about stronger subsequent generations. Gay people = no progeny, no continuation of their gene pool.
Obviously I agree with you in that I'd want to grow up in a culture that touts equality, but I still have a hard time judging Western culture as "objectively" superior.
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.
Whole cultures arent shitty. Individuals, that belong to a certain culture can be shitty. For example you can´t identify a cultural group, that´s collective homophobic. Influential groups or even the majority might be, but not everybody. It leads inevitable to discrimination if you claim that for example, "the whole muslimic culture is sexist and thus shitty".
Muslim culture is a misnomer, Islam is a religion. Modern arab culture is oppressive and bigoted, inferior to western culture in many ways.
Cultural Inferiority, uh? As a german i dislike any talk of cultural inferiority by definition. i highly doubt it makes any sense to continue this conversation here.
That was about race. Cultures can be objectively inferior. Race can not.
That is just wrong. For example, in a generic Islamic culture the belief system itself will be homophobic regardless of what individuals who identify themselves with it believe.
That´s utterly wrong. As every religion, Islam needs to be interpreted in a fashion, that suits you. And this interpretation makes the culture sexist/homophobic or not. You could argue in the same fashion, that Christianity is sexist and homophobic.
Well the point is, you can´t identify this to a whole culture. Of course there are those states in the arabic world, that have such laws. But it doesnt many the culture itself falls for the same faults as some people or even a government. There are liberal and modern movements in the arabic societies as well. Furthermore this kind of thinking dangerously leads to a feeling of superiority. And superiority can be used to legitimize the use of force.
'Arab' is not a culture. Those liberal and modern movements are a different culture. You need to distinguish between race/origin and culture (and culture being a shared system of values, beliefs and norms).
It wasn´t only about race, it was about culture as well. Culture can not be inferior, as culture is, as you mentioned a sum of beliefs, values and norms. Yet you will be hard pressed to identify this culture, where a sexist or homophobic notion is shared unanimously. And even if appears to you this way, you wont be able to judge it as you can´t claim to know said culture close enough, if you don´t share it
I didnt say what you said: the point is, there is no such thing as a generic islamic culture. Furthermore i didnt raise the term "arabic culture", i merely referred to it. You cannot divide cultural complexes into segments in order to label one of them as inferior. Liberal arabic movements view themselves as part of that certain culture, that is meant to be labeled as inferior throughout this discussion.
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.
Whole cultures arent shitty. Individuals, that belong to a certain culture can be shitty. For example you can´t identify a cultural group, that´s collective homophobic. Influential groups or even the majority might be, but not everybody. It leads inevitable to discrimination if you claim that for example, "the whole muslimic culture is sexist and thus shitty".
Muslim culture is a misnomer, Islam is a religion. Modern arab culture is oppressive and bigoted, inferior to western culture in many ways.
Cultural Inferiority, uh? As a german i dislike any talk of cultural inferiority by definition. i highly doubt it makes any sense to continue this conversation here.
That was about race. Cultures can be objectively inferior. Race can not.
That is just wrong. For example, in a generic Islamic culture the belief system itself will be homophobic regardless of what individuals who identify themselves with it believe.
That´s utterly wrong. As every religion, Islam needs to be interpreted in a fashion, that suits you. And this interpretation makes the culture sexist/homophobic or not. You could argue in the same fashion, that Christianity is sexist and homophobic.
You just said exactly what I said.
Why is monogamy and sexual equality objectively superior? In other species, male and female are almost never equal. Why is pro gay rights objectively better than homophobia? Because it's aligned with humanitarian beliefs? Or is it aligned with the specific cultural hegemony you were raised in?
I'd rather have you show me why human (because that's what we're talking about here) males and females are not equal. There is not a single rational reason why women (for example) should not be allowed a job, walk without male supervision on the street, drive a car, you name it.
It's the same for homophobia. There is not a single rational reason why gay = bad.
Yes, I believe moral relativism is bullshit.
If the strongest men were alowd to breed with as many females as they possibly could, without disgression and those women soley focused on the survival of those children, some may argue that would bring about stronger subsequent generations. Gay people = no progeny, no continuation of their gene pool.
Obviously I agree with you in that I'd want to grow up in a culture that touts equality, but I still have a hard time judging Western culture as "objectively" superior.
So polygamy/monogamy are fine according to that (I find them to be)?
Gay is also fine since those with a genetic/cultural/whatever make-up for no relationship with the opposite gender will die out. Leaving only bi/opposite sex attraction.
Sounds fine to me. If gay isn't part of any of those then it will stay in, which also seems fine?
Edit, the only problem I see with your argument is that you assume that strong females won't attract multiple males.
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.
Whole cultures arent shitty. Individuals, that belong to a certain culture can be shitty. For example you can´t identify a cultural group, that´s collective homophobic. Influential groups or even the majority might be, but not everybody. It leads inevitable to discrimination if you claim that for example, "the whole muslimic culture is sexist and thus shitty".
Muslim culture is a misnomer, Islam is a religion. Modern arab culture is oppressive and bigoted, inferior to western culture in many ways.
Cultural Inferiority, uh? As a german i dislike any talk of cultural inferiority by definition. i highly doubt it makes any sense to continue this conversation here.
That was about race. Cultures can be objectively inferior. Race can not.
Do you even understand what you're spewing out here?
That's hypocrisy at it's finest. Please explain to me why a culture can be "objectively inferior" but at the same time it's impossible for you that races are "objectively inferior"? I'm pretty damn sure the only reason you can come up with is because the word "racism" has a bad ring to it while "culturalism" sounds pretty neat so far.
The biggest wars in history started by people calling others inferior. Be it race, religion or culture. You're pretty much one step away from calling for a holy war on those stupid infidels with the inferior culture.
PS: German Shepherd or Poodle, do you think they one of them can be objectively inferior or not? I'll help you out, the correct answer is: "For what?" - it's exactly the same with human race, religion or culture. Each one has flaws, each one has merits. You're proclaiming that your culture in it's entirety is superior to another one and therefor has a god-given right to call out the other culture. I think that's pretty disgusting.
On August 13 2012 03:09 Thorakh wrote: I'd rather have you show me why human (because that's what we're talking about here) males and females are not equal. There is not a single rational reason why women (for example) should not be allowed a job, walk without male supervision on the street, drive a car, you name it.
It's the same for homophobia. There is not a single rational reason why gay = bad.
Yes, I believe moral relativism is bullshit.
One can argue that gay is bad because if everyone was gay, our species would go extinct. That is a rational argument. Opposing to that is the fact that this is never ever going to be the case, so gays don't matter in the reproduction part of our species.
You just refuted your own argument and therefore it's not a valid rational argument.
One could even further refute it by postulating that even if the entire human population was gay, we could still make babies. I can certainly see such a society function without any problems.
It wasn´t only about race, it was about culture as well. Culture can not be inferior, as culture is, as you mentioned a sum of beliefs, values and norms. Yet you will be hard pressed to identify this culture, where a sexist or homophobic notion is shared unanimously. And even if appears to you this way, you wont be able to judge it as you can´t claim to know said culture close enough, if you don´t share it
I didnt say what you said: the point is, there is no such thing as a generic islamic culture. Furthermore i didnt raise the term "arabic culture", i merely referred to it. You cannot divide cultural complexes into segments in order to label one of them as inferior. Liberal arabic movements view themselves as part of that certain culture, that is meant to be labeled as inferior throughout this discussion.
I think you are right. What I mean by "inferior culture" are specific people with an inferior set of beliefs. Indeed not every person who generally identifies himself with culture X also shares the exact copy of that culture's set of values.
That's hypocrisy at it's finest. Please explain to me why a culture can be "objectively inferior" but at the same time it's impossible for you that races are "objectively inferior"? I'm pretty damn sure the only reason you can come up with is because the word "racism" has a bad ring to it while "culturalism" sounds pretty neat so far.
Race does not determine the set of values and behaviour someone has. Furthermore, the difference in races beside appearances are extremely small.
PS: German Shepherd or Poodle, do you think they one of them can be objectively inferior or not? I'll help you out, the correct answer is: "For what?" - it's exactly the same with human race, religion or culture. Each one has flaws, each one has merits. You're proclaiming that your culture in it's entirety is superior to another one and therefor has a god-given right to call out the other culture. I think that's pretty disgusting.
I'm certainly not calling an entire culture inferior. Culture X simply has more negative traits than culture Y and therefore culture X is inferior to culture Y.
The biggest wars in history started by people calling others inferior. Be it race, religion or culture. You're pretty much one step away from calling for a holy war on those stupid infidels with the inferior culture.
You're putting words in my mouth. I have no desire to harm anyone.
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.
Whole cultures arent shitty. Individuals, that belong to a certain culture can be shitty. For example you can´t identify a cultural group, that´s collective homophobic. Influential groups or even the majority might be, but not everybody. It leads inevitable to discrimination if you claim that for example, "the whole muslimic culture is sexist and thus shitty".
Muslim culture is a misnomer, Islam is a religion. Modern arab culture is oppressive and bigoted, inferior to western culture in many ways.
Cultural Inferiority, uh? As a german i dislike any talk of cultural inferiority by definition. i highly doubt it makes any sense to continue this conversation here.
That was about race. Cultures can be objectively inferior. Race can not.
That is just wrong. For example, in a generic Islamic culture the belief system itself will be homophobic regardless of what individuals who identify themselves with it believe.
That´s utterly wrong. As every religion, Islam needs to be interpreted in a fashion, that suits you. And this interpretation makes the culture sexist/homophobic or not. You could argue in the same fashion, that Christianity is sexist and homophobic.
You just said exactly what I said.
Why is monogamy and sexual equality objectively superior? In other species, male and female are almost never equal. Why is pro gay rights objectively better than homophobia? Because it's aligned with humanitarian beliefs? Or is it aligned with the specific cultural hegemony you were raised in?
I'd rather have you show me why human (because that's what we're talking about here) males and females are not equal. There is not a single rational reason why women (for example) should not be allowed a job, walk without male supervision on the street, drive a car, you name it.
It's the same for homophobia. There is not a single rational reason why gay = bad.
Yes, I believe moral relativism is bullshit.
If the strongest men were alowd to breed with as many females as they possibly could, without disgression and those women soley focused on the survival of those children, some may argue that would bring about stronger subsequent generations. Gay people = no progeny, no continuation of their gene pool.
Obviously I agree with you in that I'd want to grow up in a culture that touts equality, but I still have a hard time judging Western culture as "objectively" superior.
So polygamy/monogamy are fine according to that (I find them to be)?
Gay is also fine since those with a genetic/cultural/whatever make-up for no relationship with the opposite gender will die out. Leaving only bi/opposite sex attraction.
Sounds fine to me. If gay isn't part of any of those then it will stay in, which also seems fine?
Edit, the only problem I see with your argument is that you assume that strong females won't attract multiple males.
Strong females would attract multiple males, but only the strongest of those males would be able to claim her. As you know, once a human is pregnant, they cannot get pregnant a second time until the pregnancy is finished. Thus ensuring that the strongest male and strongest females are paired.
On August 13 2012 03:09 Thorakh wrote: I'd rather have you show me why human (because that's what we're talking about here) males and females are not equal. There is not a single rational reason why women (for example) should not be allowed a job, walk without male supervision on the street, drive a car, you name it.
It's the same for homophobia. There is not a single rational reason why gay = bad.
Yes, I believe moral relativism is bullshit.
One can argue that gay is bad because if everyone was gay, our species would go extinct. That is a rational argument. Opposing to that is the fact that this is never ever going to be the case, so gays don't matter in the reproduction part of our species.
You just refuted your own argument and therefore it's not a valid rational argument.
One could even further refute it by postulating that even if the entire human population was gay, we could still make babies. I can certainly see such a society function without any problems.
It wasn´t only about race, it was about culture as well. Culture can not be inferior, as culture is, as you mentioned a sum of beliefs, values and norms. Yet you will be hard pressed to identify this culture, where a sexist or homophobic notion is shared unanimously. And even if appears to you this way, you wont be able to judge it as you can´t claim to know said culture close enough, if you don´t share it
I didnt say what you said: the point is, there is no such thing as a generic islamic culture. Furthermore i didnt raise the term "arabic culture", i merely referred to it. You cannot divide cultural complexes into segments in order to label one of them as inferior. Liberal arabic movements view themselves as part of that certain culture, that is meant to be labeled as inferior throughout this discussion.
I think you are right. What I mean by "inferior culture" are specific people with an inferior set of beliefs. Indeed not every person who generally identifies himself with culture X also shares the exact copy of that culture's set of values.
That's hypocrisy at it's finest. Please explain to me why a culture can be "objectively inferior" but at the same time it's impossible for you that races are "objectively inferior"? I'm pretty damn sure the only reason you can come up with is because the word "racism" has a bad ring to it while "culturalism" sounds pretty neat so far.
Race does not determine the set of values and behaviour someone has. Furthermore, the difference in races beside appearances are extremely small.
PS: German Shepherd or Poodle, do you think they one of them can be objectively inferior or not? I'll help you out, the correct answer is: "For what?" - it's exactly the same with human race, religion or culture. Each one has flaws, each one has merits. You're proclaiming that your culture in it's entirety is superior to another one and therefor has a god-given right to call out the other culture. I think that's pretty disgusting.
I'm certainly not calling an entire culture inferior. Culture X simply has more negative traits than culture Y and therefore culture X is inferior to culture Y.
Your definition of negative and positive traits is undeniably influenced by whichever cultural hegemony you prescribe to. This argument is getting you no where.
That's hypocrisy at it's finest. Please explain to me why a culture can be "objectively inferior" but at the same time it's impossible for you that races are "objectively inferior"? I'm pretty damn sure the only reason you can come up with is because the word "racism" has a bad ring to it while "culturalism" sounds pretty neat so far.
Race does not determine the set of values and behaviour someone has. Furthermore, the difference in races beside appearances are extremely small.
Race is very much related to the set of values and behaviour someone has. If - for whatever reasons - black people in the US commit more crimes than white people and if - for whatever reasons - police officers tend to shoot black suspects more often than white ones do you really believe that that doesn't affect the values and behaviours of black people? Sure, the color of your skin or your race being irrelevant sounds cool and all but it's far from reality. Everyone gets judged by their appearence, everyone gets feedback on their appearence. That feedback forms values.
Besides that: What about religion? Judging from your argument that anyone with a "bad" culture can just change it if he wants to anyone with a "bad religion" has to be able to do the same, correct? How come a religion can't be "objectively superior" or inferior to another one? After all it's just a chosen set of values and behaviours.
On August 13 2012 03:09 Thorakh wrote: I'd rather have you show me why human (because that's what we're talking about here) males and females are not equal. There is not a single rational reason why women (for example) should not be allowed a job, walk without male supervision on the street, drive a car, you name it.
It's the same for homophobia. There is not a single rational reason why gay = bad.
Yes, I believe moral relativism is bullshit.
One can argue that gay is bad because if everyone was gay, our species would go extinct. That is a rational argument. Opposing to that is the fact that this is never ever going to be the case, so gays don't matter in the reproduction part of our species.
You just refuted your own argument and therefore it's not a valid rational argument.
One could even further refute it by postulating that even if the entire human population was gay, we could still make babies. I can certainly see such a society function without any problems.
It wasn´t only about race, it was about culture as well. Culture can not be inferior, as culture is, as you mentioned a sum of beliefs, values and norms. Yet you will be hard pressed to identify this culture, where a sexist or homophobic notion is shared unanimously. And even if appears to you this way, you wont be able to judge it as you can´t claim to know said culture close enough, if you don´t share it
I didnt say what you said: the point is, there is no such thing as a generic islamic culture. Furthermore i didnt raise the term "arabic culture", i merely referred to it. You cannot divide cultural complexes into segments in order to label one of them as inferior. Liberal arabic movements view themselves as part of that certain culture, that is meant to be labeled as inferior throughout this discussion.
I think you are right. What I mean by "inferior culture" are specific people with an inferior set of beliefs. Indeed not every person who generally identifies himself with culture X also shares the exact copy of that culture's set of values.
That's hypocrisy at it's finest. Please explain to me why a culture can be "objectively inferior" but at the same time it's impossible for you that races are "objectively inferior"? I'm pretty damn sure the only reason you can come up with is because the word "racism" has a bad ring to it while "culturalism" sounds pretty neat so far.
Race does not determine the set of values and behaviour someone has. Furthermore, the difference in races beside appearances are extremely small.
PS: German Shepherd or Poodle, do you think they one of them can be objectively inferior or not? I'll help you out, the correct answer is: "For what?" - it's exactly the same with human race, religion or culture. Each one has flaws, each one has merits. You're proclaiming that your culture in it's entirety is superior to another one and therefor has a god-given right to call out the other culture. I think that's pretty disgusting.
I'm certainly not calling an entire culture inferior. Culture X simply has more negative traits than culture Y and therefore culture X is inferior to culture Y.
Your definition of negative and positive traits is undeniably influenced by whichever cultural hegemony you prescribe to. This argument is getting you no where.
No, it is simply based on "Is there a rational reason for this?" and "Does this culture's set of values and beliefs harm others?".
On August 13 2012 03:09 Thorakh wrote: I'd rather have you show me why human (because that's what we're talking about here) males and females are not equal. There is not a single rational reason why women (for example) should not be allowed a job, walk without male supervision on the street, drive a car, you name it.
It's the same for homophobia. There is not a single rational reason why gay = bad.
Yes, I believe moral relativism is bullshit.
One can argue that gay is bad because if everyone was gay, our species would go extinct. That is a rational argument. Opposing to that is the fact that this is never ever going to be the case, so gays don't matter in the reproduction part of our species.
You just refuted your own argument and therefore it's not a valid rational argument.
One could even further refute it by postulating that even if the entire human population was gay, we could still make babies. I can certainly see such a society function without any problems.
It wasn´t only about race, it was about culture as well. Culture can not be inferior, as culture is, as you mentioned a sum of beliefs, values and norms. Yet you will be hard pressed to identify this culture, where a sexist or homophobic notion is shared unanimously. And even if appears to you this way, you wont be able to judge it as you can´t claim to know said culture close enough, if you don´t share it
I didnt say what you said: the point is, there is no such thing as a generic islamic culture. Furthermore i didnt raise the term "arabic culture", i merely referred to it. You cannot divide cultural complexes into segments in order to label one of them as inferior. Liberal arabic movements view themselves as part of that certain culture, that is meant to be labeled as inferior throughout this discussion.
I think you are right. What I mean by "inferior culture" are specific people with an inferior set of beliefs. Indeed not every person who generally identifies himself with culture X also shares the exact copy of that culture's set of values.
That's hypocrisy at it's finest. Please explain to me why a culture can be "objectively inferior" but at the same time it's impossible for you that races are "objectively inferior"? I'm pretty damn sure the only reason you can come up with is because the word "racism" has a bad ring to it while "culturalism" sounds pretty neat so far.
Race does not determine the set of values and behaviour someone has. Furthermore, the difference in races beside appearances are extremely small.
PS: German Shepherd or Poodle, do you think they one of them can be objectively inferior or not? I'll help you out, the correct answer is: "For what?" - it's exactly the same with human race, religion or culture. Each one has flaws, each one has merits. You're proclaiming that your culture in it's entirety is superior to another one and therefor has a god-given right to call out the other culture. I think that's pretty disgusting.
I'm certainly not calling the entire culture inferior. Culture X simply has more negative traits than culture Y and therefore culture X is inferior to culture Y.
Cultural superiority or inferiority is undefinable as such. Cultures are meant to exchange and develop by doing so The so praised western culture wouldn´t even know the word "democracy" without arabic translations of greek texts in the period of 1100-1300.
That's hypocrisy at it's finest. Please explain to me why a culture can be "objectively inferior" but at the same time it's impossible for you that races are "objectively inferior"? I'm pretty damn sure the only reason you can come up with is because the word "racism" has a bad ring to it while "culturalism" sounds pretty neat so far.
Race does not determine the set of values and behaviour someone has. Furthermore, the difference in races beside appearances are extremely small.
Race is very much related to the set of values and behaviour someone has. If - for whatever reasons - black people in the US commit more crimes than white people and if - for whatever reasons - police officers tend to shoot black suspects more often than white ones do you really believe that that doesn't affect the values and behaviours of black people? Sure, the color of your skin or your race being irrelevant sounds cool and all but it's far from reality. Everyone gets judged by their appearence, everyone gets feedback on their appearence. That feedback forms values.
You know why? That's because of people like you, who believe there are genuine differences between races other than appearance. Race and culture certainly are connected to each other but they are not inseperable. Absolutely not. It also has to do with the socioeconomic status of someone. People of certain races might be more likely to grow up in a poor ghetto environment.
Besides that: What about religion? Judging from your argument that anyone with a "bad" culture can just change it if he wants to anyone with a "bad religion" has to be able to do the same, correct? How come a religion can't be "objectively superior" or inferior to another one? After all it's just a chosen set of values and behaviours.
Oh, religions certainly can be inferior to others.
We have two religions, religion X and religion Y. Religion Y is exactly the same as religion X but also believes that diseases are caused by babies and therefore kills a baby each time someone gets sick. Religion Y is now objectively inferior to religion X (diseases aren't caused by babies).
Cultural superiority or inferiority is undefinable as such. Cultures are meant to exchange and develop by doing so The so praised western culture wouldn´t even know the word "democracy" without arabic translations of greek texts in the period of 1100-1300.
You're absolutely right. However, I am a firm believer that certain cultures simply do not mix with others. That's what my entire argument (should) boil down to.
On August 13 2012 03:09 Thorakh wrote: I'd rather have you show me why human (because that's what we're talking about here) males and females are not equal. There is not a single rational reason why women (for example) should not be allowed a job, walk without male supervision on the street, drive a car, you name it.
It's the same for homophobia. There is not a single rational reason why gay = bad.
Yes, I believe moral relativism is bullshit.
One can argue that gay is bad because if everyone was gay, our species would go extinct. That is a rational argument. Opposing to that is the fact that this is never ever going to be the case, so gays don't matter in the reproduction part of our species.
You just refuted your own argument and therefore it's not a valid rational argument.
One could even further refute it by postulating that even if the entire human population was gay, we could still make babies. I can certainly see such a society function without any problems.
It wasn´t only about race, it was about culture as well. Culture can not be inferior, as culture is, as you mentioned a sum of beliefs, values and norms. Yet you will be hard pressed to identify this culture, where a sexist or homophobic notion is shared unanimously. And even if appears to you this way, you wont be able to judge it as you can´t claim to know said culture close enough, if you don´t share it
I didnt say what you said: the point is, there is no such thing as a generic islamic culture. Furthermore i didnt raise the term "arabic culture", i merely referred to it. You cannot divide cultural complexes into segments in order to label one of them as inferior. Liberal arabic movements view themselves as part of that certain culture, that is meant to be labeled as inferior throughout this discussion.
I think you are right. What I mean by "inferior culture" are specific people with an inferior set of beliefs. Indeed not every person who generally identifies himself with culture X also shares the exact copy of that culture's set of values.
That's hypocrisy at it's finest. Please explain to me why a culture can be "objectively inferior" but at the same time it's impossible for you that races are "objectively inferior"? I'm pretty damn sure the only reason you can come up with is because the word "racism" has a bad ring to it while "culturalism" sounds pretty neat so far.
Race does not determine the set of values and behaviour someone has. Furthermore, the difference in races beside appearances are extremely small.
PS: German Shepherd or Poodle, do you think they one of them can be objectively inferior or not? I'll help you out, the correct answer is: "For what?" - it's exactly the same with human race, religion or culture. Each one has flaws, each one has merits. You're proclaiming that your culture in it's entirety is superior to another one and therefor has a god-given right to call out the other culture. I think that's pretty disgusting.
I'm certainly not calling an entire culture inferior. Culture X simply has more negative traits than culture Y and therefore culture X is inferior to culture Y.
Your definition of negative and positive traits is undeniably influenced by whichever cultural hegemony you prescribe to. This argument is getting you no where.
No, it is simply based on "Is there a rational reason for this?" and "Does this culture's set of values and beliefs harm others?".
Your value of rationalism came from somewhere. If you truely think you are objective, you're wrong.
That's hypocrisy at it's finest. Please explain to me why a culture can be "objectively inferior" but at the same time it's impossible for you that races are "objectively inferior"? I'm pretty damn sure the only reason you can come up with is because the word "racism" has a bad ring to it while "culturalism" sounds pretty neat so far.
Race does not determine the set of values and behaviour someone has. Furthermore, the difference in races beside appearances are extremely small.
Race is very much related to the set of values and behaviour someone has. If - for whatever reasons - black people in the US commit more crimes than white people and if - for whatever reasons - police officers tend to shoot black suspects more often than white ones do you really believe that that doesn't affect the values and behaviours of black people? Sure, the color of your skin or your race being irrelevant sounds cool and all but it's far from reality. Everyone gets judged by their appearence, everyone gets feedback on their appearence. That feedback forms values.
You know why? That's because of people like you, who believe there are genuine differences between races other than appearance. Race and culture certainly are connected to each other but they are not inseperable. Absolutely not.
Besides that: What about religion? Judging from your argument that anyone with a "bad" culture can just change it if he wants to anyone with a "bad religion" has to be able to do the same, correct? How come a religion can't be "objectively superior" or inferior to another one? After all it's just a chosen set of values and behaviours.
Oh, religions certainly can be inferior to others.
We have two religions, religion X and religion Y. Religion Y is exactly the same as religion X but also believes that diseases are caused by babies and therefore kills a baby each time someone gets sick. Religion Y is now objectively inferior to religion X (diseases aren't caused by babies).
Cultural superiority or inferiority is undefinable as such. Cultures are meant to exchange and develop by doing so The so praised western culture wouldn´t even know the word "democracy" without arabic translations of greek texts in the period of 1100-1300.
You're absolutely right. However, I am a firm believer that certain cultures simply do not mix with others.
There are none, i can give the answer in advance, or could you name any?
That's hypocrisy at it's finest. Please explain to me why a culture can be "objectively inferior" but at the same time it's impossible for you that races are "objectively inferior"? I'm pretty damn sure the only reason you can come up with is because the word "racism" has a bad ring to it while "culturalism" sounds pretty neat so far.
Race does not determine the set of values and behaviour someone has. Furthermore, the difference in races beside appearances are extremely small.
Race is very much related to the set of values and behaviour someone has. If - for whatever reasons - black people in the US commit more crimes than white people and if - for whatever reasons - police officers tend to shoot black suspects more often than white ones do you really believe that that doesn't affect the values and behaviours of black people? Sure, the color of your skin or your race being irrelevant sounds cool and all but it's far from reality. Everyone gets judged by their appearence, everyone gets feedback on their appearence. That feedback forms values.
You know why? That's because of people like you, who believe there are genuine differences between races other than appearance. Race and culture certainly are connected to each other but they are not inseperable. Absolutely not.
Besides that: What about religion? Judging from your argument that anyone with a "bad" culture can just change it if he wants to anyone with a "bad religion" has to be able to do the same, correct? How come a religion can't be "objectively superior" or inferior to another one? After all it's just a chosen set of values and behaviours.
Oh, religions certainly can be inferior to others.
We have two religions, religion X and religion Y. Religion Y is exactly the same as religion X but also believes that diseases are caused by babies and therefore kills a baby each time someone gets sick. Religion Y is now objectively inferior to religion X (diseases aren't caused by babies).
Cultural superiority or inferiority is undefinable as such. Cultures are meant to exchange and develop by doing so The so praised western culture wouldn´t even know the word "democracy" without arabic translations of greek texts in the period of 1100-1300.
