|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
While in USpol thread people speculate whether there will be next election I am wondering whether this will actually happen in UK (or maybe it will, but coincidently all non labour politicians may be in prison).
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/722903
over 500k signatures, government response: F off (or "The Government has no plans to repeal the Online Safety Act, and is working closely with Ofcom to implement the Act as quickly and effectively as possible to enable UK users to benefit from its protections." )
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/730194
almost 3kk signatures, government response: F off (or "We will introduce a digital ID within this Parliament to help tackle illegal migration, make accessing government services easier, and enable wider efficiencies." )
After recent synagogue attack, there were Pro-Palestine protests. Looks like government realised that there are still some rights to protest left, and decided to stop this nonsense:
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-police-powers-to-protect-communities-from-disruption-caused-by-protests
"Police forces will be granted new powers to put conditions on repeat protests as the Home Secretary orders a fresh look at how protests are policed and organised.
The new powers, which will be brought forward as soon as possible, will allow senior officers to consider the ‘cumulative impact’ of previous protest activity. "
"The Home Secretary will also review existing legislation to ensure that powers are sufficient and being consistently applied. This will include powers to ban protests outright, and will also include provisions in the Crime and Policing Bill, which is currently going through Parliament. "
Edit: I am confident that this powers wont be applied evenly across political spectrum.
|
Northern Ireland27265 Posts
I don’t remotely think Labour are going to go around arresting opposition and not hold an election. That’s crazy talk.
I don’t think they’ve got a good record on protest in general, something I take issue with. If anything it’s tended to disproportionately hit left wing causes.
It’s remarkable to me that you seem to have no issue with ICE agents wandering around with masks and detaining brown folks, but the Online Safety Act is super scary
|
The anglosphere being all comically scared of ID's will never not be funny.
|
On September 19 2025 19:47 Uldridge wrote:
I've been thinking about multiculturalism and scaling lately. Perhaps it's doable up to a few dozen million people, but starts to fall apart when it's reaching 100+ millions of people as the sheer size of the society you're experiencing and echochambering causes for a very frictionless route to polarization.
It might very well be that in 200 years we look back at the US in 2020 era as a nation that didn't install enough guardrails to curtail this phenomenon which ultimately caused its downfall. We'll see how the West copes with its hedonistic nature in the forseeable future.
I can't come up with a logical reason why multiculturalism would work on a "smaller" population and not a "larger" one, that doesn't seem to make sense on any level. Multiculturalism is "failing" in the same way that all other societies fail, conditions get worse for humans because politics become more rightwing and having more rigid hierarchies is bad for humans, but now societies are multicultural so the people in power have this clever trick where they can say it's because of the immigrants and not because of them. Switzerland has one of the least rigid hierarchical systems in the world right now - simply in that we get to vote on policy -, so people here are getting crushed by the liberals at a slower rate than they are in other countries. As a result life is still mostly okay here, and so we go along with it.
It's also true that not all multiculturalism is created equal, some "cultures" are in the mix mainly because they are expected to do bad jobs and become an underclass, and then these people - or if not them, their children - might not find that very fair, on average, which makes sense to me. But I don't think that's the main factor, as that's also true for Switzerland and that didn't "stop" us.
|
United States44241 Posts
On October 07 2025 03:23 Nebuchad wrote:
I can't come up with a logical reason why multiculturalism would work on a "smaller" population and not a "larger" one, that doesn't seem to make sense on any level.
Not agreeing with the premise but my initial thought would be self segregating populations vs more mixing. If one person moves to a hamlet of 100 then everyone will get to know them and learn that they're really not that scary. Xenophobia can't easily survive daily contact. If 100 people move to a town of 10,000 then they've got more ability to make an insular sub community.
I'd link it with the general sense of isolation and disconnection that has become endemic in modern cities. You can't integrate new people into a community when you don't have a community.
|
On October 07 2025 03:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2025 03:23 Nebuchad wrote:
I can't come up with a logical reason why multiculturalism would work on a "smaller" population and not a "larger" one, that doesn't seem to make sense on any level. Not agreeing with the premise but my initial thought would be self segregating populations vs more mixing. If one person moves to a hamlet of 100 then everyone will get to know them and learn that they're really not that scary. Xenophobia can't easily survive daily contact. If 100 people move to a town of 10,000 then they've got more ability to make an insular sub community. I'd link it with the general sense of isolation and disconnection that has become endemic in modern cities. You can't integrate new people into a community when you don't have a community.
