Total Posts:38|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Multiculturalism

paininthenuts
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2014 4:15:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
In the UK this is a read hot subject. The media try and portray the public as being in favour of it, however I have only ever one person that thinks it works. We hear things such as "the richness and beauty diversity brings" whereas in reality all it brings is bitterness and the creation of slums. Mass immigration has dragged down wages, and created unemployment for the indigenous population. We have people crossing dozens of safe countries to get to Britain in order they can claim their generous benefits and free healthcare, but still they can't be bothered to learn the language, or wear similar clothing to ourselves. We are a very overpopulated country, as we don't have the infrastructure to cope with the volume of people, and the population mix now means we are losing our identity. It is my belief that human beings are pack animals, and will never feel comfortable sharing their territory with other cultures. The problem isn't colour or race, it's culture, and as long as immigrants refuse to adopt OUR culture, multiculturalism will NEVER work.

I heard on the radio that your fool of a president is in the process of giving green cards to thousands of illegal immigrants, I just bet that has gone down like a lead balloon.
Mike01506
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2014 10:57:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's certainly the case that a lot less people are in favour of it than we are told.
The media is always pro multiculturalism even though a lot of people resent it, but don't stand against it because to speak against it is branded as racism in this country.

But everybody knows people are generally unhappy about it, but it is a taboo topic.
Everyone living in the UK knows about how the English, Scots, Welsh and Irish all despise each other in some way or another, because that's the way it is, and always will be until we're fully melted down into a weird monoculture consisting of bits of everything.
And that is the future of the British, we're becoming a land of immigrants, a second America, and nobody can oppose it without being branded a racist. That's the sad truth.

Free speech?
In some areas we are more oppressed than ever.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2014 3:43:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/23/2014 4:15:47 AM, paininthenuts wrote:
In the UK this is a read hot subject. The media try and portray the public as being in favour of it, however I have only ever one person that thinks it works. We hear things such as "the richness and beauty diversity brings" whereas in reality all it brings is bitterness and the creation of slums. Mass immigration has dragged down wages, and created unemployment for the indigenous population. We have people crossing dozens of safe countries to get to Britain in order they can claim their generous benefits and free healthcare, but still they can't be bothered to learn the language, or wear similar clothing to ourselves. We are a very overpopulated country, as we don't have the infrastructure to cope with the volume of people, and the population mix now means we are losing our identity. It is my belief that human beings are pack animals, and will never feel comfortable sharing their territory with other cultures. The problem isn't colour or race, it's culture, and as long as immigrants refuse to adopt OUR culture, multiculturalism will NEVER work.

paininthenuts : I heard on the radio that your fool of a president is in the process of giving green cards to thousands of illegal immigrants, I just bet that has gone down like a lead balloon.

The Fool: Seems to work fine in Canada. But I guess I never really had a culture to call my own, to really know the difference. I am black and live in a culture where even in education men are generally thought of as evil compared to women, and therefore inferior to woman, so I guess I still do not have a culture to call my own.

Against The Ideologist
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
One_Anonymous_Voice
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/23/2014 7:22:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
My town of origin, Wrexham, received one of the highest influx of Polish immigrants in Britain. Now living in Liverpool with a vast array of multiculture, I find that whilst the idea of multiculturism is, in itself, a good one. When carried out in practice, it falls flat simply by the contrasting ideals and opinions that come with culture.

I have met people who heavily consider themselves to be anti-racist, however will casually remark how, and I quote, "All of those Poles should get out of our country." On the flip side, a general shop was opened near our town centre, on to which a sign was placed banning anyone that was non-Polish.

Whilst many believe that Racism is bad, and free reign is a good thing. When they are actually placed into contact of those who's accent is different, who's opinions and beliefs differ, and who's native language does not correlate with their own. Both sides segregate one another into their own societies. This is the reason my University has groups of varying background and colours.

In a society of multiculture, living around one another is simply not enough. It breeds discontent and ill-feelings between neighbours and colleagues. For multiculture to work; the culture of many must become the culture of one. Either by a mixture of adoption of a single culture. Most humans are simply not capable of tolerance, despite our best intentions.

-One Anonymous Voice
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 3:37:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Multi-ethnic state experiments always fail. The result is usually civil war or ethnic cleansing. Multiculturalism isn't merely a failure, it is a leftist program that is delivering the opposite of what it purported to deliver. Instead of creating racial peace, it has creates racial hate. Instead of ending nationalism, it is delivering ethnic strife. Post-apartheid South Africa is a good example. Sometime in the near future we will probably see something similar to the Reconquista as Europeans reclaim land taken from them by immigrants. Likewise for America, albeit on a much larger scale given we have 40 million foreign born residents. It's going to get ugly.
LeftoverCrizack
Posts: 5
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 5:29:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Ok Mr BNP.

First generation immigrants do tend to still cling to their home culture and the like. But their kids tend to become well integrated. The Eastern Europeans probably even more so as they like their beer and a good footy punch up as much as any brit.