You're absolutely right. However, I am a firm believer that certain cultures simply do not mix with others.
There are none, i can give the answer in advance, or could you name any?
On August 13 2012 03:09 Thorakh wrote: I'd rather have you show me why human (because that's what we're talking about here) males and females are not equal. There is not a single rational reason why women (for example) should not be allowed a job, walk without male supervision on the street, drive a car, you name it.
It's the same for homophobia. There is not a single rational reason why gay = bad.
Yes, I believe moral relativism is bullshit.
One can argue that gay is bad because if everyone was gay, our species would go extinct. That is a rational argument. Opposing to that is the fact that this is never ever going to be the case, so gays don't matter in the reproduction part of our species.
You just refuted your own argument and therefore it's not a valid rational argument.
One could even further refute it by postulating that even if the entire human population was gay, we could still make babies. I can certainly see such a society function without any problems.
It wasn´t only about race, it was about culture as well. Culture can not be inferior, as culture is, as you mentioned a sum of beliefs, values and norms. Yet you will be hard pressed to identify this culture, where a sexist or homophobic notion is shared unanimously. And even if appears to you this way, you wont be able to judge it as you can´t claim to know said culture close enough, if you don´t share it
I didnt say what you said: the point is, there is no such thing as a generic islamic culture. Furthermore i didnt raise the term "arabic culture", i merely referred to it. You cannot divide cultural complexes into segments in order to label one of them as inferior. Liberal arabic movements view themselves as part of that certain culture, that is meant to be labeled as inferior throughout this discussion.
I think you are right. What I mean by "inferior culture" are specific people with an inferior set of beliefs. Indeed not every person who generally identifies himself with culture X also shares the exact copy of that culture's set of values.
That's hypocrisy at it's finest. Please explain to me why a culture can be "objectively inferior" but at the same time it's impossible for you that races are "objectively inferior"? I'm pretty damn sure the only reason you can come up with is because the word "racism" has a bad ring to it while "culturalism" sounds pretty neat so far.
Race does not determine the set of values and behaviour someone has. Furthermore, the difference in races beside appearances are extremely small.
PS: German Shepherd or Poodle, do you think they one of them can be objectively inferior or not? I'll help you out, the correct answer is: "For what?" - it's exactly the same with human race, religion or culture. Each one has flaws, each one has merits. You're proclaiming that your culture in it's entirety is superior to another one and therefor has a god-given right to call out the other culture. I think that's pretty disgusting.
I'm certainly not calling an entire culture inferior. Culture X simply has more negative traits than culture Y and therefore culture X is inferior to culture Y.
Your definition of negative and positive traits is undeniably influenced by whichever cultural hegemony you prescribe to. This argument is getting you no where.
No, it is simply based on "Is there a rational reason for this?" and "Does this culture's set of values and beliefs harm others?".
You're putting words in my mouth. I have no desire to harm anyone.
You're being a hypocrit, that's all.
If I go out there and proclaim: "Christianity is superior to Islam from a rational point of view." I'm begging for violence and escalation. Instead of actually proclaiming my desire to not harm anyone by not going into that debate at all I proclaim my own thing superior. That's asking for a fight with anyone I just called inferior.
Try this for an example: Go out on the streets, pick a random guy that looks as if he won't take an insult likely and tell him "From a rational point of view I'm superior to you, my set of values and believes is vastly superior to yours!" - do you really believe that said person will say "Oh, yeah, you're probably right, I'll adapt your set of values thanks for the tip, bro!"?
You're being the guy who's spewing in someones face "LOL YOU SUCK", gets smacked in the face for it with the plan to tell anyone "Hey, I had no desire to harm anyone, he just suddenly smacked me in the face!" afterwards, proclaiming your innocence.
That's hypocrisy at it's finest. Please explain to me why a culture can be "objectively inferior" but at the same time it's impossible for you that races are "objectively inferior"? I'm pretty damn sure the only reason you can come up with is because the word "racism" has a bad ring to it while "culturalism" sounds pretty neat so far.
Race does not determine the set of values and behaviour someone has. Furthermore, the difference in races beside appearances are extremely small.
Race is very much related to the set of values and behaviour someone has. If - for whatever reasons - black people in the US commit more crimes than white people and if - for whatever reasons - police officers tend to shoot black suspects more often than white ones do you really believe that that doesn't affect the values and behaviours of black people? Sure, the color of your skin or your race being irrelevant sounds cool and all but it's far from reality. Everyone gets judged by their appearence, everyone gets feedback on their appearence. That feedback forms values.
You know why? That's because of people like you, who believe there are genuine differences between races other than appearance. Race and culture certainly are connected to each other but they are not inseperable. Absolutely not.
Besides that: What about religion? Judging from your argument that anyone with a "bad" culture can just change it if he wants to anyone with a "bad religion" has to be able to do the same, correct? How come a religion can't be "objectively superior" or inferior to another one? After all it's just a chosen set of values and behaviours.
Oh, religions certainly can be inferior to others.
We have two religions, religion X and religion Y. Religion Y is exactly the same as religion X but also believes that diseases are caused by babies and therefore kills a baby each time someone gets sick. Religion Y is now objectively inferior to religion X (diseases aren't caused by babies).
Cultural superiority or inferiority is undefinable as such. Cultures are meant to exchange and develop by doing so The so praised western culture wouldn´t even know the word "democracy" without arabic translations of greek texts in the period of 1100-1300.
You're absolutely right. However, I am a firm believer that certain cultures simply do not mix with others.
There are none, i can give the answer in advance, or could you name any?
Orthodox religious cultures for example.
That´s more of a catch-all phrase, then a specific culture. I doubt you could name any.
That's hypocrisy at it's finest. Please explain to me why a culture can be "objectively inferior" but at the same time it's impossible for you that races are "objectively inferior"? I'm pretty damn sure the only reason you can come up with is because the word "racism" has a bad ring to it while "culturalism" sounds pretty neat so far.
Race does not determine the set of values and behaviour someone has. Furthermore, the difference in races beside appearances are extremely small.
Race is very much related to the set of values and behaviour someone has. If - for whatever reasons - black people in the US commit more crimes than white people and if - for whatever reasons - police officers tend to shoot black suspects more often than white ones do you really believe that that doesn't affect the values and behaviours of black people? Sure, the color of your skin or your race being irrelevant sounds cool and all but it's far from reality. Everyone gets judged by their appearence, everyone gets feedback on their appearence. That feedback forms values.
You know why? That's because of people like you, who believe there are genuine differences between races other than appearance. Race and culture certainly are connected to each other but they are not inseperable. Absolutely not. It also has to do with the socioeconomic status of someone. People of certain races might be more likely to grow up in a poor ghetto environment.
Besides that: What about religion? Judging from your argument that anyone with a "bad" culture can just change it if he wants to anyone with a "bad religion" has to be able to do the same, correct? How come a religion can't be "objectively superior" or inferior to another one? After all it's just a chosen set of values and behaviours.
Oh, religions certainly can be inferior to others.
We have two religions, religion X and religion Y. Religion Y is exactly the same as religion X but also believes that diseases are caused by babies and therefore kills a baby each time someone gets sick. Religion Y is now objectively inferior to religion X (diseases aren't caused by babies).
Allright. If religions can be inferior to others please tell me which of those three is "objectively inferior" to the others and why: Christianity, Islam, Judaism.
That's hypocrisy at it's finest. Please explain to me why a culture can be "objectively inferior" but at the same time it's impossible for you that races are "objectively inferior"? I'm pretty damn sure the only reason you can come up with is because the word "racism" has a bad ring to it while "culturalism" sounds pretty neat so far.
Race does not determine the set of values and behaviour someone has. Furthermore, the difference in races beside appearances are extremely small.
Race is very much related to the set of values and behaviour someone has. If - for whatever reasons - black people in the US commit more crimes than white people and if - for whatever reasons - police officers tend to shoot black suspects more often than white ones do you really believe that that doesn't affect the values and behaviours of black people? Sure, the color of your skin or your race being irrelevant sounds cool and all but it's far from reality. Everyone gets judged by their appearence, everyone gets feedback on their appearence. That feedback forms values.
You know why? That's because of people like you, who believe there are genuine differences between races other than appearance. Race and culture certainly are connected to each other but they are not inseperable. Absolutely not. It also has to do with the socioeconomic status of someone. People of certain races might be more likely to grow up in a poor ghetto environment.
Besides that: What about religion? Judging from your argument that anyone with a "bad" culture can just change it if he wants to anyone with a "bad religion" has to be able to do the same, correct? How come a religion can't be "objectively superior" or inferior to another one? After all it's just a chosen set of values and behaviours.
Oh, religions certainly can be inferior to others.
We have two religions, religion X and religion Y. Religion Y is exactly the same as religion X but also believes that diseases are caused by babies and therefore kills a baby each time someone gets sick. Religion Y is now objectively inferior to religion X (diseases aren't caused by babies).
Allright. If religions can be inferior to others please tell me which of those three is "objectively inferior" to the others and why: Christianity, Islam, Judaism.
That's hypocrisy at it's finest. Please explain to me why a culture can be "objectively inferior" but at the same time it's impossible for you that races are "objectively inferior"? I'm pretty damn sure the only reason you can come up with is because the word "racism" has a bad ring to it while "culturalism" sounds pretty neat so far.
Race does not determine the set of values and behaviour someone has. Furthermore, the difference in races beside appearances are extremely small.
Race is very much related to the set of values and behaviour someone has. If - for whatever reasons - black people in the US commit more crimes than white people and if - for whatever reasons - police officers tend to shoot black suspects more often than white ones do you really believe that that doesn't affect the values and behaviours of black people? Sure, the color of your skin or your race being irrelevant sounds cool and all but it's far from reality. Everyone gets judged by their appearence, everyone gets feedback on their appearence. That feedback forms values.
You know why? That's because of people like you, who believe there are genuine differences between races other than appearance. Race and culture certainly are connected to each other but they are not inseperable. Absolutely not. It also has to do with the socioeconomic status of someone. People of certain races might be more likely to grow up in a poor ghetto environment.
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.
Whole cultures arent shitty. Individuals, that belong to a certain culture can be shitty. For example you can´t identify a cultural group, that´s collective homophobic. Influential groups or even the majority might be, but not everybody. It leads inevitable to discrimination if you claim that for example, "the whole muslimic culture is sexist and thus shitty".
Muslim culture is a misnomer, Islam is a religion. Modern arab culture is oppressive and bigoted, inferior to western culture in many ways.
Cultural Inferiority, uh? As a german i dislike any talk of cultural inferiority by definition. i highly doubt it makes any sense to continue this conversation here.
That was about race. Cultures can be objectively inferior. Race can not.
Do you even understand what you're spewing out here?
That's hypocrisy at it's finest. Please explain to me why a culture can be "objectively inferior" but at the same time it's impossible for you that races are "objectively inferior"? I'm pretty damn sure the only reason you can come up with is because the word "racism" has a bad ring to it while "culturalism" sounds pretty neat so far.
The biggest wars in history started by people calling others inferior. Be it race, religion or culture. You're pretty much one step away from calling for a holy war on those stupid infidels with the inferior culture.
PS: German Shepherd or Poodle, do you think they one of them can be objectively inferior or not? I'll help you out, the correct answer is: "For what?" - it's exactly the same with human race, religion or culture. Each one has flaws, each one has merits. You're proclaiming that your culture in it's entirety is superior to another one and therefor has a god-given right to call out the other culture. I think that's pretty disgusting.
As a note, religion is NOT responsible for the vast majority of wars. Just a point of fact, i agree with your post
That's hypocrisy at it's finest. Please explain to me why a culture can be "objectively inferior" but at the same time it's impossible for you that races are "objectively inferior"? I'm pretty damn sure the only reason you can come up with is because the word "racism" has a bad ring to it while "culturalism" sounds pretty neat so far.
Race does not determine the set of values and behaviour someone has. Furthermore, the difference in races beside appearances are extremely small.
Race is very much related to the set of values and behaviour someone has. If - for whatever reasons - black people in the US commit more crimes than white people and if - for whatever reasons - police officers tend to shoot black suspects more often than white ones do you really believe that that doesn't affect the values and behaviours of black people? Sure, the color of your skin or your race being irrelevant sounds cool and all but it's far from reality. Everyone gets judged by their appearence, everyone gets feedback on their appearence. That feedback forms values.
You know why? That's because of people like you, who believe there are genuine differences between races other than appearance. Race and culture certainly are connected to each other but they are not inseperable. Absolutely not. It also has to do with the socioeconomic status of someone. People of certain races might be more likely to grow up in a poor ghetto environment.
Besides that: What about religion? Judging from your argument that anyone with a "bad" culture can just change it if he wants to anyone with a "bad religion" has to be able to do the same, correct? How come a religion can't be "objectively superior" or inferior to another one? After all it's just a chosen set of values and behaviours.
Oh, religions certainly can be inferior to others.
We have two religions, religion X and religion Y. Religion Y is exactly the same as religion X but also believes that diseases are caused by babies and therefore kills a baby each time someone gets sick. Religion Y is now objectively inferior to religion X (diseases aren't caused by babies).
Allright. If religions can be inferior to others please tell me which of those three is "objectively inferior" to the others and why: Christianity, Islam, Judaism.
In theory
Christianity > Islam > Judaism.
In Practice
Judaism > Christianity > Islam.
Still, it is a bit of a silly question considering each has a dozen denominations, each of which are radically different.
Extremist Christians for example, the kind that bomb abortion clinics, are a great deal worse than Suffi muslims that are generally pretty liberal and easy-going.
Suffi Islam also being one of the rare things where Sunni/Shia agree that they need to burn in hell.
Considering some of these strains of religion are distinctly counter-productive to the achievement of anything, be it hapiness or technological progress, they can be considered objectively worse than others.
Still, there aren't really a lot of places that can be considered culturally-religious. Even a nation like Israel or Saudi-Arabia is dictated largely by local culture, not Islam. There is no call for the covering of faces in Islam. You will hardly find any face-covering in Iran, whilst in Saudi-Arabia it is the norm.
Afghanistan culture is dictated, for the most part, by Pasthun culture, which has swallowed up Islam to give itself divine authority, but for the most part is entirely cultural.
Religion has influences on the culture, but shouldn't be confused as being the culture. The way it influences the local culture can vary, but the doctrines are generally the same, and with it the negative influence.
Where would you rather live as a muslim: in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin, where this guy shot sikhs, mistaking them for muslims? And does this mean every US Citizen hates muslims? It doesnt. And the same is true for you roleplay.
That's a flawed comparison. In one case you have random uneducated nutcases killing people from fear and ignorance, it's what happens when you mix stupidity, fox news and guns.
In the other you have systematic, state approved oppression based solely on the ramblings of a deranged pedophile from the 6th century, this is building a state on more or less pure evil.
Where would you rather live as a muslim: in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin, where this guy shot sikhs, mistaking them for muslims? And does this mean every US Citizen hates muslims? It doesnt. And the same is true for you roleplay.
That's a flawed comparison. In one case you have random uneducated nutcases killing people from fear and ignorance, it's what happens when you mix stupidity, fox news and guns.
In the other you have systematic, state approved oppression based solely on the ramblings of a deranged pedophile from the 6th century, this is building a state on more or less pure evil.
The two are not comparable.
There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second.
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:
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? inevi
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?
Since you felt justified in making large assumptions about me based on limited information, I'll do the same for you. I'm gonna assume you've lived in the US for your whole life. I'm going to assume you've barely experienced the outside world and have no idea what the cultural climate in other countries is like. I'm going to assume that Colbert and Jon Stewert constitute roughly 75% of your current news intake. You sound like some high school kid who just learned about the industrial revolution and now thinks everything works on exploitation. Yea, those Mexican Immigrants who do landscaping everywhere? News flash, they came here so their kids could get an American education and grow up without drug wars in their streets. They came here because even a minimum wage job can bring in more money for their family back in Mexico than a job there can. My dad's half of my family fled to America to escape religious persecution and inevitable death in Europe, while my mom came here because in Malaysia women had about as much chance of a meaningful education as dirt. They came here from poverty and worked their asses off and now I get have the luxury of bitching at you on TL because of that. If you really think the US runs on exploitation of it's lower class you need to wake up and take a look at some of the rest of the world.
I'm sorry if I offended you. Why don't we both just agree that we know nothing about one another?
Why do you think those things about Mexico are the way they are? Do you know much about the history of the Mexican economy in the 20th century? I don't know a ton but I am trying to learn currently. Why is there a drug war? Why can they make more money here than there? You take these as naturalized premises, but they are in fact systemic effects. The Mexican economy was destroyed by austerity measures and forced neoliberalization imposed by the IMF in the 80s. That's why Mexico has a lot of billionaires and a lot of very poor people, and also why Mexico City went from very peaceful before this to very dangerous after this (they called in Giuliani's crime suppression consultancy firm, because Giuliani made his career doing the same thing in New York, after the bankruptcy of the municipal government and subsequent neoliberalization caused a massive crime wave in the city).
The point is, the US's exploitation is not only centered on people in its own borders (although we do exploit e.g. Mexican labor, and are increasingly exploiting our own people as well), but through its economic imperialism. We have largely outsourced our proletariat, for a number of reasons, one of which is to keep them nicely out of sight. So comparing the US to the rest of the world is a bit naive, because the US is in fact a major factor responsible for the way things are in the rest of the world.
On August 13 2012 03:09 Thorakh wrote: I'd rather have you show me why human (because that's what we're talking about here) males and females are not equal. There is not a single rational reason why women (for example) should not be allowed a job, walk without male supervision on the street, drive a car, you name it.
It's the same for homophobia. There is not a single rational reason why gay = bad.
Yes, I believe moral relativism is bullshit.
One can argue that gay is bad because if everyone was gay, our species would go extinct. That is a rational argument. Opposing to that is the fact that this is never ever going to be the case, so gays don't matter in the reproduction part of our species.
You just refuted your own argument and therefore it's not a valid rational argument.
One could even further refute it by postulating that even if the entire human population was gay, we could still make babies. I can certainly see such a society function without any problems.
It wasn´t only about race, it was about culture as well. Culture can not be inferior, as culture is, as you mentioned a sum of beliefs, values and norms. Yet you will be hard pressed to identify this culture, where a sexist or homophobic notion is shared unanimously. And even if appears to you this way, you wont be able to judge it as you can´t claim to know said culture close enough, if you don´t share it
I didnt say what you said: the point is, there is no such thing as a generic islamic culture. Furthermore i didnt raise the term "arabic culture", i merely referred to it. You cannot divide cultural complexes into segments in order to label one of them as inferior. Liberal arabic movements view themselves as part of that certain culture, that is meant to be labeled as inferior throughout this discussion.
I think you are right. What I mean by "inferior culture" are specific people with an inferior set of beliefs. Indeed not every person who generally identifies himself with culture X also shares the exact copy of that culture's set of values.
That's hypocrisy at it's finest. Please explain to me why a culture can be "objectively inferior" but at the same time it's impossible for you that races are "objectively inferior"? I'm pretty damn sure the only reason you can come up with is because the word "racism" has a bad ring to it while "culturalism" sounds pretty neat so far.
Race does not determine the set of values and behaviour someone has. Furthermore, the difference in races beside appearances are extremely small.
PS: German Shepherd or Poodle, do you think they one of them can be objectively inferior or not? I'll help you out, the correct answer is: "For what?" - it's exactly the same with human race, religion or culture. Each one has flaws, each one has merits. You're proclaiming that your culture in it's entirety is superior to another one and therefor has a god-given right to call out the other culture. I think that's pretty disgusting.
I'm certainly not calling an entire culture inferior. Culture X simply has more negative traits than culture Y and therefore culture X is inferior to culture Y.
Your definition of negative and positive traits is undeniably influenced by whichever cultural hegemony you prescribe to. This argument is getting you no where.
No, it is simply based on "Is there a rational reason for this?" and "Does this culture's set of values and beliefs harm others?".
Your value of rationalism came from somewhere. If you truely think you are objective, you're wrong.
You seem to be making a statement anchored in rationality here. Do you believe the claim you have just made is objectively true? If not, what is it?
On August 13 2012 03:09 Thorakh wrote: I'd rather have you show me why human (because that's what we're talking about here) males and females are not equal. There is not a single rational reason why women (for example) should not be allowed a job, walk without male supervision on the street, drive a car, you name it.
It's the same for homophobia. There is not a single rational reason why gay = bad.
Yes, I believe moral relativism is bullshit.
One can argue that gay is bad because if everyone was gay, our species would go extinct. That is a rational argument. Opposing to that is the fact that this is never ever going to be the case, so gays don't matter in the reproduction part of our species.
Doesn't your third sentence explain why the first is not a rational argument, as is claimed in the second?
Where would you rather live as a muslim: in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin, where this guy shot sikhs, mistaking them for muslims? And does this mean every US Citizen hates muslims? It doesnt. And the same is true for you roleplay.
That's a flawed comparison. In one case you have random uneducated nutcases killing people from fear and ignorance, it's what happens when you mix stupidity, fox news and guns.
In the other you have systematic, state approved oppression based solely on the ramblings of a deranged pedophile from the 6th century, this is building a state on more or less pure evil.
The two are not comparable.
There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second.
I have never disputed that islamophobia is relatively widespread in both Europe and the US.
Are you suggesting Islam does not have a homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant message? Weird, I must have completely misunderstood all those rather explicit lines from that holy book of theirs. Saudi Arabia is the prime example because that is what you get when you actually follow through with the idea of running a state based on islamic law, it is the epitome of middle eastern culture. A modern day Mordor, without its architectural quaintness.
Where would you rather live as a muslim: in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin, where this guy shot sikhs, mistaking them for muslims? And does this mean every US Citizen hates muslims? It doesnt. And the same is true for you roleplay.
That's a flawed comparison. In one case you have random uneducated nutcases killing people from fear and ignorance, it's what happens when you mix stupidity, fox news and guns.
In the other you have systematic, state approved oppression based solely on the ramblings of a deranged pedophile from the 6th century, this is building a state on more or less pure evil.
The two are not comparable.
There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second.
I have never disputed that islamophobia is relatively widespread in both Europe and the US.
Are you suggesting Islam does not have a homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant message? Weird, I must have completely misunderstood all those rather explicit lines from that holy book of theirs. Saudi Arabia is the prime example because that is what you get when you actually follow through with the idea of running a state based on islamic law, it is the epitome of middle eastern culture. A modern day Mordor, without its architectural quaintness.
You can delve up the same kind of stuff from the bible. The crucial point is, how to interpret the it. There are as well modern and liberal muslims as there are Christians. That you can dig up horrible stuff from the Koran doesn't justify condemning a whole religion or culture as inferior. Both books are supposed to be treated as sources in a historical sense from an other time. Sure, you´ll be able to find anachronistic stuff in a book roughly 1.4k years old. That´s no suprise.
On August 13 2012 03:09 Thorakh wrote: I'd rather have you show me why human (because that's what we're talking about here) males and females are not equal. There is not a single rational reason why women (for example) should not be allowed a job, walk without male supervision on the street, drive a car, you name it.
It's the same for homophobia. There is not a single rational reason why gay = bad.
Yes, I believe moral relativism is bullshit.
One can argue that gay is bad because if everyone was gay, our species would go extinct. That is a rational argument. Opposing to that is the fact that this is never ever going to be the case, so gays don't matter in the reproduction part of our species.
You just refuted your own argument and therefore it's not a valid rational argument.
One could even further refute it by postulating that even if the entire human population was gay, we could still make babies. I can certainly see such a society function without any problems.
It wasn´t only about race, it was about culture as well. Culture can not be inferior, as culture is, as you mentioned a sum of beliefs, values and norms. Yet you will be hard pressed to identify this culture, where a sexist or homophobic notion is shared unanimously. And even if appears to you this way, you wont be able to judge it as you can´t claim to know said culture close enough, if you don´t share it
I didnt say what you said: the point is, there is no such thing as a generic islamic culture. Furthermore i didnt raise the term "arabic culture", i merely referred to it. You cannot divide cultural complexes into segments in order to label one of them as inferior. Liberal arabic movements view themselves as part of that certain culture, that is meant to be labeled as inferior throughout this discussion.
I think you are right. What I mean by "inferior culture" are specific people with an inferior set of beliefs. Indeed not every person who generally identifies himself with culture X also shares the exact copy of that culture's set of values.
That's hypocrisy at it's finest. Please explain to me why a culture can be "objectively inferior" but at the same time it's impossible for you that races are "objectively inferior"? I'm pretty damn sure the only reason you can come up with is because the word "racism" has a bad ring to it while "culturalism" sounds pretty neat so far.
Race does not determine the set of values and behaviour someone has. Furthermore, the difference in races beside appearances are extremely small.
PS: German Shepherd or Poodle, do you think they one of them can be objectively inferior or not? I'll help you out, the correct answer is: "For what?" - it's exactly the same with human race, religion or culture. Each one has flaws, each one has merits. You're proclaiming that your culture in it's entirety is superior to another one and therefor has a god-given right to call out the other culture. I think that's pretty disgusting.
I'm certainly not calling an entire culture inferior. Culture X simply has more negative traits than culture Y and therefore culture X is inferior to culture Y.
Your definition of negative and positive traits is undeniably influenced by whichever cultural hegemony you prescribe to. This argument is getting you no where.
No, it is simply based on "Is there a rational reason for this?" and "Does this culture's set of values and beliefs harm others?".
Your value of rationalism came from somewhere. If you truely think you are objective, you're wrong.
You seem to be making a statement anchored in rationality here. Do you believe the claim you have just made is objectively true? If not, what is it?
I think that humans being a product of nature and nurture is objectively true. I think that there have been enough studies and scientific discoveries in fields such as genetics and human development to label that as objectively true. I think it is true in the same fashion that the Earth revolves around the Sun is objectively true.
Where would you rather live as a muslim: in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin, where this guy shot sikhs, mistaking them for muslims? And does this mean every US Citizen hates muslims? It doesnt. And the same is true for you roleplay.
That's a flawed comparison. In one case you have random uneducated nutcases killing people from fear and ignorance, it's what happens when you mix stupidity, fox news and guns.
In the other you have systematic, state approved oppression based solely on the ramblings of a deranged pedophile from the 6th century, this is building a state on more or less pure evil.
The two are not comparable.
There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second.
I have never disputed that islamophobia is relatively widespread in both Europe and the US.
Are you suggesting Islam does not have a homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant message? Weird, I must have completely misunderstood all those rather explicit lines from that holy book of theirs. Saudi Arabia is the prime example because that is what you get when you actually follow through with the idea of running a state based on islamic law, it is the epitome of middle eastern culture. A modern day Mordor, without its architectural quaintness.
You can delve up the same kind of stuff from the bible. The crucial point is, how to interpret the it. There are as well modern and liberal muslims as there are Christians. That you can dig up horrible stuff from the Koran doesn't justify condemning a whole religion or culture as inferior. Both books are supposed to be treated as sources in a historical sense from an other time. Sure, you´ll be able to find anachronistic stuff in a book roughly 1.4k years old. That´s no suprise.
Oh go right ahead, I find the bible equally distasteful. And how on earth can you interpret "Stone the alduterer" as anything but "Stone the adulterer" ?
Trust me, my condemnation does not stem from the sputtering insanities in the Koran, it stems from demonstrable facts and actual deeds.
On August 13 2012 03:09 Thorakh wrote: I'd rather have you show me why human (because that's what we're talking about here) males and females are not equal. There is not a single rational reason why women (for example) should not be allowed a job, walk without male supervision on the street, drive a car, you name it.
It's the same for homophobia. There is not a single rational reason why gay = bad.