You're right, for such a small scale I can see a difference. At the level of a small country I would think that that should already be way enough people to be in the larger tier of what you're talking about, and we definitely have some segregating and some xenophobia.
|
People organize differently in the different regions of a country. Even in my small 12 million people country, we've got a shit load of different subcultures and literal cities coloring a certain political ideology based on history/association/contemporary problems/...
I think many problems arise organically and can be very difficult to get rid of once they've taken hold of the current meta so to speak. It might take a few generations to overturn that sentiment.
You seem to think that this is all orchestrated divide and conquer by the ruling class. Culture war to distract from the class war. I think it's part poor planning and people taking advantage of these situations to fuel their hatred toward fellow humans, however stupid I may find it to be. However, sometimes the initial seed of hatred started with a fundamental need that wasn't addressed: feeling unheard or abandoned by your organisatory body. But people make the flaw again and again to point their arrows at people that are ruining their lives, instead of at the system that needs to be changed, because people are frail and tangible and "a system" is complex and abstract.
The larger society becomes the more complex these systems and subsystems become. This could be a reason why perhaps the more segregated people tend to become because they're so much to be angry about. Also, procedure segragates by nature (at least in the West): you need to be classified in the system what you are exactly so you can be processed.
And there's always something that's completely shit. But one thing's for sure, the next guy you're talking to won't agree on what that shitty thing is you find shitty.
|
On October 07 2025 05:05 Uldridge wrote:
You seem to think that this is all orchestrated divide and conquer by the ruling class. Culture war to distract from the class war. I think it's part poor planning and people taking advantage of these situations to fuel their hatred toward fellow humans, however stupid I may find it to be.
Nah I'd probably agree with you on how it came to be. I just don't view it as a natural consequence of multiculturalism, no matter the country size, I think that misassigns blame. There were two massive changes in society, one is harmful, one is harmless; they aren't necessarily connected with each other.
|
On October 07 2025 03:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2025 03:23 Nebuchad wrote:
I can't come up with a logical reason why multiculturalism would work on a "smaller" population and not a "larger" one, that doesn't seem to make sense on any level. Not agreeing with the premise but my initial thought would be self segregating populations vs more mixing. If one person moves to a hamlet of 100 then everyone will get to know them and learn that they're really not that scary. Xenophobia can't easily survive daily contact. If 100 people move to a town of 10,000 then they've got more ability to make an insular sub community. I'd link it with the general sense of isolation and disconnection that has become endemic in modern cities. You can't integrate new people into a community when you don't have a community.
You are partially right, however what you describing is cultural assimilation, where one culture remain dominant. Yes this culture can absorb parts of the other one (eg: spices, Sol Invictus), but it wont change in any meaningful way.
Multiculturalism however assume 2+ cultures to exist in single society, this is not possible, one will have to become dominant. Surely you will accept that current western culture wouldnt accept society in which it coexists with Dalits and Sati, or stoning gays and honor killing? That would lead to conflict from which one culture would emerge dominant (conflict doesnt have to be armed). See people defending multiculturalism here, assume situation in which other cultures assimilate into western culture, which is not multiculturalism.
On October 07 2025 02:51 WombaT wrote:
I don’t remotely think Labour are going to go around arresting opposition and not hold an election. That’s crazy talk.
I don’t think they’ve got a good record on protest in general, something I take issue with. If anything it’s tended to disproportionately hit left wing causes.
It’s remarkable to me that you seem to have no issue with ICE agents wandering around with masks and detaining brown folks, but the Online Safety Act is super scary
I said I was wondering, however truth to be told I wouldnt be much surprised if that happened.
"It’s remarkable to me that you seem to have no issue with ICE agents wandering around with masks and detaining brown folks, but the Online Safety Act is super scary"
ICE detaining illegal immigrants is doing its job and detaining people who broke the law. Can you also please stop with "brown folks" framing? there is plenty of "brown folks" which arent being detained.
Problem with OSA is that it enables possibility that you may have "ICE agents wandering around with masks and detaining" Wombats for posting on TL. Combine it with digital id and possibilities are endless.
If you think this is ridiculous idea, quick reminder:
https://freespeechunion.org/police-make-30-arrests-a-day-for-offensive-online-messages/?v=7885444af42e
"Officers from 37 police forces made 12,183 arrests in 2023, the equivalent of about 33 per day."
There is more though:
"The Online Safety Act also requires Ofcom to establish an advisory committee on disinformation and misinformation to build cross-sector understanding of mis- and disinformation. The advisory committee has now appointed a Chair and plans to have its first meeting in April 2025."
If you have no problem with that, then think what will happen if Farage or someone from BNP win election.
|
Northern Ireland27265 Posts
On October 07 2025 08:53 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2025 03:59 KwarK wrote:On October 07 2025 03:23 Nebuchad wrote:
I can't come up with a logical reason why multiculturalism would work on a "smaller" population and not a "larger" one, that doesn't seem to make sense on any level. Not agreeing with the premise but my initial thought would be self segregating populations vs more mixing. If one person moves to a hamlet of 100 then everyone will get to know them and learn that they're really not that scary. Xenophobia can't easily survive daily contact. If 100 people move to a town of 10,000 then they've got more ability to make an insular sub community. I'd link it with the general sense of isolation and disconnection that has become endemic in modern cities. You can't integrate new people into a community when you don't have a community. You are partially right, however what you describing is cultural assimilation, where one culture remain dominant. Yes this culture can absorb parts of the other one (eg: spices, Sol Invictus), but it wont change in any meaningful way. Multiculturalism however assume 2+ cultures to exist in single society, this is not possible, one will have to become dominant. Surely you will accept that current western culture wouldnt accept society in which it coexists with Dalits and Sati, or stoning gays and honor killing? That would lead to conflict from which one culture would emerge dominant (conflict doesnt have to be armed). See people defending multiculturalism here, assume situation in which other cultures assimilate into western culture, which is not multiculturalism. Show nested quote +On October 07 2025 02:51 WombaT wrote:
I don’t remotely think Labour are going to go around arresting opposition and not hold an election. That’s crazy talk.
I don’t think they’ve got a good record on protest in general, something I take issue with. If anything it’s tended to disproportionately hit left wing causes.
It’s remarkable to me that you seem to have no issue with ICE agents wandering around with masks and detaining brown folks, but the Online Safety Act is super scary I said I was wondering, however truth to be told I wouldnt be much surprised if that happened. "It’s remarkable to me that you seem to have no issue with ICE agents wandering around with masks and detaining brown folks, but the Online Safety Act is super scary" ICE detaining illegal immigrants is doing its job and detaining people who broke the law. Can you also please stop with "brown folks" framing? there is plenty of "brown folks" which arent being detained. Problem with OSA is that it enables possibility that you may have "ICE agents wandering around with masks and detaining" Wombats for posting on TL. Combine it with digital id and possibilities are endless. If you think this is ridiculous idea, quick reminder: https://freespeechunion.org/police-make-30-arrests-a-day-for-offensive-online-messages/?v=7885444af42e"Officers from 37 police forces made 12,183 arrests in 2023, the equivalent of about 33 per day." There is more though: "The Online Safety Act also requires Ofcom to establish an advisory committee on disinformation and misinformation to build cross-sector understanding of mis- and disinformation. The advisory committee has now appointed a Chair and plans to have its first meeting in April 2025." If you have no problem with that, then think what will happen if Farage or someone from BNP win election.
Again, you don’t seem to have an issue with masked instruments of the state rounding up brown people without probable cause, or warrants. Why is that?
"The Online Safety Act also requires Ofcom to establish an advisory committee on disinformation and misinformation to build cross-sector understanding of mis- and disinformation. The advisory committee has now appointed a Chair and plans to have its first meeting in April 2025."
What’s wrong with that? It seems a laudable, and indeed probably necessary goal. They haven’t done anything yet.
The Online Safety Act kinda does what it’s meant to do, there are flaws in implementation but it does rather work.
You’d prefer to live in a world where any Tom, Dick or Harry can be abusive as they want online because freedom, but have no issue whatsoever with ICE just detaining whoever the fuck they want, with no probable cause.
It’s nonsensical, you’re not ‘pro freedom’ at all.
|
United States44241 Posts
Razyda you’re wrong. Assimilation would be when immigrants stop celebrating their holidays. Multicultural integration is when you learn what Ramadan is. It’s not only possible, it’s pretty easy. Your cultural Darwinism ideas are pretty on brand for the rest of your beliefs but they’re also just wrong, and they’re wrong a priori.
You assert two cultures cannot coexist without conflict.