Yes, I believe moral relativism is bullshit.
One can argue that gay is bad because if everyone was gay, our species would go extinct. That is a rational argument. Opposing to that is the fact that this is never ever going to be the case, so gays don't matter in the reproduction part of our species.
You just refuted your own argument and therefore it's not a valid rational argument.
One could even further refute it by postulating that even if the entire human population was gay, we could still make babies. I can certainly see such a society function without any problems.
It wasn´t only about race, it was about culture as well. Culture can not be inferior, as culture is, as you mentioned a sum of beliefs, values and norms. Yet you will be hard pressed to identify this culture, where a sexist or homophobic notion is shared unanimously. And even if appears to you this way, you wont be able to judge it as you can´t claim to know said culture close enough, if you don´t share it
I didnt say what you said: the point is, there is no such thing as a generic islamic culture. Furthermore i didnt raise the term "arabic culture", i merely referred to it. You cannot divide cultural complexes into segments in order to label one of them as inferior. Liberal arabic movements view themselves as part of that certain culture, that is meant to be labeled as inferior throughout this discussion.
I think you are right. What I mean by "inferior culture" are specific people with an inferior set of beliefs. Indeed not every person who generally identifies himself with culture X also shares the exact copy of that culture's set of values.
That's hypocrisy at it's finest. Please explain to me why a culture can be "objectively inferior" but at the same time it's impossible for you that races are "objectively inferior"? I'm pretty damn sure the only reason you can come up with is because the word "racism" has a bad ring to it while "culturalism" sounds pretty neat so far.
Race does not determine the set of values and behaviour someone has. Furthermore, the difference in races beside appearances are extremely small.
PS: German Shepherd or Poodle, do you think they one of them can be objectively inferior or not? I'll help you out, the correct answer is: "For what?" - it's exactly the same with human race, religion or culture. Each one has flaws, each one has merits. You're proclaiming that your culture in it's entirety is superior to another one and therefor has a god-given right to call out the other culture. I think that's pretty disgusting.
I'm certainly not calling an entire culture inferior. Culture X simply has more negative traits than culture Y and therefore culture X is inferior to culture Y.
Your definition of negative and positive traits is undeniably influenced by whichever cultural hegemony you prescribe to. This argument is getting you no where.
No, it is simply based on "Is there a rational reason for this?" and "Does this culture's set of values and beliefs harm others?".
Your value of rationalism came from somewhere. If you truely think you are objective, you're wrong.
You seem to be making a statement anchored in rationality here. Do you believe the claim you have just made is objectively true? If not, what is it?
I think that humans being a product of nature and nurture is objectively true. I think that there have been enough studies and scientific discoveries in fields such as genetics and human development to label that as objectively true. I think it is true in the same fashion that the Earth revolves around the Sun is objectively true.
Ok, my mistake. I was under the impression that you were questioning the possibility of rational thought.
Do you equate rationality with objectivity? Is it possible that things could be rational but not necessary "objective" in the sense that we ordinarily mean?
Where would you rather live as a muslim: in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin, where this guy shot sikhs, mistaking them for muslims? And does this mean every US Citizen hates muslims? It doesnt. And the same is true for you roleplay.
That's a flawed comparison. In one case you have random uneducated nutcases killing people from fear and ignorance, it's what happens when you mix stupidity, fox news and guns.
In the other you have systematic, state approved oppression based solely on the ramblings of a deranged pedophile from the 6th century, this is building a state on more or less pure evil.
The two are not comparable.
There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second.
I have never disputed that islamophobia is relatively widespread in both Europe and the US.
Are you suggesting Islam does not have a homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant message? Weird, I must have completely misunderstood all those rather explicit lines from that holy book of theirs. Saudi Arabia is the prime example because that is what you get when you actually follow through with the idea of running a state based on islamic law, it is the epitome of middle eastern culture. A modern day Mordor, without its architectural quaintness.
You can delve up the same kind of stuff from the bible. The crucial point is, how to interpret the it. There are as well modern and liberal muslims as there are Christians. That you can dig up horrible stuff from the Koran doesn't justify condemning a whole religion or culture as inferior. Both books are supposed to be treated as sources in a historical sense from an other time. Sure, you´ll be able to find anachronistic stuff in a book roughly 1.4k years old. That´s no suprise.
Oh go right ahead, I find the bible equally distasteful. And how on earth can you interpret "Stone the alduterer" as anything but "Stone the adulterer" ?
Why don't you just ignore that part, and keep the parts where it tells you to love your neighbor and be a good person?
(historically, you should consider why, at that time, the punishment of female adultery with death was an important thing for that culture, and consider why, in our time, we are able to perceive such a thing as unnecessary and immoral to boot)
Where would you rather live as a muslim: in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin, where this guy shot sikhs, mistaking them for muslims? And does this mean every US Citizen hates muslims? It doesnt. And the same is true for you roleplay.
That's a flawed comparison. In one case you have random uneducated nutcases killing people from fear and ignorance, it's what happens when you mix stupidity, fox news and guns.
In the other you have systematic, state approved oppression based solely on the ramblings of a deranged pedophile from the 6th century, this is building a state on more or less pure evil.
The two are not comparable.
There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second.
I have never disputed that islamophobia is relatively widespread in both Europe and the US.
Are you suggesting Islam does not have a homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant message? Weird, I must have completely misunderstood all those rather explicit lines from that holy book of theirs. Saudi Arabia is the prime example because that is what you get when you actually follow through with the idea of running a state based on islamic law, it is the epitome of middle eastern culture. A modern day Mordor, without its architectural quaintness.
You can delve up the same kind of stuff from the bible. The crucial point is, how to interpret the it. There are as well modern and liberal muslims as there are Christians. That you can dig up horrible stuff from the Koran doesn't justify condemning a whole religion or culture as inferior. Both books are supposed to be treated as sources in a historical sense from an other time. Sure, you´ll be able to find anachronistic stuff in a book roughly 1.4k years old. That´s no suprise.
Oh go right ahead, I find the bible equally distasteful. And how on earth can you interpret "Stone the alduterer" as anything but "Stone the adulterer" ?
Trust me, my condemnation does not stem from the sputtering insanities in the Koran, it stems from demonstrable facts and actual deeds.
Again it´s a 1.4k years old book. Modern islam will and currently does, emancipate itself from stuff that doesn't fit into modern society. Look beyond the words of an antiquity and discover pretty normal and modern people practicing islam today.
On August 13 2012 03:09 Thorakh wrote: I'd rather have you show me why human (because that's what we're talking about here) males and females are not equal. There is not a single rational reason why women (for example) should not be allowed a job, walk without male supervision on the street, drive a car, you name it.
It's the same for homophobia. There is not a single rational reason why gay = bad.
Yes, I believe moral relativism is bullshit.
One can argue that gay is bad because if everyone was gay, our species would go extinct. That is a rational argument. Opposing to that is the fact that this is never ever going to be the case, so gays don't matter in the reproduction part of our species.
You just refuted your own argument and therefore it's not a valid rational argument.
One could even further refute it by postulating that even if the entire human population was gay, we could still make babies. I can certainly see such a society function without any problems.
It wasn´t only about race, it was about culture as well. Culture can not be inferior, as culture is, as you mentioned a sum of beliefs, values and norms. Yet you will be hard pressed to identify this culture, where a sexist or homophobic notion is shared unanimously. And even if appears to you this way, you wont be able to judge it as you can´t claim to know said culture close enough, if you don´t share it
I didnt say what you said: the point is, there is no such thing as a generic islamic culture. Furthermore i didnt raise the term "arabic culture", i merely referred to it. You cannot divide cultural complexes into segments in order to label one of them as inferior. Liberal arabic movements view themselves as part of that certain culture, that is meant to be labeled as inferior throughout this discussion.
I think you are right. What I mean by "inferior culture" are specific people with an inferior set of beliefs. Indeed not every person who generally identifies himself with culture X also shares the exact copy of that culture's set of values.
That's hypocrisy at it's finest. Please explain to me why a culture can be "objectively inferior" but at the same time it's impossible for you that races are "objectively inferior"? I'm pretty damn sure the only reason you can come up with is because the word "racism" has a bad ring to it while "culturalism" sounds pretty neat so far.
Race does not determine the set of values and behaviour someone has. Furthermore, the difference in races beside appearances are extremely small.
PS: German Shepherd or Poodle, do you think they one of them can be objectively inferior or not? I'll help you out, the correct answer is: "For what?" - it's exactly the same with human race, religion or culture. Each one has flaws, each one has merits. You're proclaiming that your culture in it's entirety is superior to another one and therefor has a god-given right to call out the other culture. I think that's pretty disgusting.
I'm certainly not calling an entire culture inferior. Culture X simply has more negative traits than culture Y and therefore culture X is inferior to culture Y.
Your definition of negative and positive traits is undeniably influenced by whichever cultural hegemony you prescribe to. This argument is getting you no where.
No, it is simply based on "Is there a rational reason for this?" and "Does this culture's set of values and beliefs harm others?".
Your value of rationalism came from somewhere. If you truely think you are objective, you're wrong.
You seem to be making a statement anchored in rationality here. Do you believe the claim you have just made is objectively true? If not, what is it?
I think that humans being a product of nature and nurture is objectively true. I think that there have been enough studies and scientific discoveries in fields such as genetics and human development to label that as objectively true. I think it is true in the same fashion that the Earth revolves around the Sun is objectively true.
Ok, my mistake. I was under the impression that you were questioning the possibility of rational thought.
Do you equate rationality with objectivity? Is it possible that things could be rational but not necessary "objective" in the sense that we ordinarily mean?
I don't equate rationality with objectivity that is what I was saying. Thorakh was defining superior and inferior culture based on his concept of rationality. I was merely saying that his choice to use rationality as the bar for measurement was invariably influenced by his own culture, therefore being subjective
Where would you rather live as a muslim: in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin, where this guy shot sikhs, mistaking them for muslims? And does this mean every US Citizen hates muslims? It doesnt. And the same is true for you roleplay.
That's a flawed comparison. In one case you have random uneducated nutcases killing people from fear and ignorance, it's what happens when you mix stupidity, fox news and guns.
In the other you have systematic, state approved oppression based solely on the ramblings of a deranged pedophile from the 6th century, this is building a state on more or less pure evil.
The two are not comparable.
There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second.
I have never disputed that islamophobia is relatively widespread in both Europe and the US.
Are you suggesting Islam does not have a homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant message? Weird, I must have completely misunderstood all those rather explicit lines from that holy book of theirs. Saudi Arabia is the prime example because that is what you get when you actually follow through with the idea of running a state based on islamic law, it is the epitome of middle eastern culture. A modern day Mordor, without its architectural quaintness.
You can delve up the same kind of stuff from the bible. The crucial point is, how to interpret the it. There are as well modern and liberal muslims as there are Christians. That you can dig up horrible stuff from the Koran doesn't justify condemning a whole religion or culture as inferior. Both books are supposed to be treated as sources in a historical sense from an other time. Sure, you´ll be able to find anachronistic stuff in a book roughly 1.4k years old. That´s no suprise.
Oh go right ahead, I find the bible equally distasteful. And how on earth can you interpret "Stone the alduterer" as anything but "Stone the adulterer" ?
Why don't you just ignore that part, and keep the parts where it tells you to love your neighbor and be a good person?
(historically, you should consider why, at that time, the punishment of female adultery with death was an important thing for that culture, and consider why, in our time, we are able to perceive such a thing as unnecessary and immoral to boot)
Because that is borderline intellectual suicide. It cannot, and should not be ignored. It's there. It's like trying to ignore the fact that a suspect shot a guy, because he brought him flowers in the hospital afterwards. And apparently it's the word of god, which makes it kind of non-negotiable.
And how is/was female adultery even an issue? If producing offspring is the primary purpose of the woman, shouldn't she be sleeping around as much as possible to maximize the chances of getting pregnant?
On August 13 2012 03:09 Thorakh wrote: I'd rather have you show me why human (because that's what we're talking about here) males and females are not equal. There is not a single rational reason why women (for example) should not be allowed a job, walk without male supervision on the street, drive a car, you name it.
It's the same for homophobia. There is not a single rational reason why gay = bad.
Yes, I believe moral relativism is bullshit.
One can argue that gay is bad because if everyone was gay, our species would go extinct. That is a rational argument. Opposing to that is the fact that this is never ever going to be the case, so gays don't matter in the reproduction part of our species.
You just refuted your own argument and therefore it's not a valid rational argument.
One could even further refute it by postulating that even if the entire human population was gay, we could still make babies. I can certainly see such a society function without any problems.
It wasn´t only about race, it was about culture as well. Culture can not be inferior, as culture is, as you mentioned a sum of beliefs, values and norms. Yet you will be hard pressed to identify this culture, where a sexist or homophobic notion is shared unanimously. And even if appears to you this way, you wont be able to judge it as you can´t claim to know said culture close enough, if you don´t share it
I didnt say what you said: the point is, there is no such thing as a generic islamic culture. Furthermore i didnt raise the term "arabic culture", i merely referred to it. You cannot divide cultural complexes into segments in order to label one of them as inferior. Liberal arabic movements view themselves as part of that certain culture, that is meant to be labeled as inferior throughout this discussion.
I think you are right. What I mean by "inferior culture" are specific people with an inferior set of beliefs. Indeed not every person who generally identifies himself with culture X also shares the exact copy of that culture's set of values.
That's hypocrisy at it's finest. Please explain to me why a culture can be "objectively inferior" but at the same time it's impossible for you that races are "objectively inferior"? I'm pretty damn sure the only reason you can come up with is because the word "racism" has a bad ring to it while "culturalism" sounds pretty neat so far.
Race does not determine the set of values and behaviour someone has. Furthermore, the difference in races beside appearances are extremely small.
PS: German Shepherd or Poodle, do you think they one of them can be objectively inferior or not? I'll help you out, the correct answer is: "For what?" - it's exactly the same with human race, religion or culture. Each one has flaws, each one has merits. You're proclaiming that your culture in it's entirety is superior to another one and therefor has a god-given right to call out the other culture. I think that's pretty disgusting.
I'm certainly not calling an entire culture inferior. Culture X simply has more negative traits than culture Y and therefore culture X is inferior to culture Y.
Your definition of negative and positive traits is undeniably influenced by whichever cultural hegemony you prescribe to. This argument is getting you no where.
No, it is simply based on "Is there a rational reason for this?" and "Does this culture's set of values and beliefs harm others?".
Your value of rationalism came from somewhere. If you truely think you are objective, you're wrong.
You seem to be making a statement anchored in rationality here. Do you believe the claim you have just made is objectively true? If not, what is it?
I think that humans being a product of nature and nurture is objectively true. I think that there have been enough studies and scientific discoveries in fields such as genetics and human development to label that as objectively true. I think it is true in the same fashion that the Earth revolves around the Sun is objectively true.
Ok, my mistake. I was under the impression that you were questioning the possibility of rational thought.
Do you equate rationality with objectivity? Is it possible that things could be rational but not necessary "objective" in the sense that we ordinarily mean?
I was merely saying that his choice to use rationality as the bar for measurement was invariably influenced by his own culture, therefore being subjective
Can you elaborate on this step of the argument? I don't follow.
If it's "subjective" in the way that you say, would that then render it illegitimate?
What other sorts of measurement (or perhaps a better word, evaluation) would one perform?
Where would you rather live as a muslim: in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin, where this guy shot sikhs, mistaking them for muslims? And does this mean every US Citizen hates muslims? It doesnt. And the same is true for you roleplay.
That's a flawed comparison. In one case you have random uneducated nutcases killing people from fear and ignorance, it's what happens when you mix stupidity, fox news and guns.
In the other you have systematic, state approved oppression based solely on the ramblings of a deranged pedophile from the 6th century, this is building a state on more or less pure evil.
The two are not comparable.
There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second.
I have never disputed that islamophobia is relatively widespread in both Europe and the US.
Are you suggesting Islam does not have a homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant message? Weird, I must have completely misunderstood all those rather explicit lines from that holy book of theirs. Saudi Arabia is the prime example because that is what you get when you actually follow through with the idea of running a state based on islamic law, it is the epitome of middle eastern culture. A modern day Mordor, without its architectural quaintness.
You can delve up the same kind of stuff from the bible. The crucial point is, how to interpret the it. There are as well modern and liberal muslims as there are Christians. That you can dig up horrible stuff from the Koran doesn't justify condemning a whole religion or culture as inferior. Both books are supposed to be treated as sources in a historical sense from an other time. Sure, you´ll be able to find anachronistic stuff in a book roughly 1.4k years old. That´s no suprise.
Oh go right ahead, I find the bible equally distasteful. And how on earth can you interpret "Stone the alduterer" as anything but "Stone the adulterer" ?
Trust me, my condemnation does not stem from the sputtering insanities in the Koran, it stems from demonstrable facts and actual deeds.
Again it´s a 1.4k years old book. Modern islam will and currently does, emancipate itself from stuff that doesn't fit into modern society. Look beyond the words of an antiquity and discover pretty normal and modern people practicing islam today.
Did you not read the second paragraph? It clearly states my problem is with the actual culture being practiced today, not the Koran.
Where would you rather live as a muslim: in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin, where this guy shot sikhs, mistaking them for muslims? And does this mean every US Citizen hates muslims? It doesnt. And the same is true for you roleplay.
That's a flawed comparison. In one case you have random uneducated nutcases killing people from fear and ignorance, it's what happens when you mix stupidity, fox news and guns.
In the other you have systematic, state approved oppression based solely on the ramblings of a deranged pedophile from the 6th century, this is building a state on more or less pure evil.
The two are not comparable.
There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second.
I have never disputed that islamophobia is relatively widespread in both Europe and the US.
Are you suggesting Islam does not have a homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant message? Weird, I must have completely misunderstood all those rather explicit lines from that holy book of theirs. Saudi Arabia is the prime example because that is what you get when you actually follow through with the idea of running a state based on islamic law, it is the epitome of middle eastern culture. A modern day Mordor, without its architectural quaintness.
You can delve up the same kind of stuff from the bible. The crucial point is, how to interpret the it. There are as well modern and liberal muslims as there are Christians. That you can dig up horrible stuff from the Koran doesn't justify condemning a whole religion or culture as inferior. Both books are supposed to be treated as sources in a historical sense from an other time. Sure, you´ll be able to find anachronistic stuff in a book roughly 1.4k years old. That´s no suprise.
Oh go right ahead, I find the bible equally distasteful. And how on earth can you interpret "Stone the alduterer" as anything but "Stone the adulterer" ?
Why don't you just ignore that part, and keep the parts where it tells you to love your neighbor and be a good person?
(historically, you should consider why, at that time, the punishment of female adultery with death was an important thing for that culture, and consider why, in our time, we are able to perceive such a thing as unnecessary and immoral to boot)
Because that is borderline intellectual suicide. It cannot, and should not be ignored. It's there. It's like trying to ignore the fact that a suspect shot a guy, because he brought him flowers in the hospital afterwards. And apparently it's the word of god, which makes it kind of non-negotiable.
I value the bible highly, but I am not a christian and I do not believe that it is the "word of god." How does that fit into your schema? Your mistake (and the mistake of most christians) it to believe that the bible is a unitary text, which it is not.
If I have performed intellectual suicide, my intellect is doing some very convincing post-mortem twitching.
And how is/was female adultery even an issue? If producing offspring is the primary purpose of the woman, shouldn't she be sleeping around as much as possible to maximize the chances of getting pregnant?
Patriarchy, my friend. You have to know who the father is, or the economic system collapses.
That's hypocrisy at it's finest. Please explain to me why a culture can be "objectively inferior" but at the same time it's impossible for you that races are "objectively inferior"? I'm pretty damn sure the only reason you can come up with is because the word "racism" has a bad ring to it while "culturalism" sounds pretty neat so far.
Race does not determine the set of values and behaviour someone has. Furthermore, the difference in races beside appearances are extremely small.
Race is very much related to the set of values and behaviour someone has. If - for whatever reasons - black people in the US commit more crimes than white people and if - for whatever reasons - police officers tend to shoot black suspects more often than white ones do you really believe that that doesn't affect the values and behaviours of black people? Sure, the color of your skin or your race being irrelevant sounds cool and all but it's far from reality. Everyone gets judged by their appearence, everyone gets feedback on their appearence. That feedback forms values.
You know why? That's because of people like you, who believe there are genuine differences between races other than appearance. Race and culture certainly are connected to each other but they are not inseperable. Absolutely not. It also has to do with the socioeconomic status of someone. People of certain races might be more likely to grow up in a poor ghetto environment.
If you consider that to be something else than race, then fine. This is a bit of topic due to the discussion of race and not culture.
edit, fixed quote, I think.
I already said there were neligible differences in an earlier post.
Allright. If religions can be inferior to others please tell me which of those three is "objectively inferior" to the others and why: Christianity, Islam, Judaism.
I can't because that would require a full-fledged study. Also, I realise that negative traits cannot be easily quantified. That doesn't change the fact that greatly differing cultures can be graded.
Where would you rather live as a muslim: in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin, where this guy shot sikhs, mistaking them for muslims? And does this mean every US Citizen hates muslims? It doesnt. And the same is true for you roleplay.
That's a flawed comparison. In one case you have random uneducated nutcases killing people from fear and ignorance, it's what happens when you mix stupidity, fox news and guns.
In the other you have systematic, state approved oppression based solely on the ramblings of a deranged pedophile from the 6th century, this is building a state on more or less pure evil.
The two are not comparable.
There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second.
I have never disputed that islamophobia is relatively widespread in both Europe and the US.
Are you suggesting Islam does not have a homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant message? Weird, I must have completely misunderstood all those rather explicit lines from that holy book of theirs. Saudi Arabia is the prime example because that is what you get when you actually follow through with the idea of running a state based on islamic law, it is the epitome of middle eastern culture. A modern day Mordor, without its architectural quaintness.
You can delve up the same kind of stuff from the bible. The crucial point is, how to interpret the it. There are as well modern and liberal muslims as there are Christians. That you can dig up horrible stuff from the Koran doesn't justify condemning a whole religion or culture as inferior. Both books are supposed to be treated as sources in a historical sense from an other time. Sure, you´ll be able to find anachronistic stuff in a book roughly 1.4k years old. That´s no suprise.
Oh go right ahead, I find the bible equally distasteful. And how on earth can you interpret "Stone the alduterer" as anything but "Stone the adulterer" ?
Trust me, my condemnation does not stem from the sputtering insanities in the Koran, it stems from demonstrable facts and actual deeds.
Again it´s a 1.4k years old book. Modern islam will and currently does, emancipate itself from stuff that doesn't fit into modern society. Look beyond the words of an antiquity and discover pretty normal and modern people practicing islam today.
Did you not read the second paragraph? It clearly states my problem is with the actual culture being practiced today, not the Koran.
Yes you wanted me to trust your "facts and actual deeds." However if you can' t back that up by anything actually discussion worthy besides pointing at anachronistic stuff, i have to suspect, that it is about the koran. To Clarifiy: exactly which culture, exactly where? If you name it: is there no such thing comparable in the western world? Is it actually a matter of culture, or a matter of dictator regime ruling in some part of the world. Your making it too easy for yourself, you reckon something you dislike and indentify a whole culture as the culprit. However it´s not that simple. In the muslimic world, there are tons of different religious groups, different sets of laws regarding women and men. Different states with different mentalities. How do you see the same culture in Saudi Arabia and Indonesia? Those are pretty different in any aspect of life you may perhaps refer to and both muslimic in majority.
Where would you rather live as a muslim: in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin, where this guy shot sikhs, mistaking them for muslims? And does this mean every US Citizen hates muslims? It doesnt. And the same is true for you roleplay.
That's a flawed comparison. In one case you have random uneducated nutcases killing people from fear and ignorance, it's what happens when you mix stupidity, fox news and guns.
In the other you have systematic, state approved oppression based solely on the ramblings of a deranged pedophile from the 6th century, this is building a state on more or less pure evil.
The two are not comparable.
There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second.
I have never disputed that islamophobia is relatively widespread in both Europe and the US.
Are you suggesting Islam does not have a homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant message? Weird, I must have completely misunderstood all those rather explicit lines from that holy book of theirs. Saudi Arabia is the prime example because that is what you get when you actually follow through with the idea of running a state based on islamic law, it is the epitome of middle eastern culture. A modern day Mordor, without its architectural quaintness.
You can delve up the same kind of stuff from the bible. The crucial point is, how to interpret the it. There are as well modern and liberal muslims as there are Christians. That you can dig up horrible stuff from the Koran doesn't justify condemning a whole religion or culture as inferior. Both books are supposed to be treated as sources in a historical sense from an other time. Sure, you´ll be able to find anachronistic stuff in a book roughly 1.4k years old. That´s no suprise.
Oh go right ahead, I find the bible equally distasteful. And how on earth can you interpret "Stone the alduterer" as anything but "Stone the adulterer" ?
Trust me, my condemnation does not stem from the sputtering insanities in the Koran, it stems from demonstrable facts and actual deeds.
Again it´s a 1.4k years old book. Modern islam will and currently does, emancipate itself from stuff that doesn't fit into modern society. Look beyond the words of an antiquity and discover pretty normal and modern people practicing islam today.
Did you not read the second paragraph? It clearly states my problem is with the actual culture being practiced today, not the Koran.
Yes you wanted me to trust your "facts and actual deeds." However if you can' t back that up by anything actually discussion worthy besides pointing at anachronistic stuff, i have to suspect, that it is about the koran.
If part of the problem with the "actual culture being practiced today" has to do with its attitude toward the Koran, the question may not be able to be entirely disentangled.
One can argue that gay is bad because if everyone was gay, our species would go extinct. That is a rational argument. Opposing to that is the fact that this is never ever going to be the case, so gays don't matter in the reproduction part of our species.
You just refuted your own argument and therefore it's not a valid rational argument.
One could even further refute it by postulating that even if the entire human population was gay, we could still make babies. I can certainly see such a society function without any problems.
It wasn´t only about race, it was about culture as well. Culture can not be inferior, as culture is, as you mentioned a sum of beliefs, values and norms. Yet you will be hard pressed to identify this culture, where a sexist or homophobic notion is shared unanimously. And even if appears to you this way, you wont be able to judge it as you can´t claim to know said culture close enough, if you don´t share it
I didnt say what you said: the point is, there is no such thing as a generic islamic culture. Furthermore i didnt raise the term "arabic culture", i merely referred to it. You cannot divide cultural complexes into segments in order to label one of them as inferior. Liberal arabic movements view themselves as part of that certain culture, that is meant to be labeled as inferior throughout this discussion.
I think you are right. What I mean by "inferior culture" are specific people with an inferior set of beliefs. Indeed not every person who generally identifies himself with culture X also shares the exact copy of that culture's set of values.
That's hypocrisy at it's finest. Please explain to me why a culture can be "objectively inferior" but at the same time it's impossible for you that races are "objectively inferior"? I'm pretty damn sure the only reason you can come up with is because the word "racism" has a bad ring to it while "culturalism" sounds pretty neat so far.
Race does not determine the set of values and behaviour someone has. Furthermore, the difference in races beside appearances are extremely small.
PS: German Shepherd or Poodle, do you think they one of them can be objectively inferior or not? I'll help you out, the correct answer is: "For what?" - it's exactly the same with human race, religion or culture. Each one has flaws, each one has merits. You're proclaiming that your culture in it's entirety is superior to another one and therefor has a god-given right to call out the other culture. I think that's pretty disgusting.