Northern English and Southern English seem to live well enough together. Does that disprove your theory that two cultures cannot coexist? You’ll say that that doesn’t count, even though we use different words and have different traditions. So okay, English and Scots seem to live well enough together. That probably doesn’t count either to you though, probably still one culture. And so forth and so forth, you keep expanding English culture because it’s failure to devolve into conflict proves, within your theory, that it’s all one culture. We let the Nirish in, then the Catholics, then the Sirish, then the Pope, they’re all English now.
You define the box as no bigger than it needs to be to contain a group capable of coexistence. Then you assert two groups that can’t coexist can’t fit in the same box. It’s circular. It’s meaningless.
And that’s where it breaks down because cultures aren’t monoliths, they’re generalizations about people and people are more complicated than the generalizations. We pick and choose. I’m an Anglican and, like all good Anglicans, a lifelong atheist. How much do I have in common with the atheist Muslim British Bangladeshi boy I went to school with? Technically we’re apostates to different religions but I think it’s the same god we don’t believe in. Can we share a culture?
|
As someone who has lived for reasonable periods of time on 4 different continents, Razyda is fairly obviously speaking bollocks. In fact it's the same stupid bollocks we already debunked two-ish weeks ago. You'd think he'd wait a bit longer before bringing it up again.
|
Northern Ireland27265 Posts
On October 07 2025 10:46 Acrofales wrote:
As someone who has lived for reasonable periods of time on 4 different continents, Razyda is fairly obviously speaking bollocks. In fact it's the same stupid bollocks we already debunked two-ish weeks ago. You'd think he'd wait a bit longer before bringing it up again.
It gives me a minor kick that (I think it’s me) I’ve even got Spaniards happily using the word ‘bollocks’ :p
Choice of words aside, yeah Razyda is pretty down with chatting absolute bollocks
|
On October 07 2025 10:31 KwarK wrote:
Razyda you’re wrong. Assimilation would be when immigrants stop celebrating their holidays. Multicultural integration is when you learn what Ramadan is. It’s not only possible, it’s pretty easy. Your cultural Darwinism ideas are pretty on brand for the rest of your beliefs but they’re also just wrong, and they’re wrong a priori.
You assert two cultures cannot coexist without conflict.
Northern English and Southern English seem to live well enough together. Does that disprove your theory that two cultures cannot coexist? You’ll say that that doesn’t count, even though we use different words and have different traditions. So okay, English and Scots seem to live well enough together. That probably doesn’t count either to you though, probably still one culture. And so forth and so forth, you keep expanding English culture because it’s failure to devolve into conflict proves, within your theory, that it’s all one culture. We let the Nirish in, then the Catholics, then the Sirish, then the Pope, they’re all English now.
You define the box as no bigger than it needs to be to contain a group capable of coexistence. Then you assert two groups that can’t coexist can’t fit in the same box. It’s circular. It’s meaningless.
And that’s where it breaks down because cultures aren’t monoliths, they’re generalizations about people and people are more complicated than the generalizations. We pick and choose. I’m an Anglican and, like all good Anglicans, a lifelong atheist. How much do I have in common with the atheist Muslim British Bangladeshi boy I went to school with? Technically we’re apostates to different religions but I think it’s the same god we don’t believe in. Can we share a culture?
You are simply wrong. Assimilation happens not when you stop celebrating your holidays, it happens when you adapt rules of the culture you are entering in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_assimilation
"Cultural assimilation is the process in which a minority group or culture comes to resemble a society's majority group or fully adopts the values, behaviors, and beliefs of another group. The melting pot model is based on this concept. A related term is cultural integration, which describes the process of becoming economically and socially integrated into another society while retaining elements of one's original culture."
"Northern English and Southern English seem to live well enough together. Does that disprove your theory that two cultures cannot coexist? You’ll say that that doesn’t count, even though we use different words and have different traditions. So okay, English and Scots seem to live well enough together. That probably doesn’t count either to you though, probably still one culture. And so forth and so forth, you keep expanding English culture because it’s failure to devolve into conflict proves, within your theory, that it’s all one culture. We let the Nirish in, then the Catholics, then the Sirish, then the Pope, they’re all English now."
Who is the king/queen of Scotts now?
"You define the box as no bigger than it needs to be to contain a group capable of coexistence. Then you assert two groups that can’t coexist can’t fit in the same box. It’s circular. It’s meaningless."
This is literally my point? You admitting it here yourself: " two groups that can’t coexist can’t fit in the same box"
"And that’s where it breaks down because cultures aren’t monoliths, they’re generalizations about people and people are more complicated than the generalizations. We pick and choose. I’m an Anglican and, like all good Anglicans, a lifelong atheist. How much do I have in common with the atheist Muslim British Bangladeshi boy I went to school with? Technically we’re apostates to different religions but I think it’s the same god we don’t believe in. Can we share a culture?"
Like really??
There is no such thing as Anglican atheist, or Muslim atheist. You are either one, or another. You simply cannot be a believer and an atheist at the same time. This is not how things work. If you are atheist then you are not a Muslim, if you are atheist then you are not Anglican. I am confused as why do I even have to explain that?
|
Northern Ireland27265 Posts
On October 07 2025 11:46 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2025 10:31 KwarK wrote:
Razyda you’re wrong. Assimilation would be when immigrants stop celebrating their holidays. Multicultural integration is when you learn what Ramadan is. It’s not only possible, it’s pretty easy. Your cultural Darwinism ideas are pretty on brand for the rest of your beliefs but they’re also just wrong, and they’re wrong a priori.
You assert two cultures cannot coexist without conflict.
Northern English and Southern English seem to live well enough together. Does that disprove your theory that two cultures cannot coexist? You’ll say that that doesn’t count, even though we use different words and have different traditions. So okay, English and Scots seem to live well enough together. That probably doesn’t count either to you though, probably still one culture. And so forth and so forth, you keep expanding English culture because it’s failure to devolve into conflict proves, within your theory, that it’s all one culture. We let the Nirish in, then the Catholics, then the Sirish, then the Pope, they’re all English now.
You define the box as no bigger than it needs to be to contain a group capable of coexistence. Then you assert two groups that can’t coexist can’t fit in the same box. It’s circular. It’s meaningless.
And that’s where it breaks down because cultures aren’t monoliths, they’re generalizations about people and people are more complicated than the generalizations. We pick and choose. I’m an Anglican and, like all good Anglicans, a lifelong atheist. How much do I have in common with the atheist Muslim British Bangladeshi boy I went to school with? Technically we’re apostates to different religions but I think it’s the same god we don’t believe in. Can we share a culture? You are simply wrong. Assimilation happens not when you stop celebrating your holidays, it happens when you adapt rules of the culture you are entering in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_assimilation"Cultural assimilation is the process in which a minority group or culture comes to resemble a society's majority group or fully adopts the values, behaviors, and beliefs of another group. The melting pot model is based on this concept. A related term is cultural integration, which describes the process of becoming economically and socially integrated into another society while retaining elements of one's original culture." "Northern English and Southern English seem to live well enough together. Does that disprove your theory that two cultures cannot coexist? You’ll say that that doesn’t count, even though we use different words and have different traditions. So okay, English and Scots seem to live well enough together. That probably doesn’t count either to you though, probably still one culture. And so forth and so forth, you keep expanding English culture because it’s failure to devolve into conflict proves, within your theory, that it’s all one culture. We let the Nirish in, then the Catholics, then the Sirish, then the Pope, they’re all English now." Who is the king/queen of Scotts now? "You define the box as no bigger than it needs to be to contain a group capable of coexistence. Then you assert two groups that can’t coexist can’t fit in the same box. It’s circular. It’s meaningless." This is literally my point? You admitting it here yourself: " two groups that can’t coexist can’t fit in the same box" "And that’s where it breaks down because cultures aren’t monoliths, they’re generalizations about people and people are more complicated than the generalizations. We pick and choose. I’m an Anglican and, like all good Anglicans, a lifelong atheist. How much do I have in common with the atheist Muslim British Bangladeshi boy I went to school with? Technically we’re apostates to different religions but I think it’s the same god we don’t believe in. Can we share a culture?" Like really?? There is no such thing as Anglican atheist, or Muslim atheist. You are either one, or another. You simply cannot be a believer and an atheist at the same time. This is not how things work. If you are atheist then you are not a Muslim, if you are atheist then you are not Anglican. I am confused as why do I even have to explain that?
Lmao it’s almost cute that you think you’re immune from this.
Reform will deport you too, if they can get away with it. Just wait
|
On October 07 2025 12:00 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2025 11:46 Razyda wrote:On October 07 2025 10:31 KwarK wrote:
Razyda you’re wrong. Assimilation would be when immigrants stop celebrating their holidays. Multicultural integration is when you learn what Ramadan is. It’s not only possible, it’s pretty easy. Your cultural Darwinism ideas are pretty on brand for the rest of your beliefs but they’re also just wrong, and they’re wrong a priori.