I'm certainly not calling an entire culture inferior. Culture X simply has more negative traits than culture Y and therefore culture X is inferior to culture Y.
Your definition of negative and positive traits is undeniably influenced by whichever cultural hegemony you prescribe to. This argument is getting you no where.
No, it is simply based on "Is there a rational reason for this?" and "Does this culture's set of values and beliefs harm others?".
Your value of rationalism came from somewhere. If you truely think you are objective, you're wrong.
You seem to be making a statement anchored in rationality here. Do you believe the claim you have just made is objectively true? If not, what is it?
I think that humans being a product of nature and nurture is objectively true. I think that there have been enough studies and scientific discoveries in fields such as genetics and human development to label that as objectively true. I think it is true in the same fashion that the Earth revolves around the Sun is objectively true.
Ok, my mistake. I was under the impression that you were questioning the possibility of rational thought.
Do you equate rationality with objectivity? Is it possible that things could be rational but not necessary "objective" in the sense that we ordinarily mean?
I was merely saying that his choice to use rationality as the bar for measurement was invariably influenced by his own culture, therefore being subjective
Can you elaborate on this step of the argument? I don't follow.
If it's "subjective" in the way that you say, would that then render it illegitimate?
What other sorts of measurement (or perhaps a better word, evaluation) would one perform?
It would probably help to just read the thread and see where we were talking...
His whole basis was being objective and rational. I was pointing out that his focus on rationality was a product of his own cultural subjectivity. So I guess yea, I am saying that renders it illegitimate. I'm saying you cant measure culture vs culture. They are different, that is why they are separate cultures. Each has a history and reason for it's development. I'm not trying to attach a grade to each one.
Where would you rather live as a muslim: in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin, where this guy shot sikhs, mistaking them for muslims? And does this mean every US Citizen hates muslims? It doesnt. And the same is true for you roleplay.
That's a flawed comparison. In one case you have random uneducated nutcases killing people from fear and ignorance, it's what happens when you mix stupidity, fox news and guns.
In the other you have systematic, state approved oppression based solely on the ramblings of a deranged pedophile from the 6th century, this is building a state on more or less pure evil.
The two are not comparable.
There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second.
I have never disputed that islamophobia is relatively widespread in both Europe and the US.
Are you suggesting Islam does not have a homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant message? Weird, I must have completely misunderstood all those rather explicit lines from that holy book of theirs. Saudi Arabia is the prime example because that is what you get when you actually follow through with the idea of running a state based on islamic law, it is the epitome of middle eastern culture. A modern day Mordor, without its architectural quaintness.
You can delve up the same kind of stuff from the bible. The crucial point is, how to interpret the it. There are as well modern and liberal muslims as there are Christians. That you can dig up horrible stuff from the Koran doesn't justify condemning a whole religion or culture as inferior. Both books are supposed to be treated as sources in a historical sense from an other time. Sure, you´ll be able to find anachronistic stuff in a book roughly 1.4k years old. That´s no suprise.
The Bible and the Quran are not the same.
The Bible is divinely inspired, the Quran is the literal word of god.
Christians derive the validity of their faith from the miracles performed by Jesus. Muslims literally believe that their religion's miracle is the Quran, a book they believe is not only flawless, but contains hidden wisdom and revelations in science and the future.
You may consider it a small difference, but the results are massive.
Anyone who doubts the Quran is simply not a muslim, because he goes against the literal word of god. Meanwhile, Christians can claim the Bible is divine, but they also acknowledge that it can contain errors.
The result is that Christians are permitted to doubt and discard more or less anything they want. Who is to say what is divine and what is a translation error?
Meanwhile, muslims are expected to accept everything, because the entire book is the word of god and god is without flaw.
This however has not kept the Muslim faith singular in outlook.
The truth that not many people realize, is that the Quran is actually not that important in Islam. Now when I say this, I don't mean that it isn't the most divine text in their faith, because it is, but in terms of practical use, it doesn't do much.
The Hadiths, collections of the life of the prophet, are far more important for day-to-day muslim life. The Quran mostly serves as the divine foundation, whilst the Hadiths are the house build upon the foundation.
The problem with that is that every reading of Islam is considered, by the respective sect, the absolute and unalterable truth, because they all derive their legitimacy from a text that they belief has no flaw.
So no, the Quran and the Bible should not be considered similar, even though the Quran is largely a plagiarism from the new testament, just as the new testament is a plagiarism of the old testament.
(For the record, the Quran is anything but flawless, but it isn't a debate you should ever even try to have because the texts can be twisted to such a degree that even the parts that support a geo-centric universe are eventually considered "correct in a way.")
Where would you rather live as a muslim: in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin, where this guy shot sikhs, mistaking them for muslims? And does this mean every US Citizen hates muslims? It doesnt. And the same is true for you roleplay.
That's a flawed comparison. In one case you have random uneducated nutcases killing people from fear and ignorance, it's what happens when you mix stupidity, fox news and guns.
In the other you have systematic, state approved oppression based solely on the ramblings of a deranged pedophile from the 6th century, this is building a state on more or less pure evil.
The two are not comparable.
There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second.
I have never disputed that islamophobia is relatively widespread in both Europe and the US.
Are you suggesting Islam does not have a homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant message? Weird, I must have completely misunderstood all those rather explicit lines from that holy book of theirs. Saudi Arabia is the prime example because that is what you get when you actually follow through with the idea of running a state based on islamic law, it is the epitome of middle eastern culture. A modern day Mordor, without its architectural quaintness.
You can delve up the same kind of stuff from the bible. The crucial point is, how to interpret the it. There are as well modern and liberal muslims as there are Christians. That you can dig up horrible stuff from the Koran doesn't justify condemning a whole religion or culture as inferior. Both books are supposed to be treated as sources in a historical sense from an other time. Sure, you´ll be able to find anachronistic stuff in a book roughly 1.4k years old. That´s no suprise.
Oh go right ahead, I find the bible equally distasteful. And how on earth can you interpret "Stone the alduterer" as anything but "Stone the adulterer" ?
Why don't you just ignore that part, and keep the parts where it tells you to love your neighbor and be a good person?
(historically, you should consider why, at that time, the punishment of female adultery with death was an important thing for that culture, and consider why, in our time, we are able to perceive such a thing as unnecessary and immoral to boot)
Because that is borderline intellectual suicide. It cannot, and should not be ignored. It's there. It's like trying to ignore the fact that a suspect shot a guy, because he brought him flowers in the hospital afterwards. And apparently it's the word of god, which makes it kind of non-negotiable.
I value the bible highly, but I am not a christian and I do not believe that it is the "word of god." How does that fit into your schema? Your mistake (and the mistake of most christians) it to believe that the bible is a unitary text, which it is not.
If I have performed intellectual suicide, my intellect is doing some very convincing post-mortem twitching.
And how is/was female adultery even an issue? If producing offspring is the primary purpose of the woman, shouldn't she be sleeping around as much as possible to maximize the chances of getting pregnant?
Patriarchy, my friend. You have to know who the father is, or the economic system collapses.
Did you just now mistake me for a Christian? Or am I just misunderstanding your post? And if cherry picking is allowed, and certain bits can be disregarded, why even have a holy book to begin with? I propose a unified, fits all religions, IKEA style instruction manual instead.
Anyho, if it's simply economics, that makes sense. Could have like an applebees coupon deal, two wives for the price of one, side goat not included.
Where would you rather live as a muslim: in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin, where this guy shot sikhs, mistaking them for muslims? And does this mean every US Citizen hates muslims? It doesnt. And the same is true for you roleplay.
That's a flawed comparison. In one case you have random uneducated nutcases killing people from fear and ignorance, it's what happens when you mix stupidity, fox news and guns.
In the other you have systematic, state approved oppression based solely on the ramblings of a deranged pedophile from the 6th century, this is building a state on more or less pure evil.
The two are not comparable.
There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second.
I have never disputed that islamophobia is relatively widespread in both Europe and the US.
Are you suggesting Islam does not have a homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant message? Weird, I must have completely misunderstood all those rather explicit lines from that holy book of theirs. Saudi Arabia is the prime example because that is what you get when you actually follow through with the idea of running a state based on islamic law, it is the epitome of middle eastern culture. A modern day Mordor, without its architectural quaintness.
You can delve up the same kind of stuff from the bible. The crucial point is, how to interpret the it. There are as well modern and liberal muslims as there are Christians. That you can dig up horrible stuff from the Koran doesn't justify condemning a whole religion or culture as inferior. Both books are supposed to be treated as sources in a historical sense from an other time. Sure, you´ll be able to find anachronistic stuff in a book roughly 1.4k years old. That´s no suprise.
The Bible and the Quran are not the same.
The Bible is divinely inspired, the Quran is the literal word of god.
Christians derive the validity of their faith from the miracles performed by Jesus. Muslims literally believe that their religion's miracle is the Quran, a book they believe is not only flawless, but contains hidden wisdom and revelations in science and the future.
You may consider it a small difference, but the results are massive.
Anyone who doubts the Quran is simply not a muslim, because he goes against the literal word of god. Meanwhile, Christians can claim the Bible is divine, but they also acknowledge that it can contain errors.
The result is that Christians are permitted to doubt and discard more or less anything they want. Who is to say what is divine and what is a translation error?
Meanwhile, muslims are expected to accept everything, because the entire book is the word of god and god is without flaw.
This however has not kept the Muslim faith singular in outlook.
The truth that not many people realize, is that the Quran is actually not that important in Islam. Now when I say this, I don't mean that it isn't the most divine text in their faith, because it is, but in terms of practical use, it doesn't do much.
The Hadiths, collections of the life of the prophet, are far more important for day-to-day muslim life. The Quran mostly serves as the divine foundation, whilst the Hadiths are the house build upon the foundation.
The problem with that is that every reading of Islam is considered, by the respective sect, the absolute and unalterable truth, because they all derive their legitimacy from a text that they belief has no flaw.
So no, the Quran and the Bible should not be considered similar, even though the Quran is largely a plagiarism from the new testament, just as the new testament is a plagiarism of the old testament.
(For the record, the Quran is anything but flawless, but it isn't a debate you should ever even try to have because the texts can be twisted to such a degree that even the parts that support a geo-centric universe are eventually considered "correct in a way.")
i didn't mean to say that the books are similar, i meant to say both religions are suspect to interpretation and thus you can' t take the pure text for everything there is.
On August 13 2012 03:09 Thorakh wrote: I'd rather have you show me why human (because that's what we're talking about here) males and females are not equal. There is not a single rational reason why women (for example) should not be allowed a job, walk without male supervision on the street, drive a car, you name it.
It's the same for homophobia. There is not a single rational reason why gay = bad.
Yes, I believe moral relativism is bullshit.
One can argue that gay is bad because if everyone was gay, our species would go extinct. That is a rational argument. Opposing to that is the fact that this is never ever going to be the case, so gays don't matter in the reproduction part of our species.
You just refuted your own argument and therefore it's not a valid rational argument.
One could even further refute it by postulating that even if the entire human population was gay, we could still make babies. I can certainly see such a society function without any problems.
It wasn´t only about race, it was about culture as well. Culture can not be inferior, as culture is, as you mentioned a sum of beliefs, values and norms. Yet you will be hard pressed to identify this culture, where a sexist or homophobic notion is shared unanimously. And even if appears to you this way, you wont be able to judge it as you can´t claim to know said culture close enough, if you don´t share it
I didnt say what you said: the point is, there is no such thing as a generic islamic culture. Furthermore i didnt raise the term "arabic culture", i merely referred to it. You cannot divide cultural complexes into segments in order to label one of them as inferior. Liberal arabic movements view themselves as part of that certain culture, that is meant to be labeled as inferior throughout this discussion.
I think you are right. What I mean by "inferior culture" are specific people with an inferior set of beliefs. Indeed not every person who generally identifies himself with culture X also shares the exact copy of that culture's set of values.
That's hypocrisy at it's finest. Please explain to me why a culture can be "objectively inferior" but at the same time it's impossible for you that races are "objectively inferior"? I'm pretty damn sure the only reason you can come up with is because the word "racism" has a bad ring to it while "culturalism" sounds pretty neat so far.
Race does not determine the set of values and behaviour someone has. Furthermore, the difference in races beside appearances are extremely small.
PS: German Shepherd or Poodle, do you think they one of them can be objectively inferior or not? I'll help you out, the correct answer is: "For what?" - it's exactly the same with human race, religion or culture. Each one has flaws, each one has merits. You're proclaiming that your culture in it's entirety is superior to another one and therefor has a god-given right to call out the other culture. I think that's pretty disgusting.
I'm certainly not calling an entire culture inferior. Culture X simply has more negative traits than culture Y and therefore culture X is inferior to culture Y.
Your definition of negative and positive traits is undeniably influenced by whichever cultural hegemony you prescribe to. This argument is getting you no where.
No, it is simply based on "Is there a rational reason for this?" and "Does this culture's set of values and beliefs harm others?".
What? Cultures are rational now? And peaceful, to boot? Oh, internet. :p
Where would you rather live as a muslim: in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin, where this guy shot sikhs, mistaking them for muslims? And does this mean every US Citizen hates muslims? It doesnt. And the same is true for you roleplay.
That's a flawed comparison. In one case you have random uneducated nutcases killing people from fear and ignorance, it's what happens when you mix stupidity, fox news and guns.
In the other you have systematic, state approved oppression based solely on the ramblings of a deranged pedophile from the 6th century, this is building a state on more or less pure evil.
The two are not comparable.
There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second.
I have never disputed that islamophobia is relatively widespread in both Europe and the US.
Are you suggesting Islam does not have a homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant message? Weird, I must have completely misunderstood all those rather explicit lines from that holy book of theirs. Saudi Arabia is the prime example because that is what you get when you actually follow through with the idea of running a state based on islamic law, it is the epitome of middle eastern culture. A modern day Mordor, without its architectural quaintness.
You can delve up the same kind of stuff from the bible. The crucial point is, how to interpret the it. There are as well modern and liberal muslims as there are Christians. That you can dig up horrible stuff from the Koran doesn't justify condemning a whole religion or culture as inferior. Both books are supposed to be treated as sources in a historical sense from an other time. Sure, you´ll be able to find anachronistic stuff in a book roughly 1.4k years old. That´s no suprise.
Oh go right ahead, I find the bible equally distasteful. And how on earth can you interpret "Stone the alduterer" as anything but "Stone the adulterer" ?
Trust me, my condemnation does not stem from the sputtering insanities in the Koran, it stems from demonstrable facts and actual deeds.
Again it´s a 1.4k years old book. Modern islam will and currently does, emancipate itself from stuff that doesn't fit into modern society. Look beyond the words of an antiquity and discover pretty normal and modern people practicing islam today.
Did you not read the second paragraph? It clearly states my problem is with the actual culture being practiced today, not the Koran.
Yes you wanted me to trust your "facts and actual deeds." However if you can' t back that up by anything actually discussion worthy besides pointing at anachronistic stuff, i have to suspect, that it is about the koran.
It requires a heady ignorance and a self-indulgent personal perspective to rely so heavily on anecdote and then judge the collective identity of contemporary Islam, so I'd bet his viewpoint is rather hopelessly mired in religious intolerance and bias. For every Saudi Arabia there is a Turkey, and for every Iran there is a Jordan.
Where would you rather live as a muslim: in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin, where this guy shot sikhs, mistaking them for muslims? And does this mean every US Citizen hates muslims? It doesnt. And the same is true for you roleplay.
That's a flawed comparison. In one case you have random uneducated nutcases killing people from fear and ignorance, it's what happens when you mix stupidity, fox news and guns.
In the other you have systematic, state approved oppression based solely on the ramblings of a deranged pedophile from the 6th century, this is building a state on more or less pure evil.
The two are not comparable.
There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second.
I have never disputed that islamophobia is relatively widespread in both Europe and the US.
Are you suggesting Islam does not have a homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant message? Weird, I must have completely misunderstood all those rather explicit lines from that holy book of theirs. Saudi Arabia is the prime example because that is what you get when you actually follow through with the idea of running a state based on islamic law, it is the epitome of middle eastern culture. A modern day Mordor, without its architectural quaintness.
You can delve up the same kind of stuff from the bible. The crucial point is, how to interpret the it. There are as well modern and liberal muslims as there are Christians. That you can dig up horrible stuff from the Koran doesn't justify condemning a whole religion or culture as inferior. Both books are supposed to be treated as sources in a historical sense from an other time. Sure, you´ll be able to find anachronistic stuff in a book roughly 1.4k years old. That´s no suprise.
Oh go right ahead, I find the bible equally distasteful. And how on earth can you interpret "Stone the alduterer" as anything but "Stone the adulterer" ?
Trust me, my condemnation does not stem from the sputtering insanities in the Koran, it stems from demonstrable facts and actual deeds.
Again it´s a 1.4k years old book. Modern islam will and currently does, emancipate itself from stuff that doesn't fit into modern society. Look beyond the words of an antiquity and discover pretty normal and modern people practicing islam today.
Did you not read the second paragraph? It clearly states my problem is with the actual culture being practiced today, not the Koran.
Yes you wanted me to trust your "facts and actual deeds." However if you can' t back that up by anything actually discussion worthy besides pointing at anachronistic stuff, i have to suspect, that it is about the koran. To Clarifiy: exactly which culture, exactly where? If you name it: is there no such thing comparable in the western world? Is it actually a matter of culture, or a matter of dictator regime ruling in some part of the world. Your making it too easy for yourself, you reckon something you dislike and indentify a whole culture as the culprit. However it´s not that simple. In the muslimic world, there are tons of different religious groups, different sets of laws regarding women and men. Different states with different mentalities. How do you see the same culture in Saudi Arabia and Indonesia? Those are pretty different in any aspect of life you may perhaps refer to and both muslimic in majority.
I ask you to trust nothing, I ask you to look for yourself.
Do you really believe Saudi Arabia and Indonesia are all that different when it comes to women and homosexuality? They are startlingly similar in this regard, as are most middle eastern countries. The cultures differ massively in many ways, but certain core values are almost unanimously shared.
I labeled nothing and no one a culprit. I personally find it repelling, and want no part if it, that is all.
On August 13 2012 03:25 Thorakh wrote: [quote]You just refuted your own argument and therefore it's not a valid rational argument.
One could even further refute it by postulating that even if the entire human population was gay, we could still make babies. I can certainly see such a society function without any problems.
[quote]I think you are right. What I mean by "inferior culture" are specific people with an inferior set of beliefs. Indeed not every person who generally identifies himself with culture X also shares the exact copy of that culture's set of values.
[quote]Race does not determine the set of values and behaviour someone has. Furthermore, the difference in races beside appearances are extremely small.
[quote]I'm certainly not calling an entire culture inferior. Culture X simply has more negative traits than culture Y and therefore culture X is inferior to culture Y.
Your definition of negative and positive traits is undeniably influenced by whichever cultural hegemony you prescribe to. This argument is getting you no where.
No, it is simply based on "Is there a rational reason for this?" and "Does this culture's set of values and beliefs harm others?".
Your value of rationalism came from somewhere. If you truely think you are objective, you're wrong.
You seem to be making a statement anchored in rationality here. Do you believe the claim you have just made is objectively true? If not, what is it?
I think that humans being a product of nature and nurture is objectively true. I think that there have been enough studies and scientific discoveries in fields such as genetics and human development to label that as objectively true. I think it is true in the same fashion that the Earth revolves around the Sun is objectively true.
Ok, my mistake. I was under the impression that you were questioning the possibility of rational thought.
Do you equate rationality with objectivity? Is it possible that things could be rational but not necessary "objective" in the sense that we ordinarily mean?
I was merely saying that his choice to use rationality as the bar for measurement was invariably influenced by his own culture, therefore being subjective
Can you elaborate on this step of the argument? I don't follow.
If it's "subjective" in the way that you say, would that then render it illegitimate?
What other sorts of measurement (or perhaps a better word, evaluation) would one perform?
It would probably help to just read the thread and see where we were talking...
His whole basis was being objective and rational. I was pointing out that his focus on rationality was a product of his own cultural subjectivity. So I guess yea, I am saying that renders it illegitimate. I'm saying you cant measure culture vs culture. They are different, that is why they are separate cultures. Each has a history and reason for it's development. I'm not trying to attach a grade to each one.
I know what you're talking about. I'm questioning your argument that a) rationality is culturally relative and b) subjectivity -> illegitimacy. I disagree with both of those claims.
Where would you rather live as a muslim: in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin, where this guy shot sikhs, mistaking them for muslims? And does this mean every US Citizen hates muslims? It doesnt. And the same is true for you roleplay.
That's a flawed comparison. In one case you have random uneducated nutcases killing people from fear and ignorance, it's what happens when you mix stupidity, fox news and guns.
In the other you have systematic, state approved oppression based solely on the ramblings of a deranged pedophile from the 6th century, this is building a state on more or less pure evil.
The two are not comparable.
There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second.
I have never disputed that islamophobia is relatively widespread in both Europe and the US.
Are you suggesting Islam does not have a homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant message? Weird, I must have completely misunderstood all those rather explicit lines from that holy book of theirs. Saudi Arabia is the prime example because that is what you get when you actually follow through with the idea of running a state based on islamic law, it is the epitome of middle eastern culture. A modern day Mordor, without its architectural quaintness.
You can delve up the same kind of stuff from the bible. The crucial point is, how to interpret the it. There are as well modern and liberal muslims as there are Christians. That you can dig up horrible stuff from the Koran doesn't justify condemning a whole religion or culture as inferior. Both books are supposed to be treated as sources in a historical sense from an other time. Sure, you´ll be able to find anachronistic stuff in a book roughly 1.4k years old. That´s no suprise.
Oh go right ahead, I find the bible equally distasteful. And how on earth can you interpret "Stone the alduterer" as anything but "Stone the adulterer" ?
Why don't you just ignore that part, and keep the parts where it tells you to love your neighbor and be a good person?
(historically, you should consider why, at that time, the punishment of female adultery with death was an important thing for that culture, and consider why, in our time, we are able to perceive such a thing as unnecessary and immoral to boot)
Because that is borderline intellectual suicide. It cannot, and should not be ignored. It's there. It's like trying to ignore the fact that a suspect shot a guy, because he brought him flowers in the hospital afterwards. And apparently it's the word of god, which makes it kind of non-negotiable.
I value the bible highly, but I am not a christian and I do not believe that it is the "word of god." How does that fit into your schema? Your mistake (and the mistake of most christians) it to believe that the bible is a unitary text, which it is not.
If I have performed intellectual suicide, my intellect is doing some very convincing post-mortem twitching.
And how is/was female adultery even an issue? If producing offspring is the primary purpose of the woman, shouldn't she be sleeping around as much as possible to maximize the chances of getting pregnant?
Patriarchy, my friend. You have to know who the father is, or the economic system collapses.
Did you just now mistake me for a Christian? Or am I just misunderstanding your post?
Yeah, you're misunderstanding. I'm just saying that, as a non Christian, I think the bible is a pretty sick good book (edit: and parts of it are utterly horrifying). I think you are operating under an excluded middle paradigm, where one either takes it all or rejects it all, which is illegitimate.
And if cherry picking is allowed, and certain bits can be disregarded, why even have a holy book to begin with?
Because it's a record of people trying to figure stuff out, and you should read it and try to grok where they are coming from so that you can learn from them and avoid their mistakes. It's the same reason you study something like Descartes, not because he's totally right about everything, but because you couldn't have thought the better things if he hadn't thought the worse things first.
I propose a unified, fits all religions, IKEA style instruction manual instead.
If you could produce such an artifact, I would happily compose your hagiography.
Anyho, if it's simply economics, that makes sense. Could have like an applebees coupon deal, two wives for the price of one, side goat not included.
Where would you rather live as a muslim: in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin, where this guy shot sikhs, mistaking them for muslims? And does this mean every US Citizen hates muslims? It doesnt. And the same is true for you roleplay.
That's a flawed comparison. In one case you have random uneducated nutcases killing people from fear and ignorance, it's what happens when you mix stupidity, fox news and guns.
In the other you have systematic, state approved oppression based solely on the ramblings of a deranged pedophile from the 6th century, this is building a state on more or less pure evil.
The two are not comparable.
There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second.
I have never disputed that islamophobia is relatively widespread in both Europe and the US.
Are you suggesting Islam does not have a homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant message? Weird, I must have completely misunderstood all those rather explicit lines from that holy book of theirs. Saudi Arabia is the prime example because that is what you get when you actually follow through with the idea of running a state based on islamic law, it is the epitome of middle eastern culture. A modern day Mordor, without its architectural quaintness.
You can delve up the same kind of stuff from the bible. The crucial point is, how to interpret the it. There are as well modern and liberal muslims as there are Christians. That you can dig up horrible stuff from the Koran doesn't justify condemning a whole religion or culture as inferior. Both books are supposed to be treated as sources in a historical sense from an other time. Sure, you´ll be able to find anachronistic stuff in a book roughly 1.4k years old. That´s no suprise.
Oh go right ahead, I find the bible equally distasteful. And how on earth can you interpret "Stone the alduterer" as anything but "Stone the adulterer" ?
Trust me, my condemnation does not stem from the sputtering insanities in the Koran, it stems from demonstrable facts and actual deeds.
Again it´s a 1.4k years old book. Modern islam will and currently does, emancipate itself from stuff that doesn't fit into modern society. Look beyond the words of an antiquity and discover pretty normal and modern people practicing islam today.
Did you not read the second paragraph? It clearly states my problem is with the actual culture being practiced today, not the Koran.
Yes you wanted me to trust your "facts and actual deeds." However if you can' t back that up by anything actually discussion worthy besides pointing at anachronistic stuff, i have to suspect, that it is about the koran.
It requires a heady ignorance and a self-indulgent personal perspective to rely so heavily on anecdote and then judge the collective identity of contemporary Islam, so I'd bet his viewpoint is rather hopelessly mired in religious intolerance and bias. For every Saudi Arabia there is a Turkey, and for every Iran there is a Jordan.
The fact that you actually view Turkey as something to be admired is rather comical. It's better than many others yes, but far from good. I have no idea where this idea that Turkey is now a country of moderates comes from.
I think it's pretty clear just looking at France, Germany, UK and Sweden than "multiculturalism" doesn't work. Who needs graphs and analyses if you're avoiding certain areas of town etc. That's saying enough.
On August 13 2012 05:26 phanto wrote: I think it's pretty clear just looking at France, Germany, UK and Sweden than "multiculturalism" doesn't work. Who needs graphs and analyses if you're avoiding certain areas of town etc. That's saying enough.
Yes, this is because multiculturalism is the ideology of late capitalism. It is what legitimates the existence of such "certain areas of town"
That's a flawed comparison. In one case you have random uneducated nutcases killing people from fear and ignorance, it's what happens when you mix stupidity, fox news and guns.
In the other you have systematic, state approved oppression based solely on the ramblings of a deranged pedophile from the 6th century, this is building a state on more or less pure evil.
The two are not comparable.
There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second.
I have never disputed that islamophobia is relatively widespread in both Europe and the US.
Are you suggesting Islam does not have a homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant message? Weird, I must have completely misunderstood all those rather explicit lines from that holy book of theirs. Saudi Arabia is the prime example because that is what you get when you actually follow through with the idea of running a state based on islamic law, it is the epitome of middle eastern culture. A modern day Mordor, without its architectural quaintness.
You can delve up the same kind of stuff from the bible. The crucial point is, how to interpret the it. There are as well modern and liberal muslims as there are Christians. That you can dig up horrible stuff from the Koran doesn't justify condemning a whole religion or culture as inferior. Both books are supposed to be treated as sources in a historical sense from an other time. Sure, you´ll be able to find anachronistic stuff in a book roughly 1.4k years old. That´s no suprise.