You assert two cultures cannot coexist without conflict.
Northern English and Southern English seem to live well enough together. Does that disprove your theory that two cultures cannot coexist? You’ll say that that doesn’t count, even though we use different words and have different traditions. So okay, English and Scots seem to live well enough together. That probably doesn’t count either to you though, probably still one culture. And so forth and so forth, you keep expanding English culture because it’s failure to devolve into conflict proves, within your theory, that it’s all one culture. We let the Nirish in, then the Catholics, then the Sirish, then the Pope, they’re all English now.
You define the box as no bigger than it needs to be to contain a group capable of coexistence. Then you assert two groups that can’t coexist can’t fit in the same box. It’s circular. It’s meaningless.
And that’s where it breaks down because cultures aren’t monoliths, they’re generalizations about people and people are more complicated than the generalizations. We pick and choose. I’m an Anglican and, like all good Anglicans, a lifelong atheist. How much do I have in common with the atheist Muslim British Bangladeshi boy I went to school with? Technically we’re apostates to different religions but I think it’s the same god we don’t believe in. Can we share a culture? You are simply wrong. Assimilation happens not when you stop celebrating your holidays, it happens when you adapt rules of the culture you are entering in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_assimilation"Cultural assimilation is the process in which a minority group or culture comes to resemble a society's majority group or fully adopts the values, behaviors, and beliefs of another group. The melting pot model is based on this concept. A related term is cultural integration, which describes the process of becoming economically and socially integrated into another society while retaining elements of one's original culture." "Northern English and Southern English seem to live well enough together. Does that disprove your theory that two cultures cannot coexist? You’ll say that that doesn’t count, even though we use different words and have different traditions. So okay, English and Scots seem to live well enough together. That probably doesn’t count either to you though, probably still one culture. And so forth and so forth, you keep expanding English culture because it’s failure to devolve into conflict proves, within your theory, that it’s all one culture. We let the Nirish in, then the Catholics, then the Sirish, then the Pope, they’re all English now." Who is the king/queen of Scotts now? "You define the box as no bigger than it needs to be to contain a group capable of coexistence. Then you assert two groups that can’t coexist can’t fit in the same box. It’s circular. It’s meaningless." This is literally my point? You admitting it here yourself: " two groups that can’t coexist can’t fit in the same box" "And that’s where it breaks down because cultures aren’t monoliths, they’re generalizations about people and people are more complicated than the generalizations. We pick and choose. I’m an Anglican and, like all good Anglicans, a lifelong atheist. How much do I have in common with the atheist Muslim British Bangladeshi boy I went to school with? Technically we’re apostates to different religions but I think it’s the same god we don’t believe in. Can we share a culture?" Like really?? There is no such thing as Anglican atheist, or Muslim atheist. You are either one, or another. You simply cannot be a believer and an atheist at the same time. This is not how things work. If you are atheist then you are not a Muslim, if you are atheist then you are not Anglican. I am confused as why do I even have to explain that? Lmao it’s almost cute that you think you’re immune from this. Reform will deport you too, if they can get away with it. Just wait
You dont understand. Of course they will. I am aware of that. Reform is unable to fix underlying issues, so once they will fail, they will blame EU people. If I were betting person I would say that they will do their best to deport EU people first.
|
United States44241 Posts
On October 07 2025 11:46 Razyda wrote:Show nested quote +On October 07 2025 10:31 KwarK wrote:
Razyda you’re wrong. Assimilation would be when immigrants stop celebrating their holidays. Multicultural integration is when you learn what Ramadan is. It’s not only possible, it’s pretty easy. Your cultural Darwinism ideas are pretty on brand for the rest of your beliefs but they’re also just wrong, and they’re wrong a priori.
You assert two cultures cannot coexist without conflict.
Northern English and Southern English seem to live well enough together. Does that disprove your theory that two cultures cannot coexist? You’ll say that that doesn’t count, even though we use different words and have different traditions. So okay, English and Scots seem to live well enough together. That probably doesn’t count either to you though, probably still one culture. And so forth and so forth, you keep expanding English culture because it’s failure to devolve into conflict proves, within your theory, that it’s all one culture. We let the Nirish in, then the Catholics, then the Sirish, then the Pope, they’re all English now.