Oh go right ahead, I find the bible equally distasteful. And how on earth can you interpret "Stone the alduterer" as anything but "Stone the adulterer" ?
Trust me, my condemnation does not stem from the sputtering insanities in the Koran, it stems from demonstrable facts and actual deeds.
Again it´s a 1.4k years old book. Modern islam will and currently does, emancipate itself from stuff that doesn't fit into modern society. Look beyond the words of an antiquity and discover pretty normal and modern people practicing islam today.
Did you not read the second paragraph? It clearly states my problem is with the actual culture being practiced today, not the Koran.
Yes you wanted me to trust your "facts and actual deeds." However if you can' t back that up by anything actually discussion worthy besides pointing at anachronistic stuff, i have to suspect, that it is about the koran.
It requires a heady ignorance and a self-indulgent personal perspective to rely so heavily on anecdote and then judge the collective identity of contemporary Islam, so I'd bet his viewpoint is rather hopelessly mired in religious intolerance and bias. For every Saudi Arabia there is a Turkey, and for every Iran there is a Jordan.
The fact that you actually view Turkey as something to be admired is rather comical. It's better than many others yes, but far from good. I have no idea where this idea that Turkey is now a country of moderates comes from.
I never said they were to be admired, I am merely suggesting that Islam as it manifests itself on a national level is not monolithic enough to bear sweeping generalization.
There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second.
I have never disputed that islamophobia is relatively widespread in both Europe and the US.
Are you suggesting Islam does not have a homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant message? Weird, I must have completely misunderstood all those rather explicit lines from that holy book of theirs. Saudi Arabia is the prime example because that is what you get when you actually follow through with the idea of running a state based on islamic law, it is the epitome of middle eastern culture. A modern day Mordor, without its architectural quaintness.
You can delve up the same kind of stuff from the bible. The crucial point is, how to interpret the it. There are as well modern and liberal muslims as there are Christians. That you can dig up horrible stuff from the Koran doesn't justify condemning a whole religion or culture as inferior. Both books are supposed to be treated as sources in a historical sense from an other time. Sure, you´ll be able to find anachronistic stuff in a book roughly 1.4k years old. That´s no suprise.
Oh go right ahead, I find the bible equally distasteful. And how on earth can you interpret "Stone the alduterer" as anything but "Stone the adulterer" ?
Trust me, my condemnation does not stem from the sputtering insanities in the Koran, it stems from demonstrable facts and actual deeds.
Again it´s a 1.4k years old book. Modern islam will and currently does, emancipate itself from stuff that doesn't fit into modern society. Look beyond the words of an antiquity and discover pretty normal and modern people practicing islam today.
Did you not read the second paragraph? It clearly states my problem is with the actual culture being practiced today, not the Koran.
Yes you wanted me to trust your "facts and actual deeds." However if you can' t back that up by anything actually discussion worthy besides pointing at anachronistic stuff, i have to suspect, that it is about the koran.
It requires a heady ignorance and a self-indulgent personal perspective to rely so heavily on anecdote and then judge the collective identity of contemporary Islam, so I'd bet his viewpoint is rather hopelessly mired in religious intolerance and bias. For every Saudi Arabia there is a Turkey, and for every Iran there is a Jordan.
The fact that you actually view Turkey as something to be admired is rather comical. It's better than many others yes, but far from good. I have no idea where this idea that Turkey is now a country of moderates comes from.
There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second.
I have never disputed that islamophobia is relatively widespread in both Europe and the US.
Are you suggesting Islam does not have a homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant message? Weird, I must have completely misunderstood all those rather explicit lines from that holy book of theirs. Saudi Arabia is the prime example because that is what you get when you actually follow through with the idea of running a state based on islamic law, it is the epitome of middle eastern culture. A modern day Mordor, without its architectural quaintness.
You can delve up the same kind of stuff from the bible. The crucial point is, how to interpret the it. There are as well modern and liberal muslims as there are Christians. That you can dig up horrible stuff from the Koran doesn't justify condemning a whole religion or culture as inferior. Both books are supposed to be treated as sources in a historical sense from an other time. Sure, you´ll be able to find anachronistic stuff in a book roughly 1.4k years old. That´s no suprise.
Oh go right ahead, I find the bible equally distasteful. And how on earth can you interpret "Stone the alduterer" as anything but "Stone the adulterer" ?
Trust me, my condemnation does not stem from the sputtering insanities in the Koran, it stems from demonstrable facts and actual deeds.
Again it´s a 1.4k years old book. Modern islam will and currently does, emancipate itself from stuff that doesn't fit into modern society. Look beyond the words of an antiquity and discover pretty normal and modern people practicing islam today.
Did you not read the second paragraph? It clearly states my problem is with the actual culture being practiced today, not the Koran.
Yes you wanted me to trust your "facts and actual deeds." However if you can' t back that up by anything actually discussion worthy besides pointing at anachronistic stuff, i have to suspect, that it is about the koran.
It requires a heady ignorance and a self-indulgent personal perspective to rely so heavily on anecdote and then judge the collective identity of contemporary Islam, so I'd bet his viewpoint is rather hopelessly mired in religious intolerance and bias. For every Saudi Arabia there is a Turkey, and for every Iran there is a Jordan.
The fact that you actually view Turkey as something to be admired is rather comical. It's better than many others yes, but far from good. I have no idea where this idea that Turkey is now a country of moderates comes from.
I never said they were to be admired, I am merely suggesting that Islam as it manifests itself on a national level is not monolithic enough to bear sweeping generalization.
I have never suggested it was. My argument was that certain elements within Islam are incompatible with many western societies. If someone wants to worship allah and pray in the mosque after work I couldn't care less. Hell, I worked with a bunch of guys who prayed in the lunchroom every day. Didn't bother me.
If I offended you by appearing racist or prejudiced towards an ethnic group I apologise, that was not my intent.
I don't think there's anything wrong with multiculturalism. It's how you go about achieving it that creates problems. Asians, for example, have assimilated quite successfully with their host nations, evidenced by the ubiquitous Chinatown. Immigrants from the Middle East & North Africa however, are causing lots of issues for Europe. The major difference between the two is that the former is voluntary, the latter is not.
You have waves of people being forced to immigrate due to threats of wars. People who would otherwise be content with where they are, their culture, and their politics - steeped in what they are as to being unwilling to change. You're bound to end up with conflicts when you try to assimilate these people.
I think religion plays a lesser role here as a lot of Asian immigrants are also Muslim. It comes down to how willing the immigrant is to adopt their host country. Not the other way around.
Where would you rather live as a muslim: in Saudi Arabia or Wisconsin, where this guy shot sikhs, mistaking them for muslims? And does this mean every US Citizen hates muslims? It doesnt. And the same is true for you roleplay.
That's a flawed comparison. In one case you have random uneducated nutcases killing people from fear and ignorance, it's what happens when you mix stupidity, fox news and guns.
In the other you have systematic, state approved oppression based solely on the ramblings of a deranged pedophile from the 6th century, this is building a state on more or less pure evil.
The two are not comparable.
There a some more people who hate muslims quite a lot, not only in Wisconsin or the US but aswell in Europe. You mentioned as well that Saudi Arabia is an oppressive state. But you shouldnt confuse a regime with a whole culture, it´s nothing more than a small part of the second.
I have never disputed that islamophobia is relatively widespread in both Europe and the US.
Are you suggesting Islam does not have a homophobic, misogynistic, intolerant message? Weird, I must have completely misunderstood all those rather explicit lines from that holy book of theirs. Saudi Arabia is the prime example because that is what you get when you actually follow through with the idea of running a state based on islamic law, it is the epitome of middle eastern culture. A modern day Mordor, without its architectural quaintness.
You can delve up the same kind of stuff from the bible. The crucial point is, how to interpret the it. There are as well modern and liberal muslims as there are Christians. That you can dig up horrible stuff from the Koran doesn't justify condemning a whole religion or culture as inferior. Both books are supposed to be treated as sources in a historical sense from an other time. Sure, you´ll be able to find anachronistic stuff in a book roughly 1.4k years old. That´s no suprise.
The Bible and the Quran are not the same.
The Bible is divinely inspired, the Quran is the literal word of god.
Christians derive the validity of their faith from the miracles performed by Jesus. Muslims literally believe that their religion's miracle is the Quran, a book they believe is not only flawless, but contains hidden wisdom and revelations in science and the future.
You may consider it a small difference, but the results are massive.
Anyone who doubts the Quran is simply not a muslim, because he goes against the literal word of god. Meanwhile, Christians can claim the Bible is divine, but they also acknowledge that it can contain errors.
The result is that Christians are permitted to doubt and discard more or less anything they want. Who is to say what is divine and what is a translation error?
Meanwhile, muslims are expected to accept everything, because the entire book is the word of god and god is without flaw.
This however has not kept the Muslim faith singular in outlook.
The truth that not many people realize, is that the Quran is actually not that important in Islam. Now when I say this, I don't mean that it isn't the most divine text in their faith, because it is, but in terms of practical use, it doesn't do much.
The Hadiths, collections of the life of the prophet, are far more important for day-to-day muslim life. The Quran mostly serves as the divine foundation, whilst the Hadiths are the house build upon the foundation.
The problem with that is that every reading of Islam is considered, by the respective sect, the absolute and unalterable truth, because they all derive their legitimacy from a text that they belief has no flaw.
So no, the Quran and the Bible should not be considered similar, even though the Quran is largely a plagiarism from the new testament, just as the new testament is a plagiarism of the old testament.
(For the record, the Quran is anything but flawless, but it isn't a debate you should ever even try to have because the texts can be twisted to such a degree that even the parts that support a geo-centric universe are eventually considered "correct in a way.")
Sounds a lot like what Christianity went through a couple hundred years ago.
I think it's pretty clear just looking at France, Germany, UK and Sweden than "multiculturalism" doesn't work. Who needs graphs and analyses if you're avoiding certain areas of town etc. That's saying enough.
That can just as easily be blamed on socioeconomic factors as opposed to cultural factors.
On August 13 2012 00:50 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Well i never said that immigration between similar cultures was bad , but the thing is Europe will struggle to sustain just the people living there now because it is tapped out resource wise.I know that in the UK coal production peaked around 100 years ago , back in 1913.North sea oil and gas production peaked around 10 years ago , UK just announced it's worst monthly trade deficit on record last month a large part of it due to declining resource take in the north sea , the UK is now a net importer of oil and gas.
If you recall one of the main reasons the Romans invaded Britain was for it's vast resource of tin.Of course this was 2000 year ago and it's all gone now.So you've got a country with no resources left , barely any manufacturing left (Rolls Royce opened a brand new aircraft engine plant in Singapore last year by the way) and a financial sector that caused the GFC.
Of course the UK has a mild climate good for agriculture.Still , only 60% of food eaten in the UK was domestic , 40% was imported.Point is the UK has 60 million people living there but enough resources for 10 to 20 million living a lower standard of living.I make the same conclusion for the rest of Europe , no more immigration needed.
Resources are not as important as they used to be. South Korea and Denmark are doing really well today, and they have nothing in terms of resources. Today the big producers sell technology and produced goods, like cars, electronics, entertainment, clothes and processed food. In UK's case they have a huge entertainment industry, mainly their music industry, where they are nr 1 in the world per capita. That's one of the sectors that pays for their food deficit.
On August 13 2012 08:13 Stratos_speAr wrote: That can just as easily be blamed on socioeconomic factors as opposed to cultural factors.
While your point is valid, the two are inextricable and cannot be fruitfully understood in isolation from one another.
While this is true, I don't think that it's possible to say that a generic culture such as "African-American culture" promotes a certain type of socioeconomic status, and because of this, you can't blame the culture for the SE status of a particular neighborhood.
On August 13 2012 08:13 Stratos_speAr wrote: That can just as easily be blamed on socioeconomic factors as opposed to cultural factors.
While your point is valid, the two are inextricable and cannot be fruitfully understood in isolation from one another.
While this is true, I don't think that it's possible to say that a generic culture such as "African-American culture" promotes a certain type of socioeconomic status, and because of this, you can't blame the culture for the SE status of a particular neighborhood.
If anything, this would the opposite of the polemical thrust of what I am saying.
(I'm much more interested in the ways in which economics produce culture. While there is causation that flows back the other way, this only becomes really theoretically important in (post)modern societies, which we are not talking about at present. We are talking about the problem of pre-modern societies having trouble becoming integrated into postmodern societies)
On August 13 2012 08:13 Stratos_speAr wrote: That can just as easily be blamed on socioeconomic factors as opposed to cultural factors.
While your point is valid, the two are inextricable and cannot be fruitfully understood in isolation from one another.
While this is true, I don't think that it's possible to say that a generic culture such as "African-American culture" promotes a certain type of socioeconomic status, and because of this, you can't blame the culture for the SE status of a particular neighborhood.
If culture means the essential attitudes and outlook of the people in a given region, than doesn't South Korean "culture", which values a degree of individual rights and private property, promote economic growth better than North Korean "culture", which values obedience to their dictator, despite the fact that the people and natural resources are very similar?
On August 13 2012 08:13 Stratos_speAr wrote: That can just as easily be blamed on socioeconomic factors as opposed to cultural factors.
While your point is valid, the two are inextricable and cannot be fruitfully understood in isolation from one another.
While this is true, I don't think that it's possible to say that a generic culture such as "African-American culture" promotes a certain type of socioeconomic status, and because of this, you can't blame the culture for the SE status of a particular neighborhood.
South Korean "culture", which values a degree of individual rights and private property
On August 13 2012 08:13 Stratos_speAr wrote: That can just as easily be blamed on socioeconomic factors as opposed to cultural factors.
While your point is valid, the two are inextricable and cannot be fruitfully understood in isolation from one another.
While this is true, I don't think that it's possible to say that a generic culture such as "African-American culture" promotes a certain type of socioeconomic status, and because of this, you can't blame the culture for the SE status of a particular neighborhood.
South Korean "culture", which values a degree of individual rights and private property
Isn't that an import... ?
Yes...Just like communism was an import in North Korea (and the USSR)
The importation of liberal capitalism into South Korea, or the importation of Marxism-Leninism/Stalinism to North Korea, are entirely different phenomena from the original development of these ideas in a european context of relatively porous intellectual cultures. There it is much more relevant to speak of importation.
On August 13 2012 09:13 sam!zdat wrote: You'd be surprised at how little Marx has to do with soviet communism
(soviet communism is only a german import in the way that american liberalism is a french import)
Off topic but this is wrong, early marxist communism does not have a lot to do with Soviet communism (weird word since soviet communism also changed a lot over time) but Marx himself, after traveling through Soviet thought that this was a better alternative.
I'm not saying that this makes either Soviet communism, (marx-leninism I assume?) Marxism or any other sort of communism more "wrong". I'm just saying that you have to at least be historically correct. I call myself an anarchocommunist but I can still admit that Marx wasn't perfect.
On August 13 2012 09:13 sam!zdat wrote: You'd be surprised at how little Marx has to do with soviet communism
(soviet communism is only a german import in the way that american liberalism is a french import)
Off topic but this is wrong, early marxist communism does not have a lot to do with Soviet communism (weird word since soviet communism also changed a lot over time) but Marx himself, after traveling through Soviet thought that this was a better alternative and changed his definition.
I'm not saying that this makes either Soviet communism, (marx-leninism I assume?) Marxism or any other sort of communism more "wrong". I'm just saying that you have to at least be historically correct. I call myself an anarchocommunist but I can still admit that Marx wasn't perfect.
On August 13 2012 09:22 sam!zdat wrote: The importation of liberal capitalism into South Korea, or the importation of Marxism-Leninism/Stalinism to North Korea, are entirely different phenomena from the original development of these ideas in a european context of relatively porous intellectual cultures. There it is much more relevant to speak of importation.
The context is different, the process is the same.
On August 13 2012 09:13 sam!zdat wrote: You'd be surprised at how little Marx has to do with soviet communism
(soviet communism is only a german import in the way that american liberalism is a french import)
Off topic but this is wrong, early marxist communism does not have a lot to do with Soviet communism (weird word since soviet communism also changed a lot over time) but Marx himself, after traveling through Soviet thought that this was a better alternative.
I'm not saying that this makes either Soviet communism, (marx-leninism I assume?) Marxism or any other sort of communism more "wrong". I'm just saying that you have to at least be historically correct. I call myself an anarchocommunist but I can still admit that Marx wasn't perfect.
In what text would one discover this "Marxist Communism"? Marx spends very little time describing what communism is going to be like.
Marx was appalled at the sort of things that "Marxists" were carrying out in his name.
On August 13 2012 09:22 sam!zdat wrote: The importation of liberal capitalism into South Korea, or the importation of Marxism-Leninism/Stalinism to North Korea, are entirely different phenomena from the original development of these ideas in a european context of relatively porous intellectual cultures. There it is much more relevant to speak of importation.
The context is different, the process is the same.
It is not the same process. In this case it is much more about imperialism...
I guess it is the same process if that process is "ideas spreading," but the ways in which this happened are very different (because of the very different context...)
On August 13 2012 09:13 sam!zdat wrote: You'd be surprised at how little Marx has to do with soviet communism
(soviet communism is only a german import in the way that american liberalism is a french import)
Off topic but this is wrong, early marxist communism does not have a lot to do with Soviet communism (weird word since soviet communism also changed a lot over time) but Marx himself, after traveling through Soviet thought that this was a better alternative.
I'm not saying that this makes either Soviet communism, (marx-leninism I assume?) Marxism or any other sort of communism more "wrong". I'm just saying that you have to at least be historically correct. I call myself an anarchocommunist but I can still admit that Marx wasn't perfect.
Marx died in like 1884 did he not and the russian revolution was in 1917, how could he have possibly travelled through the soviet union? :o
On August 13 2012 09:13 sam!zdat wrote: You'd be surprised at how little Marx has to do with soviet communism
(soviet communism is only a german import in the way that american liberalism is a french import)
Off topic but this is wrong, early marxist communism does not have a lot to do with Soviet communism (weird word since soviet communism also changed a lot over time) but Marx himself, after traveling through Soviet thought that this was a better alternative.
I'm not saying that this makes either Soviet communism, (marx-leninism I assume?) Marxism or any other sort of communism more "wrong". I'm just saying that you have to at least be historically correct. I call myself an anarchocommunist but I can still admit that Marx wasn't perfect.
Marx died in like 1884 did he not and the russian revolution was in 1917, how could he have possibly travelled through the soviet union? :o
On August 13 2012 09:13 sam!zdat wrote: You'd be surprised at how little Marx has to do with soviet communism
(soviet communism is only a german import in the way that american liberalism is a french import)
Off topic but this is wrong, early marxist communism does not have a lot to do with Soviet communism (weird word since soviet communism also changed a lot over time) but Marx himself, after traveling through Soviet thought that this was a better alternative.
I'm not saying that this makes either Soviet communism, (marx-leninism I assume?) Marxism or any other sort of communism more "wrong". I'm just saying that you have to at least be historically correct. I call myself an anarchocommunist but I can still admit that Marx wasn't perfect.
Marx died in like 1884 did he not and the russian revolution was in 1917, how could he have possibly travelled through the soviet union? :o
On August 13 2012 09:13 sam!zdat wrote: You'd be surprised at how little Marx has to do with soviet communism
(soviet communism is only a german import in the way that american liberalism is a french import)
Off topic but this is wrong, early marxist communism does not have a lot to do with Soviet communism (weird word since soviet communism also changed a lot over time) but Marx himself, after traveling through Soviet thought that this was a better alternative.
I'm not saying that this makes either Soviet communism, (marx-leninism I assume?) Marxism or any other sort of communism more "wrong". I'm just saying that you have to at least be historically correct. I call myself an anarchocommunist but I can still admit that Marx wasn't perfect.
Marx died in like 1884 did he not and the russian revolution was in 1917, how could he have possibly travelled through the soviet union? :o
On August 11 2012 15:42 zalz wrote: Multiculturalism doesn't work. You need some form of cohession, some larger culture that everyone somehow feels a part of.
If not that, it is simply cultural segregation, something which is already a fact in many places in Europe.
How well people of different groups function relative to other groups is dependent on the social and economic conditions such as ability to find jobs rather than some groups of people just having better belief and value systems that others. Religious and political extremism emerge from tangible problems like not being able to make ends meet while living in a hostile environment. Even in a country like Canada (or any other country with a large immigrant population) where recognition of foreign credentials is an issue (let immigrants in based on credentials, don't give immigrants jobs they're qualified for), muliticulturalism has not been an problem and policies favouring multiculturalism have proven to work.
Canada isn't Europe.
Your position on the world actually influences the kind of refugees you are likely to pick up.
Canada is impossible to reach for economical refugees. Meanwhile, every rich family that doesn't like the political waves in their respective country can book a ticket to Canada or America, depending on their preference.
The economical refugees come for the money, the political refugees come for the culture.
Virutally all immigrants, illegal immigrants and arguably most refugees comes for the money. Immigrants vastly outnumber the other two groups. It's just that the money is more accessible here because we have a system that creates more opportunities. People don't just go "I hate this country, I'm going to Canada". I've never met an immigrant who did not have national/ethnic/religious pride or identity that they brought from their home country with them, but of course that's just anecdotal evidence. But if you read the links or other studies about the sociology of Canada, you'll find that people here identify both as Canadians and as whatever else they want to identify with. For the most part it's simply the fact that Canada is just less xenophobic and has a higher demand for skilled labour.
actually. canada is a bad place for refugees. do not come to canada if you are a refugee ;( this talk/lecture i went to also had refugees / people who were refugees come to the talk and then talk about their experiences and yeah... canada... not so good after all T_T;;
On August 11 2012 15:42 zalz wrote: Multiculturalism doesn't work. You need some form of cohession, some larger culture that everyone somehow feels a part of.
If not that, it is simply cultural segregation, something which is already a fact in many places in Europe.
How well people of different groups function relative to other groups is dependent on the social and economic conditions such as ability to find jobs rather than some groups of people just having better belief and value systems that others. Religious and political extremism emerge from tangible problems like not being able to make ends meet while living in a hostile environment. Even in a country like Canada (or any other country with a large immigrant population) where recognition of foreign credentials is an issue (let immigrants in based on credentials, don't give immigrants jobs they're qualified for), muliticulturalism has not been an problem and policies favouring multiculturalism have proven to work.
Canada isn't Europe.
Your position on the world actually influences the kind of refugees you are likely to pick up.
Canada is impossible to reach for economical refugees. Meanwhile, every rich family that doesn't like the political waves in their respective country can book a ticket to Canada or America, depending on their preference.
The economical refugees come for the money, the political refugees come for the culture.
Virutally all immigrants, illegal immigrants and arguably most refugees comes for the money. Immigrants vastly outnumber the other two groups. It's just that the money is more accessible here because we have a system that creates more opportunities. People don't just go "I hate this country, I'm going to Canada". I've never met an immigrant who did not have national/ethnic/religious pride or identity that they brought from their home country with them, but of course that's just anecdotal evidence. But if you read the links or other studies about the sociology of Canada, you'll find that people here identify both as Canadians and as whatever else they want to identify with. For the most part it's simply the fact that Canada is just less xenophobic and has a higher demand for skilled labour.
actually. canada is a bad place for refugees. do not come to canada if you are a refugee ;( this talk/lecture i went to also had refugees / people who were refugees come to the talk and then talk about their experiences and yeah... canada... not so good after all T_T;;
The Bible is divinely inspired, the Quran is the literal word of god.
Christians derive the validity of their faith from the miracles performed by Jesus. Muslims literally believe that their religion's miracle is the Quran, a book they believe is not only flawless, but contains hidden wisdom and revelations in science and the future.
You may consider it a small difference, but the results are massive.
Anyone who doubts the Quran is simply not a muslim, because he goes against the literal word of god. Meanwhile, Christians can claim the Bible is divine, but they also acknowledge that it can contain errors.
The result is that Christians are permitted to doubt and discard more or less anything they want. Who is to say what is divine and what is a translation error?
Meanwhile, muslims are expected to accept everything, because the entire book is the word of god and god is without flaw.
This however has not kept the Muslim faith singular in outlook.
The truth that not many people realize, is that the Quran is actually not that important in Islam. Now when I say this, I don't mean that it isn't the most divine text in their faith, because it is, but in terms of practical use, it doesn't do much.
The Hadiths, collections of the life of the prophet, are far more important for day-to-day muslim life. The Quran mostly serves as the divine foundation, whilst the Hadiths are the house build upon the foundation.
The problem with that is that every reading of Islam is considered, by the respective sect, the absolute and unalterable truth, because they all derive their legitimacy from a text that they belief has no flaw.
So no, the Quran and the Bible should not be considered similar, even though the Quran is largely a plagiarism from the new testament, just as the new testament is a plagiarism of the old testament.
(For the record, the Quran is anything but flawless, but it isn't a debate you should ever even try to have because the texts can be twisted to such a degree that even the parts that support a geo-centric universe are eventually considered "correct in a way.")
Good post, many people seem to forget that the Quran is the literal word of God which the Bible is NOT. Can you doubt the words of God?
The Bible is divinely inspired, the Quran is the literal word of god.
Christians derive the validity of their faith from the miracles performed by Jesus. Muslims literally believe that their religion's miracle is the Quran, a book they believe is not only flawless, but contains hidden wisdom and revelations in science and the future.
You may consider it a small difference, but the results are massive.
Anyone who doubts the Quran is simply not a muslim, because he goes against the literal word of god. Meanwhile, Christians can claim the Bible is divine, but they also acknowledge that it can contain errors.
The result is that Christians are permitted to doubt and discard more or less anything they want. Who is to say what is divine and what is a translation error?
Meanwhile, muslims are expected to accept everything, because the entire book is the word of god and god is without flaw.
This however has not kept the Muslim faith singular in outlook.
The truth that not many people realize, is that the Quran is actually not that important in Islam. Now when I say this, I don't mean that it isn't the most divine text in their faith, because it is, but in terms of practical use, it doesn't do much.
The Hadiths, collections of the life of the prophet, are far more important for day-to-day muslim life. The Quran mostly serves as the divine foundation, whilst the Hadiths are the house build upon the foundation.
The problem with that is that every reading of Islam is considered, by the respective sect, the absolute and unalterable truth, because they all derive their legitimacy from a text that they belief has no flaw.
So no, the Quran and the Bible should not be considered similar, even though the Quran is largely a plagiarism from the new testament, just as the new testament is a plagiarism of the old testament.
(For the record, the Quran is anything but flawless, but it isn't a debate you should ever even try to have because the texts can be twisted to such a degree that even the parts that support a geo-centric universe are eventually considered "correct in a way.")
Good post, many people seem to forget that the Quran is the literal word of God which the Bible is NOT. Can you doubt the words of God?
Well you can still read it differently. I recall reading in school that for instance a sentence such as "thieves right hand should be cut off" could be read as "we must teach criminals what's right, and thus separating the thief from the man" and such.
Essentially the bible and the Quran are treated the same. The difference is that a lot of Arab countries are more hard core in their religion than the west currently is. It's kind of like going back in time a couple of hundred years, or perhaps visiting one of those christian fundamentalists in southern USA- The bible could be questioned at the same point in time when the religion itself could be questioned. I don't think that the Spanish inquisition for instance would've given two fucks about you thinking that the translation was off if you would've gone around talking about the bible being wrong somewhere.
Afaik it's also fairly common to just be atheist. I've heard that a huge part of Iran's population are atheists for instance. I don't have any facts to back that up, it's just something that I've heard mentioned a lot. I think a fitting analogy would be for a relatively liberal country to have the pope as their leader.