You define the box as no bigger than it needs to be to contain a group capable of coexistence. Then you assert two groups that can’t coexist can’t fit in the same box. It’s circular. It’s meaningless.
And that’s where it breaks down because cultures aren’t monoliths, they’re generalizations about people and people are more complicated than the generalizations. We pick and choose. I’m an Anglican and, like all good Anglicans, a lifelong atheist. How much do I have in common with the atheist Muslim British Bangladeshi boy I went to school with? Technically we’re apostates to different religions but I think it’s the same god we don’t believe in. Can we share a culture? You are simply wrong. Assimilation happens not when you stop celebrating your holidays, it happens when you adapt rules of the culture you are entering in. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_assimilation"Cultural assimilation is the process in which a minority group or culture comes to resemble a society's majority group or fully adopts the values, behaviors, and beliefs of another group. The melting pot model is based on this concept. A related term is cultural integration, which describes the process of becoming economically and socially integrated into another society while retaining elements of one's original culture." "Northern English and Southern English seem to live well enough together. Does that disprove your theory that two cultures cannot coexist? You’ll say that that doesn’t count, even though we use different words and have different traditions. So okay, English and Scots seem to live well enough together. That probably doesn’t count either to you though, probably still one culture. And so forth and so forth, you keep expanding English culture because it’s failure to devolve into conflict proves, within your theory, that it’s all one culture. We let the Nirish in, then the Catholics, then the Sirish, then the Pope, they’re all English now." Who is the king/queen of Scotts now? "You define the box as no bigger than it needs to be to contain a group capable of coexistence. Then you assert two groups that can’t coexist can’t fit in the same box. It’s circular. It’s meaningless." This is literally my point? You admitting it here yourself: " two groups that can’t coexist can’t fit in the same box"
I'm not agreeing with you, I'm describing your position and the contradictions within it. I restated your position to show that it was stupid, not to take it on as my own position.
Your argument goes as follows:
1. People who can all live together are the same culture
2. Therefore people who can't live together aren't the same culture
3. Also, as an unrelated assertion, different cultures can't coexist
But 3 isn't unrelated, it's just a restatement of 1 and 2. That's not an argument, it's just a definition.
If I present someone from a different culture and say that we can coexist peacefully then you'll simply assert that they're not from a different culture after all, we're from the same culture and that's how come we can coexist. To take your argument to its logical conclusion it is non falsifiable, cultures do not exist.
On October 07 2025 11:46 Razyda wrote:
There is no such thing as Anglican atheist, or Muslim atheist. You are either one, or another. You simply cannot be a believer and an atheist at the same time. This is not how things work. If you are atheist then you are not a Muslim, if you are atheist then you are not Anglican. I am confused as why do I even have to explain that?
You continue to demonstrate that you have learned nothing of the British or our culture.
|
On October 07 2025 08:53 Razyda wrote:
Multiculturalism however assume 2+ cultures to exist in single society, this is not possible, one will have to become dominant.
Any society at any point in history has always had a large amount of different cultures within it. Take the whitest region ever in a rural place before there was a lot of immigration. Some of the people there were working class, at the factory or at the mine, others worked in the fields, at the bakery or at the hospital. Some lived in the mountains if there are mountains, others lived at the lake or at the sea if there was a lake or a sea. Others were bourgeois, possibly some were aristocrats. Some were rightwing, some were leftwing. Some were gay, some were bigots. Do you think all these people had the same traditions, the same values, the same beliefs? They didn't.
If that doesn't count, then you mean something else than culture.
|
That's an interesting angle: when does the amalgamation of subcultures become a culture? Is that even a thing?
Is there a single unifying French or Italian culture? I'd like to say there is. But France is so big and has so many different ways of life that it kind of breaks down almost immediately when you start zooming in.
So, culture is an illusion? A mirage to be used as a spark to start potentially existential problems like wars? It's entirely possible. However, there are so many people hanging their hats on the "cultural identity of my country/roots/race" that it's very difficult to have any discussion talking about the deconstruction of this dogma. People will look at anything to latch on to, so is that what it is then? A practice that gives solace for a group of people instead of individual existential dread? Basically group therapy for the human condition.
|
The problem is bringing people with such backward values in, in such numbers that it moves the needle.
See the recent post by the NHS last week claiming value in first cousin marriages.Children of such marriages are far more likely to have disabilities putting extra strain on health and welfare services.First cousin marriages should be banned for this reason, not celebrated or treated as normal.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