I don't know about Iran, but I know that in Iraq it is not common to be an atheist. I was working with a guy who had been an outspoken atheist in Iraq, and he had to seek asylum in the states because it was dangerous for him to be there. (I was helping him translate a book he had written about his conversion from Islam to atheism into English.)
He said, "I did not like Saddam, but at least he was secular." I got the strong impression that he was unhappy with the wave of fundamentalism that was happening in the country after the fall of that regime.
On August 11 2012 19:49 Littlemuff wrote: When asian immigrants first came to UK. they were beaten, chased down roads, all sorts.
Happened to me as a tourist to New Zealand last month. 2 cars full of teenagers chased me and my family until we ran to the main road.
Makes me glad to live in California. In a suburb dominated by middle class Asians. People wouldn't even think about pulling that kind of shit.
I would like to apologise on behalf of New Zealand for that. That's actually pretty unusual to have happen. Teenagers can be stupid, but that is no excuses for their behaviour.
On August 11 2012 15:42 zalz wrote: Multiculturalism doesn't work. You need some form of cohession, some larger culture that everyone somehow feels a part of.
If not that, it is simply cultural segregation, something which is already a fact in many places in Europe.
How well people of different groups function relative to other groups is dependent on the social and economic conditions such as ability to find jobs rather than some groups of people just having better belief and value systems that others. Religious and political extremism emerge from tangible problems like not being able to make ends meet while living in a hostile environment. Even in a country like Canada (or any other country with a large immigrant population) where recognition of foreign credentials is an issue (let immigrants in based on credentials, don't give immigrants jobs they're qualified for), muliticulturalism has not been an problem and policies favouring multiculturalism have proven to work.
Canada isn't Europe.
Your position on the world actually influences the kind of refugees you are likely to pick up.
Canada is impossible to reach for economical refugees. Meanwhile, every rich family that doesn't like the political waves in their respective country can book a ticket to Canada or America, depending on their preference.
The economical refugees come for the money, the political refugees come for the culture.
Virutally all immigrants, illegal immigrants and arguably most refugees comes for the money. Immigrants vastly outnumber the other two groups. It's just that the money is more accessible here because we have a system that creates more opportunities. People don't just go "I hate this country, I'm going to Canada". I've never met an immigrant who did not have national/ethnic/religious pride or identity that they brought from their home country with them, but of course that's just anecdotal evidence. But if you read the links or other studies about the sociology of Canada, you'll find that people here identify both as Canadians and as whatever else they want to identify with. For the most part it's simply the fact that Canada is just less xenophobic and has a higher demand for skilled labour.
actually. canada is a bad place for refugees. do not come to canada if you are a refugee ;( this talk/lecture i went to also had refugees / people who were refugees come to the talk and then talk about their experiences and yeah... canada... not so good after all T_T;;
Multiculturalism should be allowed to an extent. However you can't stop racism because it comes naturally for all humans. Therefore a heavy amount of multiculturalism is not healthy for otherwise homogeneous nations.
Even in Germany, where there are a lot of Turkish immigrants (they are citizens of Germany and a few are Turkish citizens), there is sometimes quite a bit of ethnic tension here and there. There are now parliamentarians within the German government who have Turkish ancestry.
Turks now have a voice in German politics and mostly vote for the Social Democratic Party.
Believe or not, Germans and Turks get along pretty well minus a few ethnic violence incidents back in the 1990s. However a lot of conservative Germans are still against granting Turks citizenship. I am not really against it but I would be more careful as to who Germany should grant citizenship to.
On August 14 2012 19:03 Kavallerie wrote: Even in Germany, where there are a lot of Turkish immigrants (they are citizens of Germany or at least permanent residents), there is sometimes quite a bit of ethnic tension here and there. There are now parliamentarians within the German government who have Turkish ancestry.
Turks now have a voice in German politics and mostly vote for the Social Democratic Party.
Believe or not, Turks and Germans get along pretty well minus a few ethnic violence incidents back in the 1990s. However a lot of conservative Germans are still against granting Turks citizenship. I am not really against it but I would be more careful as to who Germany should grant citizenship to.
See, that's because most Turkish immigrants and average Germans actually share quite a bit in common--namely, a focus on honest work, clean living, and a desire for self-improvement. Countries where the immigrant population doesn't share that sentiment have much more problems, although such examples are *extremely* rare.
On August 14 2012 18:22 Kavallerie wrote: Multiculturalism should be allowed to an extent. However you can't stop racism because it comes naturally for all humans. Therefore a heavy amount of multiculturalism is not healthy for otherwise homogeneous nations.
Why would racism be natural? Racism has to do with prejudice. Prejudice is not something that comes naturally.
On August 14 2012 19:03 Kavallerie wrote: Even in Germany, where there are a lot of Turkish immigrants (they are citizens of Germany and a few are Turkish citizens), there is sometimes quite a bit of ethnic tension here and there. There are now parliamentarians within the German government who have Turkish ancestry.
Turks now have a voice in German politics and mostly vote for the Social Democratic Party.
Believe or not, Germans and Turks get along pretty well minus a few ethnic violence incidents back in the 1990s. However a lot of conservative Germans are still against granting Turks citizenship. I am not really against it but I would be more careful as to who Germany should grant citizenship to.
Interesting , actually i am subscribed to Russia Today on youtube and they made a video report today saying that many Turks are leaving Europe now because of economic issues there.They showed graphic stating economic growth in Turkey last year was 7.5% whereas in Europe is was i think 1.6%.We are not just talking recent immigrants either but people hwo were born in Europe with Turkish ancestry.
This also fits in with an article i read a month or so ago showing many Mexican illegal immigrants to the US are also moving back to Mexico due to downturn in the economy particularly construction sectors in the US so yes it is mostly economic.
In short when the governments of western nations keep cutting back welfare payments and the economies continue declining many of these foreigners will go home.Do not forget also that bad economic conditions leads to rise in nationalism.
On August 14 2012 18:22 Kavallerie wrote: Multiculturalism should be allowed to an extent. However you can't stop racism because it comes naturally for all humans. Therefore a heavy amount of multiculturalism is not healthy for otherwise homogeneous nations.
Why would racism be natural? Racism has to do with prejudice. Prejudice is not something that comes naturally.
And yet it excists in every part of the world. Everyone is prejudiced to some extent anyway it's very normal for people to already judge someone by just looking at them and not knowing them at all.
On August 14 2012 18:22 Kavallerie wrote: Multiculturalism should be allowed to an extent. However you can't stop racism because it comes naturally for all humans. Therefore a heavy amount of multiculturalism is not healthy for otherwise homogeneous nations.
Why would racism be natural? Racism has to do with prejudice. Prejudice is not something that comes naturally.
Racism comes naturally, whether you would like to believe it or not. Many people are "racist" without even recognizing themselves as racists. That's why I don't like how the word "racist" is used in its current meaning as depicted by the media.
If you define yourself as part of the European or Caucasian race, there you go, you believe that a division in race exists in the world.
Racism and prejudice based on racism are two entirely different things. Discriminating someone based on race, now that is against the law and should not come naturally. However it does for some people.
Funny how there's never a mention of a south-east asian immigrant in this thread, while there are a ton of them in Europe, something to realize about them is that their social architecture is a lot more developed, their culture given time to mature, in effect their morals are better developed, they have a harder working mentality and are for all intents and purposes much closer to Europeans (even a communist chinese) then someone from the middle east.
We always consider cultures to be beautiful things that need to be nurtured or developed, this is complete bullshit ofcourse, some cultures should be discarded in favor of whatever the regional variety is, specifcally the European muslims, when considering a Muslim culture you have to realize that in 600-800 AD most muslim countries where conquered and forcibly made to accept Islam and arab culture, especially the second one is relevant as arab culture is nomadic, whereas practically all of the conquered where sedentary argrarically based kingdoms, due to this many prosperous north african countries fell into obscurity as nomads can not support a city and it would take until they reimbraced a sedentary non arabic, and in essence, non Islamic culture until they became actual powers again (the Moors or secular Turks for instance).
What this also means is that practically all muslim cultures are younger then 1400 years, a paltry sum compared to the amount of time Chinese or French had and which also easily explains why Islam seems so ass backwards when it comes to morals and freedom, it hasn't been given the time required yet to form a functional culture compared to the ones we are more familiar with.
On August 14 2012 19:03 Kavallerie wrote: Even in Germany, where there are a lot of Turkish immigrants (they are citizens of Germany and a few are Turkish citizens), there is sometimes quite a bit of ethnic tension here and there. There are now parliamentarians within the German government who have Turkish ancestry.
Turks now have a voice in German politics and mostly vote for the Social Democratic Party.
Believe or not, Germans and Turks get along pretty well minus a few ethnic violence incidents back in the 1990s. However a lot of conservative Germans are still against granting Turks citizenship. I am not really against it but I would be more careful as to who Germany should grant citizenship to.
It's true that normally Germans and Turks get along but there are still problems associated mainly with the Turkish population in Germany. With them being the largest foreign group in Germany, there are a lot of areas where they have segregated from the local society to such an extent that they interact only with eachother and there is the strange phenomenom of third generation Turks who cannot speak any German. Just take a look at Berlin Neu-Köln, Köln Ehrenfeld/Mülheim, and some parts of the Ruhr Gebiet. A lot of people with Turkish ancestry have integrated really well in society but there is still a significant part that unfortunately is not. That's one of the reasons why there was such an uproar when Erdogan spoke in front of 20k Turks in Cologne and told them that the most important thing for them is to keep their Turkish culture and shouldn't adopt Germany's one...
On August 14 2012 19:03 Kavallerie wrote: Even in Germany, where there are a lot of Turkish immigrants (they are citizens of Germany and a few are Turkish citizens), there is sometimes quite a bit of ethnic tension here and there. There are now parliamentarians within the German government who have Turkish ancestry.
Turks now have a voice in German politics and mostly vote for the Social Democratic Party.
Believe or not, Germans and Turks get along pretty well minus a few ethnic violence incidents back in the 1990s. However a lot of conservative Germans are still against granting Turks citizenship. I am not really against it but I would be more careful as to who Germany should grant citizenship to.
Interesting , actually i am subscribed to Russia Today on youtube and they made a video report today saying that many Turks are leaving Europe now because of economic issues there.They showed graphic stating economic growth in Turkey last year was 7.5% whereas in Europe is was i think 1.6%.We are not just talking recent immigrants either but people hwo were born in Europe with Turkish ancestry.
This also fits in with an article i read a month or so ago showing many Mexican illegal immigrants to the US are also moving back to Mexico due to downturn in the economy particularly construction sectors in the US so yes it is mostly economic.
In short when the governments of western nations keep cutting back welfare payments and the economies continue declining many of these foreigners will go home.Do not forget also that bad economic conditions leads to rise in nationalism.
Wages for unskilled and even skilled labor in Turkey are still lower than welfare checks in Germany, nevermind actual wages. The same applies to other European countries with a large Turkish population. I know several people born in Germany who are from Turskish ancestry and decided to live in Turkey, but none of them chose this because of the economic situation.
On August 14 2012 21:40 ggrrg wrote: Wages for unskilled and even skilled labor in Turkey are still lower than welfare checks in Germany, nevermind actual wages. The same applies to other European countries with a large Turkish population. I know several people born in Germany who are from Turskish ancestry and decided to live in Turkey, but none of them chose this because of the economic situation.
Like for like wage comparison is useless you must also compare house prices , food prices , taxes, fees and charges etc. Besides wage comparison is useless if you cannot get a job in Europe correct? Like i say Turkish growth 7.5% last year EU growth 1.6%....
Multiculturalism does work. It has to weave for generations, but it does work. Even from a small scale - I went to school/uni with many different people from many different backgrounds, viewing each other as equals. The only down side - from a long long term perspective - is the dilution of the cutlure who originally existed in the space, everywhere becomes the same with slight (probably mainly historic) differences.
On August 14 2012 21:40 ggrrg wrote: Wages for unskilled and even skilled labor in Turkey are still lower than welfare checks in Germany, nevermind actual wages. The same applies to other European countries with a large Turkish population. I know several people born in Germany who are from Turskish ancestry and decided to live in Turkey, but none of them chose this because of the economic situation.
Like for like wage comparison is useless you must also compare house prices , food prices , taxes, fees and charges etc. Besides wage comparison is useless if you cannot get a job in Europe correct? Like i say Turkish growth 7.5% last year EU growth 1.6%....
Pure growth numbers are just as useless if you don't take anything else in account. Besides the Turkish economy is very volatile it can jst as well decline 5% in the next year.
On August 14 2012 21:40 ggrrg wrote: Wages for unskilled and even skilled labor in Turkey are still lower than welfare checks in Germany, nevermind actual wages. The same applies to other European countries with a large Turkish population. I know several people born in Germany who are from Turskish ancestry and decided to live in Turkey, but none of them chose this because of the economic situation.
Like for like wage comparison is useless you must also compare house prices , food prices , taxes, fees and charges etc. Besides wage comparison is useless if you cannot get a job in Europe correct? Like i say Turkish growth 7.5% last year EU growth 1.6%....
Pure growth numbers are just as useless if you don't take anything else in account. Besides the Turkish economy is very volatile it can jst as well decline 5% in the next year.
This a 1000 times...
I'm sure there are 3d World countries with double digit growth rates, but they are still 3d world countries... 50% more than nearly nothing is still nearly nothing for a pretty long time... Compared to 1.5% of "loads".
On August 14 2012 21:40 ggrrg wrote: Wages for unskilled and even skilled labor in Turkey are still lower than welfare checks in Germany, nevermind actual wages. The same applies to other European countries with a large Turkish population. I know several people born in Germany who are from Turskish ancestry and decided to live in Turkey, but none of them chose this because of the economic situation.
Like for like wage comparison is useless you must also compare house prices , food prices , taxes, fees and charges etc. Besides wage comparison is useless if you cannot get a job in Europe correct? Like i say Turkish growth 7.5% last year EU growth 1.6%....
Pure growth numbers are just as useless if you don't take anything else in account. Besides the Turkish economy is very volatile it can jst as well decline 5% in the next year.
Turkish GDP per capita is 14,600 USD so nothing to be sneezed at.And i am taking everything into account , I am sure that $100 will buy you more in Turkey than in Germany.
Finally lets not forget how much the value of the Euro currency has fallen the past 8 months.It's down over 10% vs the Turkish Lira for example.
On August 14 2012 21:40 ggrrg wrote: Wages for unskilled and even skilled labor in Turkey are still lower than welfare checks in Germany, nevermind actual wages. The same applies to other European countries with a large Turkish population. I know several people born in Germany who are from Turskish ancestry and decided to live in Turkey, but none of them chose this because of the economic situation.
Like for like wage comparison is useless you must also compare house prices , food prices , taxes, fees and charges etc. Besides wage comparison is useless if you cannot get a job in Europe correct? Like i say Turkish growth 7.5% last year EU growth 1.6%....
You're right about simple wage comparison. At the same time you make exactly the same comparison about economic growth, which is just as useless. As far as my statement in my first is concerned, I should have added that purchasing power in West Europe is higher than in Turkey along all classes of society. There might be few exceptions, especially among high skilled laborers and graduates who cannot find work in West Europe but can do so in Turkey. However, for unskilled labor you're purchasing power is going to be higher in West Europe, not to mention than you also have insurance, often enough better working conditions, and a safety net to fall back on. Furthermore, you really underestimate welfare in Germany (from what I know BeNeLux, Austria, Scandinavia are comparable if not better). An unemployed family with two kids receive about €2.5k/month in benefits and cash, and obviously don't have to pay taxes. This also includes housing and insurance. You can be sure that no matter what job in Turkey you get as an unskilled worker, you won't be even remotely close to what welfare in Germany earns you and allows you to do.
On August 14 2012 21:40 ggrrg wrote: Wages for unskilled and even skilled labor in Turkey are still lower than welfare checks in Germany, nevermind actual wages. The same applies to other European countries with a large Turkish population. I know several people born in Germany who are from Turskish ancestry and decided to live in Turkey, but none of them chose this because of the economic situation.
Like for like wage comparison is useless you must also compare house prices , food prices , taxes, fees and charges etc. Besides wage comparison is useless if you cannot get a job in Europe correct? Like i say Turkish growth 7.5% last year EU growth 1.6%....
Pure growth numbers are just as useless if you don't take anything else in account. Besides the Turkish economy is very volatile it can jst as well decline 5% in the next year.
Turkish GDP per capita is 14,600 USD so nothing to be sneezed at.And i am taking everything into account , I am sure that $100 will buy you more in Turkey than in Germany. Finally lets not forget how much the value of the Euro currency has fallen the past 8 months.It's down over 10% vs the Turkish Lira for example.
The only thing this does, is increase purchasing power abroad...
Don't get me wrong, Turkey has had a very good economic development in recent years, but they are still far behind the European economic powerhouses. You are also completely right that prices in Turkey are normally lower than in West Europe, but the purchasing power is, too.
Well i never underestimated the welfare in those countries , i stated a few posts back that when western countries do eventually go bankrupt from the welfare state then these foreigners will mostly go home as they came for economic reasons on the whole.
As for value of the Euro declining this just means that imported goods are more expensive thus making standard of living lower.Europe imports most things these days - clothes , shoes , electronics , oil & gas (Mostly from Russia) etc.
On August 14 2012 21:40 ggrrg wrote: Wages for unskilled and even skilled labor in Turkey are still lower than welfare checks in Germany, nevermind actual wages. The same applies to other European countries with a large Turkish population. I know several people born in Germany who are from Turskish ancestry and decided to live in Turkey, but none of them chose this because of the economic situation.
Like for like wage comparison is useless you must also compare house prices , food prices , taxes, fees and charges etc. Besides wage comparison is useless if you cannot get a job in Europe correct? Like i say Turkish growth 7.5% last year EU growth 1.6%....
Pure growth numbers are just as useless if you don't take anything else in account. Besides the Turkish economy is very volatile it can jst as well decline 5% in the next year.
Turkish GDP per capita is 14,600 USD so nothing to be sneezed at.And i am taking everything into account , I am sure that $100 will buy you more in Turkey than in Germany.
Finally lets not forget how much the value of the Euro currency has fallen the past 8 months.It's down over 10% vs the Turkish Lira for example.
I recall going to turkey twice about 10 years ago, second time they needed to invent a 1,000,000 lira coin due to the rediculous inflation that was going on back then. I recall you payed a million for a roll of cookies, about 1.30 in euro's.
The turkish lira growing 10% compared to the Euro does not say much considering the depths from which it was climbing. There's a good reason why 10 years ago they didn't invite Turkey to join in the Euro.
On August 14 2012 21:40 ggrrg wrote: Wages for unskilled and even skilled labor in Turkey are still lower than welfare checks in Germany, nevermind actual wages. The same applies to other European countries with a large Turkish population. I know several people born in Germany who are from Turskish ancestry and decided to live in Turkey, but none of them chose this because of the economic situation.
Like for like wage comparison is useless you must also compare house prices , food prices , taxes, fees and charges etc. Besides wage comparison is useless if you cannot get a job in Europe correct? Like i say Turkish growth 7.5% last year EU growth 1.6%....
Care to look fo inflation and other factors? Inflation alone is 9 percent.
On August 14 2012 18:22 Kavallerie wrote: Multiculturalism should be allowed to an extent. However you can't stop racism because it comes naturally for all humans. Therefore a heavy amount of multiculturalism is not healthy for otherwise homogeneous nations.
Why would racism be natural? Racism has to do with prejudice. Prejudice is not something that comes naturally.
Racism comes naturally, whether you would like to believe it or not. Many people are "racist" without even recognizing themselves as racists. That's why I don't like how the word "racist" is used in its current meaning as depicted by the media.
If you define yourself as part of the European or Caucasian race, there you go, you believe that a division in race exists in the world.
Racism and prejudice based on racism are two entirely different things. Discriminating someone based on race, now that is against the law and should not come naturally. However it does for some people.
You might want to take another look at the definition of racism. Racism is discrimination based on race, or the belief that members of a race is superior to another. This does not come naturally, as children often don't have it. It's something that's learned later in life along with stereotypes.
On August 14 2012 18:22 Kavallerie wrote: Multiculturalism should be allowed to an extent. However you can't stop racism because it comes naturally for all humans. Therefore a heavy amount of multiculturalism is not healthy for otherwise homogeneous nations.
Why would racism be natural? Racism has to do with prejudice. Prejudice is not something that comes naturally.
Racism comes naturally, whether you would like to believe it or not. Many people are "racist" without even recognizing themselves as racists. That's why I don't like how the word "racist" is used in its current meaning as depicted by the media.
If you define yourself as part of the European or Caucasian race, there you go, you believe that a division in race exists in the world.
Racism and prejudice based on racism are two entirely different things. Discriminating someone based on race, now that is against the law and should not come naturally. However it does for some people.
You might want to take another look at the definition of racism. Racism is discrimination based on race, or the belief that members of a race is superior to another. This does not come naturally, as children often don't have it. It's something that's learned later in life along with stereotypes.
While I usually love your postings I think you might be wrong on this one. The basis for pretty much any "-ism" is that xy is not part of the groups I consider myself part of and some general concept of things being inferior/superior to others.
Children, if left alone, are incredibly cruel to other children who aren't "part of their group". Mostly because they lack the depth of moral codes and experiences adults have. Like, throw a black, white and yellow child into the same area and I'm sure they'll get along just fine. Throw in 5 white kids, a black kid and give them the initial thought of "blacks aren't the same as white" and they'll bully the kid to hell and back.
The major difference is that at an early age kids don't consider most things harmful (pretty much below 10-12), they hardly have preconveived ideas about color of skin, behaviour (or weird drooling guys in vans who offer them candy). Once they're past that age the whole bullying usually starts to get pretty heavy as soon as someone can be identified as an "outsider".
What's going on in France right at the moment. They burned down a school, a gymnasium, and ~ a hundred cars after one of their friend driving dangerously got stopped by the police.
/end of thread I guess
translation Black guy : "Represent "Amiens North-side", here I am with my Algerian, Tunisian, Morrocan, Gabonese, etc... Africans... homies ".
On August 14 2012 18:22 Kavallerie wrote: Multiculturalism should be allowed to an extent. However you can't stop racism because it comes naturally for all humans. Therefore a heavy amount of multiculturalism is not healthy for otherwise homogeneous nations.
Why would racism be natural? Racism has to do with prejudice. Prejudice is not something that comes naturally.
Racism comes naturally, whether you would like to believe it or not. Many people are "racist" without even recognizing themselves as racists. That's why I don't like how the word "racist" is used in its current meaning as depicted by the media.
If you define yourself as part of the European or Caucasian race, there you go, you believe that a division in race exists in the world.
Racism and prejudice based on racism are two entirely different things. Discriminating someone based on race, now that is against the law and should not come naturally. However it does for some people.
You might want to take another look at the definition of racism. Racism is discrimination based on race, or the belief that members of a race is superior to another. This does not come naturally, as children often don't have it. It's something that's learned later in life along with stereotypes.
While I usually love your postings I think you might be wrong on this one. The basis for pretty much any "-ism" is that xy is not part of the groups I consider myself part of and some general concept of things being inferior/superior to others.
Children, if left alone, are incredibly cruel to other children who aren't "part of their group". Mostly because they lack the depth of moral codes and experiences adults have. Like, throw a black, white and yellow child into the same area and I'm sure they'll get along just fine. Throw in 5 white kids, a black kid and give them the initial thought of "blacks aren't the same as white" and they'll bully the kid to hell and back.
The major difference is that at an early age kids don't consider most things harmful (pretty much below 10-12), they hardly have preconveived ideas about color of skin, behaviour (or weird drooling guys in vans who offer them candy). Once they're past that age the whole bullying usually starts to get pretty heavy as soon as someone can be identified as an "outsider".
Yeah, it might've been a bad point. I was just reminiscing my childhood and I went to school with one black kid and the rest of the school was all white. I only recall being a little jealous that I couldn't get that curly hair as I hated going to the hairdresser. Later on there were kids picking on a guy for having ugly clothes, but none ever saw the black kid as different really. I still think that racism comes in the same way as religion in the sense that different versions have popped out all over the world, and it's very common, but it's not something that comes individually, but rather something that is taught or learned when you get a little older.
On August 14 2012 18:22 Kavallerie wrote: Multiculturalism should be allowed to an extent. However you can't stop racism because it comes naturally for all humans. Therefore a heavy amount of multiculturalism is not healthy for otherwise homogeneous nations.
Why would racism be natural? Racism has to do with prejudice. Prejudice is not something that comes naturally.
Racism comes naturally, whether you would like to believe it or not. Many people are "racist" without even recognizing themselves as racists. That's why I don't like how the word "racist" is used in its current meaning as depicted by the media.
If you define yourself as part of the European or Caucasian race, there you go, you believe that a division in race exists in the world.
Racism and prejudice based on racism are two entirely different things. Discriminating someone based on race, now that is against the law and should not come naturally. However it does for some people.
You might want to take another look at the definition of racism. Racism is discrimination based on race, or the belief that members of a race is superior to another. This does not come naturally, as children often don't have it. It's something that's learned later in life along with stereotypes.
While I usually love your postings I think you might be wrong on this one. The basis for pretty much any "-ism" is that xy is not part of the groups I consider myself part of and some general concept of things being inferior/superior to others.
Children, if left alone, are incredibly cruel to other children who aren't "part of their group". Mostly because they lack the depth of moral codes and experiences adults have. Like, throw a black, white and yellow child into the same area and I'm sure they'll get along just fine. Throw in 5 white kids, a black kid and give them the initial thought of "blacks aren't the same as white" and they'll bully the kid to hell and back.
The major difference is that at an early age kids don't consider most things harmful (pretty much below 10-12), they hardly have preconveived ideas about color of skin, behaviour (or weird drooling guys in vans who offer them candy). Once they're past that age the whole bullying usually starts to get pretty heavy as soon as someone can be identified as an "outsider".
Yep, Lord of the Flies--the in group ended up bullying Piggy to death simply because Piggy was the only one of the marooned survivors who wore glasses.
On August 14 2012 18:22 Kavallerie wrote: Multiculturalism should be allowed to an extent. However you can't stop racism because it comes naturally for all humans. Therefore a heavy amount of multiculturalism is not healthy for otherwise homogeneous nations.
Why would racism be natural? Racism has to do with prejudice. Prejudice is not something that comes naturally.
Racism comes naturally, whether you would like to believe it or not. Many people are "racist" without even recognizing themselves as racists. That's why I don't like how the word "racist" is used in its current meaning as depicted by the media.
If you define yourself as part of the European or Caucasian race, there you go, you believe that a division in race exists in the world.
Racism and prejudice based on racism are two entirely different things. Discriminating someone based on race, now that is against the law and should not come naturally. However it does for some people.
You might want to take another look at the definition of racism. Racism is discrimination based on race, or the belief that members of a race is superior to another. This does not come naturally, as children often don't have it. It's something that's learned later in life along with stereotypes.
While I usually love your postings I think you might be wrong on this one. The basis for pretty much any "-ism" is that xy is not part of the groups I consider myself part of and some general concept of things being inferior/superior to others.
Children, if left alone, are incredibly cruel to other children who aren't "part of their group". Mostly because they lack the depth of moral codes and experiences adults have. Like, throw a black, white and yellow child into the same area and I'm sure they'll get along just fine. Throw in 5 white kids, a black kid and give them the initial thought of "blacks aren't the same as white" and they'll bully the kid to hell and back.
The major difference is that at an early age kids don't consider most things harmful (pretty much below 10-12), they hardly have preconveived ideas about color of skin, behaviour (or weird drooling guys in vans who offer them candy). Once they're past that age the whole bullying usually starts to get pretty heavy as soon as someone can be identified as an "outsider".
Yep, Lord of the Flies--the in group ended up bullying Piggy to death simply because Piggy was the only one of the marooned survivors who wore glasses.
In Harry Potter none regarded the black kids differently.
On August 14 2012 18:22 Kavallerie wrote: Multiculturalism should be allowed to an extent. However you can't stop racism because it comes naturally for all humans. Therefore a heavy amount of multiculturalism is not healthy for otherwise homogeneous nations.
Why would racism be natural? Racism has to do with prejudice. Prejudice is not something that comes naturally.
Racism comes naturally, whether you would like to believe it or not. Many people are "racist" without even recognizing themselves as racists. That's why I don't like how the word "racist" is used in its current meaning as depicted by the media.
If you define yourself as part of the European or Caucasian race, there you go, you believe that a division in race exists in the world.
Racism and prejudice based on racism are two entirely different things. Discriminating someone based on race, now that is against the law and should not come naturally. However it does for some people.
You might want to take another look at the definition of racism. Racism is discrimination based on race, or the belief that members of a race is superior to another. This does not come naturally, as children often don't have it. It's something that's learned later in life along with stereotypes.
While I usually love your postings I think you might be wrong on this one. The basis for pretty much any "-ism" is that xy is not part of the groups I consider myself part of and some general concept of things being inferior/superior to others.
Children, if left alone, are incredibly cruel to other children who aren't "part of their group". Mostly because they lack the depth of moral codes and experiences adults have. Like, throw a black, white and yellow child into the same area and I'm sure they'll get along just fine. Throw in 5 white kids, a black kid and give them the initial thought of "blacks aren't the same as white" and they'll bully the kid to hell and back.
The major difference is that at an early age kids don't consider most things harmful (pretty much below 10-12), they hardly have preconveived ideas about color of skin, behaviour (or weird drooling guys in vans who offer them candy). Once they're past that age the whole bullying usually starts to get pretty heavy as soon as someone can be identified as an "outsider".
Yep, Lord of the Flies--the in group ended up bullying Piggy to death simply because Piggy was the only one of the marooned survivors who wore glasses.
In Harry Potter none regarded the black kids differently.
That's because they were busy discriminating against everyone with Muggle blood (in between trying to save the world and not get slaughtered by death eaters).
Having a mutual enemy helps tons. My 6th grade teacher used to say something that I now regard as very wise:
"An alien invasion would be the only scenario under which all of humanity could unite in peace"
Multiculturalism can work as long as one of the cultures isn't antagonistic to the other(s). The issue is when you have a minority group that is encouraged to feel like they're discriminated against and have no hope succeeding in the system they're in. So they give up trying to assimilate, they take up alternative structures of meaning (gangs, etc), and their entire culture becomes an antagonistic "F U" to mainstream society (behavior, speech, dress, etc) to the point where life is unpleasant for everyone. I don't think it's coincidental that Obama (the most successful black American in history) was essentially raised outside of black American culture (Hawaii and southeast Asia). And if you look at the highest paid blacks in the US, they are predominately recent African immigrants working in the medical field with PhDs. They didn't have the black American worldview hammered into them so they didn't have the same barriers to integration. This is why I think it's incredible harmful and irresponsible for people like Russell Simmons and Joe Biden to say "they're going to put you in chains" or "tear our people apart". Those kinds of statements only help to keep that antagonism an essential part of the black American identity.
It described the rioters as “the opposition” and ran through the list of the mostly Muslim former French colonies from which it said they were from: “Algerians, Tunisians, Moroccans, Gabonese, Malians and Cameroonians, we are all here and we are opposing.”
Multiculturalism, won't work if the people aren't willing to assimilate.
When a countries economy goes down, some of the first people to be blamed are those on welfare with high rape rates. Most of these are people are illegal immigrants in first world societies.
IMO, once the economy collapses in Europe, I expect there to be some very violent ethnic conflict in the horizon. Just look at Greece with their 'Golden Dawn' party movement. When shit hits the fan, and people don't have jobs, a lot of European countries will go the same way as Greece...
Multiculturalism doesn't work because you need certain public values and beliefs to be held by the vast majority of the population. It's necessary for a civil society. If you have 85% of the population thinking women are equal to men and 15% thinking they aren't as a formal part of their identity, you're going to have friction and problems.
Multiculturalism could work if there are laws ensuring that anyone has the inalienable right to choose their cultural boundaries should they wish to with impunity. If people want to tread their women like dirt, that's fine. I might even tolerate it. But the women should have te right to defect and no harm should come to them. You end up with a shrinking culture without women and their only choice is to treat women better. Or is this too naive of a concept and people will just start chaining women in basements...
On August 16 2012 03:21 ddrddrddrddr wrote: Multiculturalism could work if there are laws ensuring that anyone has the inalienable right to choose their cultural boundaries should they wish to with impunity. If people want to tread their women like dirt, that's fine. I might even tolerate it. But the women should have te right to defect and no harm should come to them. You end up with a shrinking culture without women and their only choice is to treat women better. Or is this too naive of a concept and people will just start chaining women in basements...
In practise I doubt this will work its very difficult for women to leave their husband even when they get abused and hit. And it's common in some cultures for families to kick out the women who divorce from their men which makes it extremely difficult for them to choose for the self since they're usually not well educated and it's hard for them to get a job.
On August 16 2012 03:21 ddrddrddrddr wrote: Multiculturalism could work if there are laws ensuring that anyone has the inalienable right to choose their cultural boundaries should they wish to with impunity. If people want to tread their women like dirt, that's fine. I might even tolerate it. But the women should have te right to defect and no harm should come to them. You end up with a shrinking culture without women and their only choice is to treat women better. Or is this too naive of a concept and people will just start chaining women in basements...
In practise I doubt this will work its very difficult for women to leave their husband even when they get abused and hit. And it's common in some cultures for families to kick out the women who divorce from their men which makes it extremely difficult for them to choose for the self since they're usually not well educated and it's hard for them to get a job.
Actually i recall a case in the UK a few years back where a muslim woman who wore a headscarf permanently applied for a job at a hairdressing salon.The employer at the salon at the job interview asked this woman if she would take her scarf off while working at the salon so that people who went for their haircut could see her hair and maybe ask for that style and she refused.
Anyhow she did not get the job and then sued the employer and won.I'm sure the story is still out there if you want to read more about it.My point is wearing headscarves and burkhas decreases their job opportunities as well , not just their general lack of job experience or education.
On August 16 2012 03:21 ddrddrddrddr wrote: Multiculturalism could work if there are laws ensuring that anyone has the inalienable right to choose their cultural boundaries should they wish to with impunity. If people want to tread their women like dirt, that's fine. I might even tolerate it. But the women should have te right to defect and no harm should come to them. You end up with a shrinking culture without women and their only choice is to treat women better. Or is this too naive of a concept and people will just start chaining women in basements...
In practise I doubt this will work its very difficult for women to leave their husband even when they get abused and hit. And it's common in some cultures for families to kick out the women who divorce from their men which makes it extremely difficult for them to choose for the self since they're usually not well educated and it's hard for them to get a job.
Actually i recall a case in the UK a few years back where a muslim woman who wore a headscarf permanently applied for a job at a hairdressing salon.The employer at the salon at the job interview asked this woman if she would take her scarf off while working at the salon so that people who went for their haircut could see her hair and maybe ask for that style and she refused.
Anyhow she did not get the job and then sued the employer and won.I'm sure the story is still out there if you want to read more about it.My point is wearing headscarves and burkhas decreases their job opportunities as well , not just their general lack of job experience or education.
A few days ago a Muslim woman sued disney for asking her to wear a headscarf which would be suited for their parks, she refused and is now in a courtroom to demand money
When one enter a muslim nation we should behave to their standards when a Muslim enters the west we should adapt to their standards, and guess what? we do! because they are so much more violent.
A lot. But imo the biggest issue is, that a country which pursues a multicultural policy like the one in most western countries, over a long period of time, is basically committing ethnic and cultural suicide.
On August 16 2012 22:20 Legate wrote: What is wrong with multiculturalism?
A lot. But imo the biggest issue is, that a country which pursues a multicultural policy like the one in most western countries, over a long period of time, is basically committing ethnic and cultural suicide.
I certainly hope we're committing ethnic and cultural suicide. Neither is worth preserving.
The danger is not that we'll lose our culture, but that it will be replaced by a repressive, evil one.
On August 16 2012 22:20 Legate wrote: What is wrong with multiculturalism?
A lot. But imo the biggest issue is, that a country which pursues a multicultural policy like the one in most western countries, over a long period of time, is basically committing ethnic and cultural suicide.
I certainly hope we're committing ethnic and cultural suicide. Neither is worth preserving.
The danger is not that we'll lose our culture, but that it will be replaced by a repressive, evil one.
You think our culture is going to be replaced by an evil one, but also that you hope for our culture to die completely? I think there's a lot in western philosophy that is worth keeping (free inquiry, expression, association, etc) don't you?
On August 11 2012 15:42 zalz wrote: Multiculturalism doesn't work. You need some form of cohession, some larger culture that everyone somehow feels a part of.
If not that, it is simply cultural segregation, something which is already a fact in many places in Europe.
Not all cultures are equal.
You are stupid for putting a value on culture, which is a product of many circumstantial things.
On August 11 2012 15:42 zalz wrote: Multiculturalism doesn't work. You need some form of cohession, some larger culture that everyone somehow feels a part of.
If not that, it is simply cultural segregation, something which is already a fact in many places in Europe.
Not all cultures are equal.
You are stupid for putting a value on culture, which is a product of many circumstantial things.
In what way does the circumstantial nature detract from the value? It seems a nonsensical statement.
On August 16 2012 22:20 Legate wrote: What is wrong with multiculturalism?
A lot. But imo the biggest issue is, that a country which pursues a multicultural policy like the one in most western countries, over a long period of time, is basically committing ethnic and cultural suicide.
I certainly hope we're committing ethnic and cultural suicide. Neither is worth preserving.
If you don't like the culture in the US why not move elsewhere.This self defeating negative crap gets us nowhere.
You think our culture is going to be replaced by an evil one, but also that you hope for our culture to die completely? I think there's a lot in western philosophy that is worth keeping (free inquiry, expression, association, etc) don't you?
The problem boils down to inept governments.How many people on Wall Street were jailed for the 2008 financial crisis? If no-one (OK except small fry Bernie Madoff) was jailed does that mean noone did anything wrong? Most of Obamas advisors are ex Wall Street that should tell you something and the Republicans are just as bad.
Then you've got the welfare culture where unemployed workshys think they are owed a living by hard working folks.Time to roll back the welfare state and you might start seeing strong work ethic and other values start creeping back into more of the population.Society would be better off.
Excuse me, but multiculturalism is responsible for huge bounds in culture. Jazz comes from African rhythms mixing with western tonalities and instruments. It led to Rock and Pop. This Afro-European music has essentially dominated the globe because it's just so much better than everything before it.
As for the "racism is natural" charge, Implicit Racism is very different from Explicit Racism. People do not create bigoted laws based on Implicit Racism. Almost everyone is an implicit racist. That's not at all a fair charge.
I seriously don't understand why women are free to use their natural "indirect and psychological" violence while men are forced to be on a playground which isnt theirs.
The cleric's premisse is "if YOU beat your wife". He never discussed about the reasons, but you obviously need to have a good one.
In case she harasses you psychologically very hard, or cheats with another man, I don't see anything wrong with light beating not causing any bruises. Claiming there's virtually no scenario where light beatings could be an option is by far more extremist.
I seriously don't understand why women are free to use their natural "indirect and psychological" violence while men are forced to be on a playground which isnt theirs.
The cleric's premisse is "if YOU beat your wife". He never discussed about the reasons, but you obviously need to have a good one.
In case she harasses you psychologically very hard, or cheats with another man, I don't see anything wrong with light beating not causing any bruises. Claiming there's virtually no scenario where light beatings could be an option is by far more extremist.
Dude, physical violence in the context of an intimate relationship is never okay. Kind of scary that people still think it is.
If she's treating you like shit, it doesn't give you the right to beat her. It does, however, give you the right to leave, and leave her penniless with the divorce settlement (assuming you were smart and got a pre-nup drafted and signed in a male-friendly jurisdiction.)
I seriously don't understand why women are free to use their natural "indirect and psychological" violence while men are forced to be on a playground which isnt theirs.
The cleric's premisse is "if YOU beat your wife". He never discussed about the reasons, but you obviously need to have a good one.
In case she harasses you psychologically very hard, or cheats with another man, I don't see anything wrong with light beating not causing any bruises. Claiming there's virtually no scenario where light beatings could be an option is by far more extremist.
Dude, physical violence in the context of an intimate relationship is never okay. Kind of scary that people still think it is.
If she's treating you like shit, it doesn't give you the right to beat her. It does, however, give you the right to leave, and leave her penniless with the divorce settlement (assuming you were smart and got a pre-nup drafted and signed in a male-friendly jurisdiction.)
I'm not saying direct violence is the solution. My point is that in a few cases, I consider it to be healthier than the typical sly judiciary/psychological tricks.
Ofc, the "violence" I'm talking about has nothing to do with a beat-down or an uppercut.
I seriously don't understand why women are free to use their natural "indirect and psychological" violence while men are forced to be on a playground which isnt theirs.
The cleric's premisse is "if YOU beat your wife". He never discussed about the reasons, but you obviously need to have a good one.
In case she harasses you psychologically very hard, or cheats with another man, I don't see anything wrong with light beating not causing any bruises. Claiming there's virtually no scenario where light beatings could be an option is by far more extremist.
Dude, physical violence in the context of an intimate relationship is never okay. Kind of scary that people still think it is.
If she's treating you like shit, it doesn't give you the right to beat her. It does, however, give you the right to leave, and leave her penniless with the divorce settlement (assuming you were smart and got a pre-nup drafted and signed in a male-friendly jurisdiction.)
I'm not saying direct violence is the solution. My point is that in a few cases, I consider it to be healthier than the typical sly judiciary/psychological tricks.
Ofc, the "violence" I'm talking about has nothing to do with a beat-down or an uppercut.
???
You just said "I don't see anything wrong with a light beating." Yea, you're real classy here.
I'm a little confused. Are men too stupid and dim-witted to use psychological harm of your own? What exactly is the issue here? It sounds like you're just a dumb brute who only understands physical violence.
No. Hitting, restraining, and raping people is not okay. I think maybe you need to go back to Kindergarten to learn basic morality.
I seriously don't understand why women are free to use their natural "indirect and psychological" violence while men are forced to be on a playground which isnt theirs.
The cleric's premisse is "if YOU beat your wife". He never discussed about the reasons, but you obviously need to have a good one.
In case she harasses you psychologically very hard, or cheats with another man, I don't see anything wrong with light beating not causing any bruises. Claiming there's virtually no scenario where light beatings could be an option is by far more extremist.
Dude, physical violence in the context of an intimate relationship is never okay. Kind of scary that people still think it is.
If she's treating you like shit, it doesn't give you the right to beat her. It does, however, give you the right to leave, and leave her penniless with the divorce settlement (assuming you were smart and got a pre-nup drafted and signed in a male-friendly jurisdiction.)
I'm not saying direct violence is the solution. My point is that in a few cases, I consider it to be healthier than the typical sly judiciary/psychological tricks.
Ofc, the "violence" I'm talking about has nothing to do with a beat-down or an uppercut.
Here's the thing: if you ever feel the need to inflict pain, physical or emotional, your significant other, then it's time to just walk away. Love shouldn't ever be about wanting to hurt someone.
That's what I meant with the "right to leave". You always have a right to leave. That's the trump card in a relationship. The trump card should never be "I have a right to slap you around a little" or "emotionally abuse you to the point of making you suicidal".
Note that this applies for the woman just as much it does for the man. If a girl feels like she has the right to sleep around to take revenge on her boyfriend/husband, she's much better off just leaving. It's just not healthy to keep going in that sort of situation. Even if there's hope for a turnaround, chances are things will just get worse and eventually spiral out of control.
I seriously don't understand why women are free to use their natural "indirect and psychological" violence while men are forced to be on a playground which isnt theirs.
The cleric's premisse is "if YOU beat your wife". He never discussed about the reasons, but you obviously need to have a good one.
In case she harasses you psychologically very hard, or cheats with another man, I don't see anything wrong with light beating not causing any bruises. Claiming there's virtually no scenario where light beatings could be an option is by far more extremist.
Dude, physical violence in the context of an intimate relationship is never okay. Kind of scary that people still think it is.
If she's treating you like shit, it doesn't give you the right to beat her. It does, however, give you the right to leave, and leave her penniless with the divorce settlement (assuming you were smart and got a pre-nup drafted and signed in a male-friendly jurisdiction.)
I'm not saying direct violence is the solution. My point is that in a few cases, I consider it to be healthier than the typical sly judiciary/psychological tricks.
Ofc, the "violence" I'm talking about has nothing to do with a beat-down or an uppercut.
Here's the thing: if you ever feel the need to inflict pain, physical or emotional, your significant other, then it's time to just walk away. Love shouldn't ever be about wanting to hurt someone.
That's what I meant with the "right to leave". You always have a right to leave. That's the trump card in a relationship. The trump card should never be "I have a right to slap you around a little" or "emotionally abuse you to the point of making you suicidal".
Note that this applies for the woman just as much it does for the man. If a girl feels like she has the right to sleep around to take revenge on her boyfriend/husband, she's much better off just leaving. It's just not healthy to keep going in that sort of situation. Even if there's hope for a turnaround, chances are things will just get worse and eventually spiral out of control.
The thing is, the pain inflicted by men, even if it's light, is often obvious and thus (judiciarly but not only) reprehensible. While the typical sly emotionnal harassment or persecution is indirect, by far more damaging, but cannot be seen, thus can hardly be condemned.
I see in our society how indirect violence dominates everything, and I sometimes wish people would be more direct and less hypocritical. For instance, I much prefer being slapped in the face, rather than suddenly be ignored and having to bear her sneaky remarks on my back.
But sadly, today we only hear about violent stupid fucks, or smart never-violent gentlemen... thus when you talk about violence, even rationally, people automatically label you as a stupid machismo brute.
I seriously don't understand why women are free to use their natural "indirect and psychological" violence while men are forced to be on a playground which isnt theirs.
The cleric's premisse is "if YOU beat your wife". He never discussed about the reasons, but you obviously need to have a good one.
In case she harasses you psychologically very hard, or cheats with another man, I don't see anything wrong with light beating not causing any bruises. Claiming there's virtually no scenario where light beatings could be an option is by far more extremist.
Dude, physical violence in the context of an intimate relationship is never okay. Kind of scary that people still think it is.
If she's treating you like shit, it doesn't give you the right to beat her. It does, however, give you the right to leave, and leave her penniless with the divorce settlement (assuming you were smart and got a pre-nup drafted and signed in a male-friendly jurisdiction.)
I'm not saying direct violence is the solution. My point is that in a few cases, I consider it to be healthier than the typical sly judiciary/psychological tricks.
Ofc, the "violence" I'm talking about has nothing to do with a beat-down or an uppercut.
Here's the thing: if you ever feel the need to inflict pain, physical or emotional, your significant other, then it's time to just walk away. Love shouldn't ever be about wanting to hurt someone.
That's what I meant with the "right to leave". You always have a right to leave. That's the trump card in a relationship. The trump card should never be "I have a right to slap you around a little" or "emotionally abuse you to the point of making you suicidal".
Note that this applies for the woman just as much it does for the man. If a girl feels like she has the right to sleep around to take revenge on her boyfriend/husband, she's much better off just leaving. It's just not healthy to keep going in that sort of situation. Even if there's hope for a turnaround, chances are things will just get worse and eventually spiral out of control.
The thing is, the pain inflicted by men, even if it's light, is often obvious and thus (judiciarly but not only) reprehensible. While the typical sly emotionnal harassment or persecution is indirect, by far more damaging, but cannot be seen, thus can hardly be condemned.
I see in our society how indirect violence dominates everything, and I sometimes wish people would be more direct and less hypocritical. For instance, I much prefer being slapped in the face, rather than suddenly be ignored and having to bear her sneaky remarks on my back.
But sadly, today we only hear about violent stupid fucks, or smart never-violent gentlemen... thus when you talk about violence, even rationally, people automatically label you as a stupid machismo brute.
yeah but the idea is that the correct response to abuse, emotional or otherwise is not "more abuse". two wrongs don't make a right, don't fight fire with fire, and all that good stuff.
I mean, if she's being a bitch, then what you're saying is that there are two possible responses a) be a bitch right back at her b) PIMP SLAP DAT HO while SS is pointing out there's a third response c) find someone else who isn't a bitch
I seriously don't understand why women are free to use their natural "indirect and psychological" violence while men are forced to be on a playground which isnt theirs.
The cleric's premisse is "if YOU beat your wife". He never discussed about the reasons, but you obviously need to have a good one.
In case she harasses you psychologically very hard, or cheats with another man, I don't see anything wrong with light beating not causing any bruises. Claiming there's virtually no scenario where light beatings could be an option is by far more extremist.
Dude, physical violence in the context of an intimate relationship is never okay. Kind of scary that people still think it is.
If she's treating you like shit, it doesn't give you the right to beat her. It does, however, give you the right to leave, and leave her penniless with the divorce settlement (assuming you were smart and got a pre-nup drafted and signed in a male-friendly jurisdiction.)
I'm not saying direct violence is the solution. My point is that in a few cases, I consider it to be healthier than the typical sly judiciary/psychological tricks.
Ofc, the "violence" I'm talking about has nothing to do with a beat-down or an uppercut.
Here's the thing: if you ever feel the need to inflict pain, physical or emotional, your significant other, then it's time to just walk away. Love shouldn't ever be about wanting to hurt someone.
That's what I meant with the "right to leave". You always have a right to leave. That's the trump card in a relationship. The trump card should never be "I have a right to slap you around a little" or "emotionally abuse you to the point of making you suicidal".
Note that this applies for the woman just as much it does for the man. If a girl feels like she has the right to sleep around to take revenge on her boyfriend/husband, she's much better off just leaving. It's just not healthy to keep going in that sort of situation. Even if there's hope for a turnaround, chances are things will just get worse and eventually spiral out of control.
The thing is, the pain inflicted by men, even if it's light, is often obvious and thus (judiciarly but not only) reprehensible. While the typical sly emotionnal harassment or persecution is indirect, by far more damaging, but cannot be seen, thus can hardly be condemned.
I see in our society how indirect violence dominates everything, and I sometimes wish people would be more direct and less hypocritical. For instance, I much prefer being slapped in the face, rather than suddenly be ignored and having to bear her sneaky remarks on my back.
But sadly, today we only hear about violent stupid fucks, or smart never-violent gentlemen... thus when you talk about violence, even rationally, people automatically label you as a stupid machismo brute.
In case you haven't noticed, neither slapping, nor emotional harrassment are signs of a healthy relationship. As a matter of fact, they should prompt you to terminate the relationship. The difference between the two is that you can easily ignore "sneaky remarks" while it's quite difficult to ignore a fist in you face (or whatever "subtle" violence you have in mind).
While there is no guarantee that a majority opinion is correct, it is a valid reason to reevaluate yours in case you find yourself on the side of the minority. When taking into consideration that an overwhelming majority disagrees with you and that amongst the people agreeing with you are (ultra-)Islamic clerics whose views on morality stem from the 7th century, chances are that you are wrong and the labels people put onto you are legitamte.
I seriously don't understand why women are free to use their natural "indirect and psychological" violence while men are forced to be on a playground which isnt theirs.
The cleric's premisse is "if YOU beat your wife". He never discussed about the reasons, but you obviously need to have a good one.
In case she harasses you psychologically very hard, or cheats with another man, I don't see anything wrong with light beating not causing any bruises. Claiming there's virtually no scenario where light beatings could be an option is by far more extremist.
Dude, physical violence in the context of an intimate relationship is never okay. Kind of scary that people still think it is.
If she's treating you like shit, it doesn't give you the right to beat her. It does, however, give you the right to leave, and leave her penniless with the divorce settlement (assuming you were smart and got a pre-nup drafted and signed in a male-friendly jurisdiction.)
I'm not saying direct violence is the solution. My point is that in a few cases, I consider it to be healthier than the typical sly judiciary/psychological tricks.
Ofc, the "violence" I'm talking about has nothing to do with a beat-down or an uppercut.
Here's the thing: if you ever feel the need to inflict pain, physical or emotional, your significant other, then it's time to just walk away. Love shouldn't ever be about wanting to hurt someone.
That's what I meant with the "right to leave". You always have a right to leave. That's the trump card in a relationship. The trump card should never be "I have a right to slap you around a little" or "emotionally abuse you to the point of making you suicidal".
Note that this applies for the woman just as much it does for the man. If a girl feels like she has the right to sleep around to take revenge on her boyfriend/husband, she's much better off just leaving. It's just not healthy to keep going in that sort of situation. Even if there's hope for a turnaround, chances are things will just get worse and eventually spiral out of control.
The thing is, the pain inflicted by men, even if it's light, is often obvious and thus (judiciarly but not only) reprehensible. While the typical sly emotionnal harassment or persecution is indirect, by far more damaging, but cannot be seen, thus can hardly be condemned.
I see in our society how indirect violence dominates everything, and I sometimes wish people would be more direct and less hypocritical. For instance, I much prefer being slapped in the face, rather than suddenly be ignored and having to bear her sneaky remarks on my back.
But sadly, today we only hear about violent stupid fucks, or smart never-violent gentlemen... thus when you talk about violence, even rationally, people automatically label you as a stupid machismo brute.
Quite frankly, you sound like you have deep-seated trust issues with women. Your views on simply misogynistic, and I hope no woman has to deal with a relationship with you until you get over this crap.
When a child sees a strong horse and a weak horse, he will instinctively prefer the strong horse.
Multiculturalism weakens a nation's identity, causing the next generation to abandon it. It's an amazing way of passive aggressively destroying a country.
On August 23 2012 20:31 branflakes14 wrote: When a child sees a strong horse and a weak horse, he will instinctively prefer the strong horse.
Multiculturalism weakens a nation's identity, causing the next generation to abandon it. It's an amazing way of passive aggressively destroying a country.
You take this view to its logical conclusion, and you end up with Andres Brevik and Adolf Hitler.
But even a mild interpretation of this causes problems.
First, culture is not related to a nation's strength. The concept of a unified kingdom where the temporal authority had supreme control over all local affairs wasn't around before 1648 and the Treaty of Westphalia. Prior to that, people were bound up to first, the Church, and then their local Lord. And people of those ages were far more "culturally strong" than they are today.
Nations are built out of a political will, rather than a cultural one. A nation comes into existence to fulfill the social contract. A nation is not there to preserve or uphold a particular culture--it is there to preserve and increase the welfare of its citizenry.
Now, of course, if the citizenry themselves feel that their welfare is contingent upon preserving a culture, then the nation is dependent on preserving that culture. But before that? No. If the citizenry are happy with whatever culture they want to live with, then the nation, insofar as its criterion of strength is how well it serves its citizens, would be better off embracing multiculturalism.
Cultural purity is one of many possible ends, not the means, to national strength.
TLDR/example: If everyone in America wanted America to be exclusively "US culture" then the US is strong if it excludes foreign cultures. But if people in America are okay or even happy with lots of different cultures in the US, then the US is strong if it goes with multiculturalism.
On August 14 2012 18:22 Kavallerie wrote: Multiculturalism should be allowed to an extent. However you can't stop racism because it comes naturally for all humans. Therefore a heavy amount of multiculturalism is not healthy for otherwise homogeneous nations.
Why would racism be natural? Racism has to do with prejudice. Prejudice is not something that comes naturally.
Racism comes naturally, whether you would like to believe it or not. Many people are "racist" without even recognizing themselves as racists. That's why I don't like how the word "racist" is used in its current meaning as depicted by the media.
If you define yourself as part of the European or Caucasian race, there you go, you believe that a division in race exists in the world.
Racism and prejudice based on racism are two entirely different things. Discriminating someone based on race, now that is against the law and should not come naturally. However it does for some people.
You might want to take another look at the definition of racism. Racism is discrimination based on race, or the belief that members of a race is superior to another. This does not come naturally, as children often don't have it. It's something that's learned later in life along with stereotypes.
While I usually love your postings I think you might be wrong on this one. The basis for pretty much any "-ism" is that xy is not part of the groups I consider myself part of and some general concept of things being inferior/superior to others.
Children, if left alone, are incredibly cruel to other children who aren't "part of their group". Mostly because they lack the depth of moral codes and experiences adults have. Like, throw a black, white and yellow child into the same area and I'm sure they'll get along just fine. Throw in 5 white kids, a black kid and give them the initial thought of "blacks aren't the same as white" and they'll bully the kid to hell and back.
The major difference is that at an early age kids don't consider most things harmful (pretty much below 10-12), they hardly have preconveived ideas about color of skin, behaviour (or weird drooling guys in vans who offer them candy). Once they're past that age the whole bullying usually starts to get pretty heavy as soon as someone can be identified as an "outsider".
Yep, Lord of the Flies--the in group ended up bullying Piggy to death simply because Piggy was the only one of the marooned survivors who wore glasses.
I thought this thread seemed oddly familiar as a topic...now i know why. Lord of the flies. Read it last year for summer reading. It's a weird book in that it's just the ultimate hypothetical that proves without any proof besides the hypothetical events that iids are beasts. I agree with it, though.
I seriously don't understand why women are free to use their natural "indirect and psychological" violence while men are forced to be on a playground which isnt theirs.
The cleric's premisse is "if YOU beat your wife". He never discussed about the reasons, but you obviously need to have a good one.
In case she harasses you psychologically very hard, or cheats with another man, I don't see anything wrong with light beating not causing any bruises. Claiming there's virtually no scenario where light beatings could be an option is by far more extremist.
Dude, physical violence in the context of an intimate relationship is never okay. Kind of scary that people still think it is.
If she's treating you like shit, it doesn't give you the right to beat her. It does, however, give you the right to leave, and leave her penniless with the divorce settlement (assuming you were smart and got a pre-nup drafted and signed in a male-friendly jurisdiction.)
I'm not saying direct violence is the solution. My point is that in a few cases, I consider it to be healthier than the typical sly judiciary/psychological tricks.
Ofc, the "violence" I'm talking about has nothing to do with a beat-down or an uppercut.
Here's the thing: if you ever feel the need to inflict pain, physical or emotional, your significant other, then it's time to just walk away. Love shouldn't ever be about wanting to hurt someone.
That's what I meant with the "right to leave". You always have a right to leave. That's the trump card in a relationship. The trump card should never be "I have a right to slap you around a little" or "emotionally abuse you to the point of making you suicidal".
Note that this applies for the woman just as much it does for the man. If a girl feels like she has the right to sleep around to take revenge on her boyfriend/husband, she's much better off just leaving. It's just not healthy to keep going in that sort of situation. Even if there's hope for a turnaround, chances are things will just get worse and eventually spiral out of control.
The thing is, the pain inflicted by men, even if it's light, is often obvious and thus (judiciarly but not only) reprehensible. While the typical sly emotionnal harassment or persecution is indirect, by far more damaging, but cannot be seen, thus can hardly be condemned.
I see in our society how indirect violence dominates everything, and I sometimes wish people would be more direct and less hypocritical. For instance, I much prefer being slapped in the face, rather than suddenly be ignored and having to bear her sneaky remarks on my back.
But sadly, today we only hear about violent stupid fucks, or smart never-violent gentlemen... thus when you talk about violence, even rationally, people automatically label you as a stupid machismo brute.
Quite frankly, you sound like you have deep-seated trust issues with women. Your views on simply misogynistic, and I hope no woman has to deal with a relationship with you until you get over this crap.
Do you disagree with the statement that "indirect violence" or "psychological violence" dominates everything?
I worked with companies before when it comes to topics like mobbing, some of our most successful (and most liked) exercises actually involve (controlled) physical violence as in putting grown up men/women into a box ring. For our daily lives I wouldn't say that "we need more physical violence" is exactly a good approach, but I pretty much agree with psychological violence being much more destructive and much longer lasting in most cases.
Especially when it comes to e.g. mobbing women are much harder to work with. Compared to similar situations with only males they are more elusive and more refined in their.. well... "mechanics" when it comes to stuff like this. However, they are from my experience also much easier "to get" on an emotional level because tools like role playing, role-reversals and mental exercises seem to hit them much harder compared to men.
Besides that, this should be about psychological vs physical violence if at all, not about women vs men. Calling out that he has "misogynistic views" and "deep-seated trust issues" is however completely out of line. While on thin ice because it's politically incorrect and with also rather shaky conclusions his initial point IS pretty valid after all: Our society loves psychological violence.
I seriously don't understand why women are free to use their natural "indirect and psychological" violence while men are forced to be on a playground which isnt theirs.
The cleric's premisse is "if YOU beat your wife". He never discussed about the reasons, but you obviously need to have a good one.
In case she harasses you psychologically very hard, or cheats with another man, I don't see anything wrong with light beating not causing any bruises. Claiming there's virtually no scenario where light beatings could be an option is by far more extremist.
Dude, physical violence in the context of an intimate relationship is never okay. Kind of scary that people still think it is.
If she's treating you like shit, it doesn't give you the right to beat her. It does, however, give you the right to leave, and leave her penniless with the divorce settlement (assuming you were smart and got a pre-nup drafted and signed in a male-friendly jurisdiction.)
I'm not saying direct violence is the solution. My point is that in a few cases, I consider it to be healthier than the typical sly judiciary/psychological tricks.
Ofc, the "violence" I'm talking about has nothing to do with a beat-down or an uppercut.
Here's the thing: if you ever feel the need to inflict pain, physical or emotional, your significant other, then it's time to just walk away. Love shouldn't ever be about wanting to hurt someone.
That's what I meant with the "right to leave". You always have a right to leave. That's the trump card in a relationship. The trump card should never be "I have a right to slap you around a little" or "emotionally abuse you to the point of making you suicidal".
Note that this applies for the woman just as much it does for the man. If a girl feels like she has the right to sleep around to take revenge on her boyfriend/husband, she's much better off just leaving. It's just not healthy to keep going in that sort of situation. Even if there's hope for a turnaround, chances are things will just get worse and eventually spiral out of control.
The thing is, the pain inflicted by men, even if it's light, is often obvious and thus (judiciarly but not only) reprehensible. While the typical sly emotionnal harassment or persecution is indirect, by far more damaging, but cannot be seen, thus can hardly be condemned.
I see in our society how indirect violence dominates everything, and I sometimes wish people would be more direct and less hypocritical. For instance, I much prefer being slapped in the face, rather than suddenly be ignored and having to bear her sneaky remarks on my back.
But sadly, today we only hear about violent stupid fucks, or smart never-violent gentlemen... thus when you talk about violence, even rationally, people automatically label you as a stupid machismo brute.
Quite frankly, you sound like you have deep-seated trust issues with women. Your views on simply misogynistic, and I hope no woman has to deal with a relationship with you until you get over this crap.
Do you disagree with the statement that "indirect violence" or "psychological violence" dominates everything?
I worked with companies before when it comes to topics like mobbing, some of our most successful (and most liked) exercises actually involve (controlled) physical violence as in putting grown up men/women into a box ring. For our daily lives I wouldn't say that "we need more physical violence" is exactly a good approach, but I pretty much agree with psychological violence being much more destructive and much longer lasting in most cases.
Especially when it comes to e.g. mobbing women are much harder to work with. Compared to similar situations with only males they are more elusive and more refined in their.. well... "mechanics" when it comes to stuff like this. However, they are from my experience also much easier "to get" on an emotional level because tools like role playing, role-reversals and mental exercises seem to hit them much harder compared to men.
Besides that, this should be about psychological vs physical violence if at all, not about women vs men. Calling out that he has "misogynistic views" and "deep-seated trust issues" is however completely out of line. While on thin ice because it's politically incorrect and with also rather shaky conclusions his initial point IS pretty valid after all: Our society loves psychological violence.
I don't think it's unfair at all. He keeps referring to women as sleeping behind people's back and how sly and conniving they are. As if all women are indirect and evil and manipulative. It's really quite disturbing and reminds me a lot of conversations I've had with anti-semites. Yes, I think it's completely fair to say that he has deep-seated trust issues with women. He's clearly speaking from anecdotal experience here, and using it to color all his views on women.
And seriously, just because he prefers to be slapped and hit rather than ignored, does not mean the rest of us do.
And I completely disagree with the statement that indirect violence and psychological violence dominates everything. Quite frankly I'm not sure how you describe "giving someone the cold shoulder" as "violence," but I don't think any violence is that pervasive at all. It certainly should not be that pervasive in any loving relationship (unless it's in a kinky way, of course).
I seriously don't understand why women are free to use their natural "indirect and psychological" violence while men are forced to be on a playground which isnt theirs.
The cleric's premisse is "if YOU beat your wife". He never discussed about the reasons, but you obviously need to have a good one.
In case she harasses you psychologically very hard, or cheats with another man, I don't see anything wrong with light beating not causing any bruises. Claiming there's virtually no scenario where light beatings could be an option is by far more extremist.
Dude, physical violence in the context of an intimate relationship is never okay. Kind of scary that people still think it is.
If she's treating you like shit, it doesn't give you the right to beat her. It does, however, give you the right to leave, and leave her penniless with the divorce settlement (assuming you were smart and got a pre-nup drafted and signed in a male-friendly jurisdiction.)
I'm not saying direct violence is the solution. My point is that in a few cases, I consider it to be healthier than the typical sly judiciary/psychological tricks.
Ofc, the "violence" I'm talking about has nothing to do with a beat-down or an uppercut.
Here's the thing: if you ever feel the need to inflict pain, physical or emotional, your significant other, then it's time to just walk away. Love shouldn't ever be about wanting to hurt someone.
That's what I meant with the "right to leave". You always have a right to leave. That's the trump card in a relationship. The trump card should never be "I have a right to slap you around a little" or "emotionally abuse you to the point of making you suicidal".
Note that this applies for the woman just as much it does for the man. If a girl feels like she has the right to sleep around to take revenge on her boyfriend/husband, she's much better off just leaving. It's just not healthy to keep going in that sort of situation. Even if there's hope for a turnaround, chances are things will just get worse and eventually spiral out of control.
The thing is, the pain inflicted by men, even if it's light, is often obvious and thus (judiciarly but not only) reprehensible. While the typical sly emotionnal harassment or persecution is indirect, by far more damaging, but cannot be seen, thus can hardly be condemned.
I see in our society how indirect violence dominates everything, and I sometimes wish people would be more direct and less hypocritical. For instance, I much prefer being slapped in the face, rather than suddenly be ignored and having to bear her sneaky remarks on my back.
But sadly, today we only hear about violent stupid fucks, or smart never-violent gentlemen... thus when you talk about violence, even rationally, people automatically label you as a stupid machismo brute.
Quite frankly, you sound like you have deep-seated trust issues with women. Your views on simply misogynistic, and I hope no woman has to deal with a relationship with you until you get over this crap.
Do you disagree with the statement that "indirect violence" or "psychological violence" dominates everything?
I worked with companies before when it comes to topics like mobbing, some of our most successful (and most liked) exercises actually involve (controlled) physical violence as in putting grown up men/women into a box ring. For our daily lives I wouldn't say that "we need more physical violence" is exactly a good approach, but I pretty much agree with psychological violence being much more destructive and much longer lasting in most cases.
Especially when it comes to e.g. mobbing women are much harder to work with. Compared to similar situations with only males they are more elusive and more refined in their.. well... "mechanics" when it comes to stuff like this. However, they are from my experience also much easier "to get" on an emotional level because tools like role playing, role-reversals and mental exercises seem to hit them much harder compared to men.
Besides that, this should be about psychological vs physical violence if at all, not about women vs men. Calling out that he has "misogynistic views" and "deep-seated trust issues" is however completely out of line. While on thin ice because it's politically incorrect and with also rather shaky conclusions his initial point IS pretty valid after all: Our society loves psychological violence.
I don't think it's unfair at all. He keeps referring to women as sleeping behind people's back and how sly and conniving they are. As if all women are indirect and evil and manipulative. It's really quite disturbing and reminds me a lot of conversations I've had with anti-semites. Yes, I think it's completely fair to say that he has deep-seated trust issues with women. He's clearly speaking from anecdotal experience here, and using it to color all his views on women.
And seriously, just because he prefers to be slapped and hit rather than ignored, does not mean the rest of us do.
And I completely disagree with the statement that indirect violence and psychological violence dominates everything. Quite frankly I'm not sure how you describe "giving someone the cold shoulder" as "violence," but I don't think any violence is that pervasive at all. It certainly should not be that pervasive in any loving relationship (unless it's in a kinky way, of course).
I think people with all sorts of irrational prejudices eventually tend to ascribe cheating/fraudulent behaviors to the targets of their prejudice, but I don't think accusing groups of those behaviors is an indicator of said prejudice. (Basically it's not a biconditional statement.)
What I do think might be the case is that Siroko might have gotten hurt by a lady quite recently. No harm in venting bitterness all over an internet forum if that's the case. And if that's true, shouldn't we try to make him feel better than to bash on him?
I seriously don't understand why women are free to use their natural "indirect and psychological" violence while men are forced to be on a playground which isnt theirs.
The cleric's premisse is "if YOU beat your wife". He never discussed about the reasons, but you obviously need to have a good one.
In case she harasses you psychologically very hard, or cheats with another man, I don't see anything wrong with light beating not causing any bruises. Claiming there's virtually no scenario where light beatings could be an option is by far more extremist.
Dude, physical violence in the context of an intimate relationship is never okay. Kind of scary that people still think it is.
If she's treating you like shit, it doesn't give you the right to beat her. It does, however, give you the right to leave, and leave her penniless with the divorce settlement (assuming you were smart and got a pre-nup drafted and signed in a male-friendly jurisdiction.)
I'm not saying direct violence is the solution. My point is that in a few cases, I consider it to be healthier than the typical sly judiciary/psychological tricks.
Ofc, the "violence" I'm talking about has nothing to do with a beat-down or an uppercut.
Here's the thing: if you ever feel the need to inflict pain, physical or emotional, your significant other, then it's time to just walk away. Love shouldn't ever be about wanting to hurt someone.
That's what I meant with the "right to leave". You always have a right to leave. That's the trump card in a relationship. The trump card should never be "I have a right to slap you around a little" or "emotionally abuse you to the point of making you suicidal".
Note that this applies for the woman just as much it does for the man. If a girl feels like she has the right to sleep around to take revenge on her boyfriend/husband, she's much better off just leaving. It's just not healthy to keep going in that sort of situation. Even if there's hope for a turnaround, chances are things will just get worse and eventually spiral out of control.
The thing is, the pain inflicted by men, even if it's light, is often obvious and thus (judiciarly but not only) reprehensible. While the typical sly emotionnal harassment or persecution is indirect, by far more damaging, but cannot be seen, thus can hardly be condemned.
I see in our society how indirect violence dominates everything, and I sometimes wish people would be more direct and less hypocritical. For instance, I much prefer being slapped in the face, rather than suddenly be ignored and having to bear her sneaky remarks on my back.
But sadly, today we only hear about violent stupid fucks, or smart never-violent gentlemen... thus when you talk about violence, even rationally, people automatically label you as a stupid machismo brute.
Quite frankly, you sound like you have deep-seated trust issues with women. Your views on simply misogynistic, and I hope no woman has to deal with a relationship with you until you get over this crap.
Do you disagree with the statement that "indirect violence" or "psychological violence" dominates everything?
I worked with companies before when it comes to topics like mobbing, some of our most successful (and most liked) exercises actually involve (controlled) physical violence as in putting grown up men/women into a box ring. For our daily lives I wouldn't say that "we need more physical violence" is exactly a good approach, but I pretty much agree with psychological violence being much more destructive and much longer lasting in most cases.
Especially when it comes to e.g. mobbing women are much harder to work with. Compared to similar situations with only males they are more elusive and more refined in their.. well... "mechanics" when it comes to stuff like this. However, they are from my experience also much easier "to get" on an emotional level because tools like role playing, role-reversals and mental exercises seem to hit them much harder compared to men.
Besides that, this should be about psychological vs physical violence if at all, not about women vs men. Calling out that he has "misogynistic views" and "deep-seated trust issues" is however completely out of line. While on thin ice because it's politically incorrect and with also rather shaky conclusions his initial point IS pretty valid after all: Our society loves psychological violence.
I don't think it's unfair at all. He keeps referring to women as sleeping behind people's back and how sly and conniving they are. As if all women are indirect and evil and manipulative. It's really quite disturbing and reminds me a lot of conversations I've had with anti-semites. Yes, I think it's completely fair to say that he has deep-seated trust issues with women. He's clearly speaking from anecdotal experience here, and using it to color all his views on women.
And seriously, just because he prefers to be slapped and hit rather than ignored, does not mean the rest of us do.
And I completely disagree with the statement that indirect violence and psychological violence dominates everything. Quite frankly I'm not sure how you describe "giving someone the cold shoulder" as "violence," but I don't think any violence is that pervasive at all. It certainly should not be that pervasive in any loving relationship (unless it's in a kinky way, of course).
I think people with all sorts of irrational prejudices eventually tend to ascribe cheating/fraudulent behaviors to the targets of their prejudice, but I don't think accusing groups of those behaviors is an indicator of said prejudice. (Basically it's not a biconditional statement.)
What I do think might be the case is that Siroko might have gotten hurt by a lady quite recently. No harm in venting bitterness all over an internet forum if that's the case. And if that's true, shouldn't we try to make him feel better than to bash on him?
Look, I don't want to reinforce that kind of thinking and send him into a happy death spiral. The fact is that he's talking himself into "justified" physical violence against other people, and that's an idea that can harm people around him, especially people that he cares about.
There's a difference between bitching and venting on the internet and justifying physical violence...
I seriously don't understand why women are free to use their natural "indirect and psychological" violence while men are forced to be on a playground which isnt theirs.
The cleric's premisse is "if YOU beat your wife". He never discussed about the reasons, but you obviously need to have a good one.
In case she harasses you psychologically very hard, or cheats with another man, I don't see anything wrong with light beating not causing any bruises. Claiming there's virtually no scenario where light beatings could be an option is by far more extremist.
Dude, physical violence in the context of an intimate relationship is never okay. Kind of scary that people still think it is.
If she's treating you like shit, it doesn't give you the right to beat her. It does, however, give you the right to leave, and leave her penniless with the divorce settlement (assuming you were smart and got a pre-nup drafted and signed in a male-friendly jurisdiction.)
I'm not saying direct violence is the solution. My point is that in a few cases, I consider it to be healthier than the typical sly judiciary/psychological tricks.
Ofc, the "violence" I'm talking about has nothing to do with a beat-down or an uppercut.
Here's the thing: if you ever feel the need to inflict pain, physical or emotional, your significant other, then it's time to just walk away. Love shouldn't ever be about wanting to hurt someone.
That's what I meant with the "right to leave". You always have a right to leave. That's the trump card in a relationship. The trump card should never be "I have a right to slap you around a little" or "emotionally abuse you to the point of making you suicidal".
Note that this applies for the woman just as much it does for the man. If a girl feels like she has the right to sleep around to take revenge on her boyfriend/husband, she's much better off just leaving. It's just not healthy to keep going in that sort of situation. Even if there's hope for a turnaround, chances are things will just get worse and eventually spiral out of control.
The thing is, the pain inflicted by men, even if it's light, is often obvious and thus (judiciarly but not only) reprehensible. While the typical sly emotionnal harassment or persecution is indirect, by far more damaging, but cannot be seen, thus can hardly be condemned.
I see in our society how indirect violence dominates everything, and I sometimes wish people would be more direct and less hypocritical. For instance, I much prefer being slapped in the face, rather than suddenly be ignored and having to bear her sneaky remarks on my back.
But sadly, today we only hear about violent stupid fucks, or smart never-violent gentlemen... thus when you talk about violence, even rationally, people automatically label you as a stupid machismo brute.
Quite frankly, you sound like you have deep-seated trust issues with women. Your views on simply misogynistic, and I hope no woman has to deal with a relationship with you until you get over this crap.
Do you disagree with the statement that "indirect violence" or "psychological violence" dominates everything?
I worked with companies before when it comes to topics like mobbing, some of our most successful (and most liked) exercises actually involve (controlled) physical violence as in putting grown up men/women into a box ring. For our daily lives I wouldn't say that "we need more physical violence" is exactly a good approach, but I pretty much agree with psychological violence being much more destructive and much longer lasting in most cases.
Especially when it comes to e.g. mobbing women are much harder to work with. Compared to similar situations with only males they are more elusive and more refined in their.. well... "mechanics" when it comes to stuff like this. However, they are from my experience also much easier "to get" on an emotional level because tools like role playing, role-reversals and mental exercises seem to hit them much harder compared to men.
Besides that, this should be about psychological vs physical violence if at all, not about women vs men. Calling out that he has "misogynistic views" and "deep-seated trust issues" is however completely out of line. While on thin ice because it's politically incorrect and with also rather shaky conclusions his initial point IS pretty valid after all: Our society loves psychological violence.
I don't think it's unfair at all. He keeps referring to women as sleeping behind people's back and how sly and conniving they are. As if all women are indirect and evil and manipulative. It's really quite disturbing and reminds me a lot of conversations I've had with anti-semites. Yes, I think it's completely fair to say that he has deep-seated trust issues with women. He's clearly speaking from anecdotal experience here, and using it to color all his views on women.
And seriously, just because he prefers to be slapped and hit rather than ignored, does not mean the rest of us do.
And I completely disagree with the statement that indirect violence and psychological violence dominates everything. Quite frankly I'm not sure how you describe "giving someone the cold shoulder" as "violence," but I don't think any violence is that pervasive at all. It certainly should not be that pervasive in any loving relationship (unless it's in a kinky way, of course).
I think people with all sorts of irrational prejudices eventually tend to ascribe cheating/fraudulent behaviors to the targets of their prejudice, but I don't think accusing groups of those behaviors is an indicator of said prejudice. (Basically it's not a biconditional statement.)
What I do think might be the case is that Siroko might have gotten hurt by a lady quite recently. No harm in venting bitterness all over an internet forum if that's the case. And if that's true, shouldn't we try to make him feel better than to bash on him?
Look, I don't want to reinforce that kind of thinking and send him into a happy death spiral. The fact is that he's talking himself into "justified" physical violence against other people, and that's an idea that can harm people around him, especially people that he cares about.
There's a difference between bitching and venting on the internet and justifying physical violence...
On August 23 2012 20:31 branflakes14 wrote: When a child sees a strong horse and a weak horse, he will instinctively prefer the strong horse.
Multiculturalism weakens a nation's identity, causing the next generation to abandon it. It's an amazing way of passive aggressively destroying a country.
You take this view to its logical conclusion, and you end up with Andres Brevik and Adolf Hitler.
Logical conclusion would be let the weak horse die, because noone wants weak horse over strong one. The statement is idiotic in itself.
On August 23 2012 20:31 branflakes14 wrote: When a child sees a strong horse and a weak horse, he will instinctively prefer the strong horse.
Multiculturalism weakens a nation's identity, causing the next generation to abandon it. It's an amazing way of passive aggressively destroying a country.
You take this view to its logical conclusion, and you end up with Andres Brevik and Adolf Hitler.
Logical conclusion would be let the weak horse die, because noone wants weak horse over strong one. The statement is idiotic in itself.
i'm going to be making a shitty post but here goes... "shitty because im going to be lazy and not do my usual citations"
1. what the fuck is culture. what the fuck is a nations identity? if we are talking about western cultures, our culture has already been destroyed. it's been destroyed and replaced by consumer capitalism.
2. history of western culture. we had peasents / serfs and lords. then we had owners of production / capital and exploited labour. now we sort of have some sort of... weird shit where the working class/middle class are suffering but still like... 100% more well off then people working in coltan mines
3. western culture is bad. well not exactly. there is good and bad. then there are comparisons to other cultures. but i just want to point out, as already pointed out earlier... that western culture is not superior.
4. western culture was the weaker horse and it died awhile ago.
On August 23 2012 20:31 branflakes14 wrote: When a child sees a strong horse and a weak horse, he will instinctively prefer the strong horse.
Multiculturalism weakens a nation's identity, causing the next generation to abandon it. It's an amazing way of passive aggressively destroying a country.
You take this view to its logical conclusion, and you end up with Andres Brevik and Adolf Hitler.
Logical conclusion would be let the weak horse die, because noone wants weak horse over strong one. The statement is idiotic in itself.
i'm going to be making a shitty post but here goes... "shitty because im going to be lazy and not do my usual citations"
1. what the fuck is culture. what the fuck is a nations identity? if we are talking about western cultures, our culture has already been destroyed. it's been destroyed and replaced by consumer capitalism.
2. history of western culture. we had peasents / serfs and lords. then we had owners of production / capital and exploited labour. now we sort of have some sort of... weird shit where the working class/middle class are suffering but still like... 100% more well off then people working in coltan mines
3. western culture is bad. well not exactly. there is good and bad. then there are comparisons to other cultures. but i just want to point out, as already pointed out earlier... that western culture is not superior.
4. western culture was the weaker horse and it died awhile ago.
Not necessarily. I'd say Industrialization and Rationalism are what Western culture has become. The old Judeo-Christian or Roman ideals have long since disappeared.
But even through that scope, Western culture is in decline. The high point of the West was 1914. Then the same trends that propelled Western superiority and self-belief -- industrial strength, nationalism, treating human beings as independent rational agents with inherent dignity, and belief in an infallible, just God and just, though fallible, government -- those same trends ended up tearing the West apart in a pair of fratricidal wars, the second even worse than the first.
From a sociopolitical view of history, though, the silver lining for the West is that often, the same concepts that propel a civilization upwards, are also the double edged swords that end up cutting it down. For Egypt and China, it was the ability to unify its people under an autocracy, which allowed them to conquer their often-flooding rivers and build agricultural superpowers. But those same abilities ended up making Egypt and China stagnant in the face of dynamic powers with different methods of organization. For the West, it was rationality and individualism coupled with nationalism, which allowed for the creation of competing nation states that constantly tried to one-up another in the fields of economics, science, and warfare--which led to the great heights of the 19th century and the barbaric lows of the 20th.
Viewed through that lens, then, the decline of the West should not be taken as a tragedy, but simply how the human race renews itself. Each progression in the set of memes that organize us has vastly improved all our lives. We should embrace the next cycle of change.
EPT
)![[image loading]](http://i1004.photobucket.com/albums/af167/ii_Giggl3Cr34mz/they_took_our_jobs_tshirt-d23564803.jpg)
Hence why nobody uttered a word when shit like the Rochdale rapes happened. 
surprised to see me on tl?