Multiculturism aint a bad thing, we learn from them they learn from us. In fact the only people i hear whinge about it are the middle aged, and dole scroungers who just use the immigrants as an excuse as to why they still have'nt been arsed to stop watching jeremy kyle and find a job. who go on EDL marches and post Britain First pictures all over facebook.
DarthVitiosus
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 9:10:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/23/2014 4:15:47 AM, paininthenuts wrote:
In the UK this is a read hot subject. The media try and portray the public as being in favour of it, however I have only ever one person that thinks it works. We hear things such as "the richness and beauty diversity brings" whereas in reality all it brings is bitterness and the creation of slums. Mass immigration has dragged down wages, and created unemployment for the indigenous population. We have people crossing dozens of safe countries to get to Britain in order they can claim their generous benefits and free healthcare, but still they can't be bothered to learn the language, or wear similar clothing to ourselves. We are a very overpopulated country, as we don't have the infrastructure to cope with the volume of people, and the population mix now means we are losing our identity. It is my belief that human beings are pack animals, and will never feel comfortable sharing their territory with other cultures. The problem isn't colour or race, it's culture, and as long as immigrants refuse to adopt OUR culture, multiculturalism will NEVER work.

I heard on the radio that your fool of a president is in the process of giving green cards to thousands of illegal immigrants, I just bet that has gone down like a lead balloon.

Multiculturalism can work, just not when people are against assimilating and are antagonistic. Clearly the platform for extreme Islamists is destabilizing Britain. I find it strange how Anjem Choudary can go about giving speeches about demonizing the West and urging the destruction of the West throughout Britain yet Julien Blanc is prevented from entering the country for things he has allegedly done and said(he has not been prosecuted).
WILL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL:
#1. I have met 10 people worth discussing with on DDO who are not interested in ideological or romantic visions of the world we all live in.
#2. 10 people admit they have no interest in any one else's opinion other than their own.
#3. 10 people admit they are products of their environment and their ideas derive from said environment rather than doing any serious critical thinking and search for answers themselves.
DarthVitiosus
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/24/2014 9:23:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 3:37:27 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
Multi-ethnic state experiments always fail. The result is usually civil war or ethnic cleansing. Multiculturalism isn't merely a failure, it is a leftist program that is delivering the opposite of what it purported to deliver. Instead of creating racial peace, it has creates racial hate. Instead of ending nationalism, it is delivering ethnic strife. Post-apartheid South Africa is a good example. Sometime in the near future we will probably see something similar to the Reconquista as Europeans reclaim land taken from them by immigrants. Likewise for America, albeit on a much larger scale given we have 40 million foreign born residents. It's going to get ugly.

Not true. Multi-ethnic states can succeed when those in power represent multiple ethnicities. This is why the United States has been successful because the political system encourages cooperation(winner takes all) rather than division(proportional representation). The United States supports a two party system which prevents racialists, language extremists, religious extremists, and other extremes from ever retaining control. In order for someone to win political power in the United States, they must appeal to various elements of the country.

Singapore is another country where multiculturalism works. However, a political system that supports and encourages proportional representation with multiple ethnicities is very likely to fail or become extremely problematic(I.E. Nigeria, Lebanon, India, etc.). People will simply represent the groups they are from rather attempting to be cooperative. The best example of this would be former prime minister Nouri Maliki in Iraq how he supported his fellow Shia Muslims and disarmed and disenfranchised Sunni Muslims(which led to the increase in ISIS numbers).
WILL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL:
#1. I have met 10 people worth discussing with on DDO who are not interested in ideological or romantic visions of the world we all live in.
#2. 10 people admit they have no interest in any one else's opinion other than their own.
#3. 10 people admit they are products of their environment and their ideas derive from said environment rather than doing any serious critical thinking and search for answers themselves.
EndarkenedRationalist
Posts: 14,201
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 12:12:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
As long as multiculturalists don't adopt our culture in every way, shape, and form, multiculturalism will NEVER work!

...
...
...
...
...
...
Wait.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 12:51:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 9:23:21 PM, DarthVitiosus wrote:
At 11/24/2014 3:37:27 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
Multi-ethnic state experiments always fail. The result is usually civil war or ethnic cleansing. Multiculturalism isn't merely a failure, it is a leftist program that is delivering the opposite of what it purported to deliver. Instead of creating racial peace, it has creates racial hate. Instead of ending nationalism, it is delivering ethnic strife. Post-apartheid South Africa is a good example. Sometime in the near future we will probably see something similar to the Reconquista as Europeans reclaim land taken from them by immigrants. Likewise for America, albeit on a much larger scale given we have 40 million foreign born residents. It's going to get ugly.

Not true. Multi-ethnic states can succeed when those in power represent multiple ethnicities. This is why the United States has been successful because the political system encourages cooperation(winner takes all) rather than division(proportional representation). The United States supports a two party system which prevents racialists, language extremists, religious extremists, and other extremes from ever retaining control. In order for someone to win political power in the United States, they must appeal to various elements of the country.

Do you live in America? The two party system promotes extremism and the grid lock in Washington shows it. The Republican party usually doesn't appeal to other groups, just white conservatives.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 12:54:36 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/23/2014 4:15:47 AM, paininthenuts wrote:
In the UK this is a read hot subject. The media try and portray the public as being in favour of it, however I have only ever one person that thinks it works. We hear things such as "the richness and beauty diversity brings" whereas in reality all it brings is bitterness and the creation of slums. Mass immigration has dragged down wages, and created unemployment for the indigenous population. We have people crossing dozens of safe countries to get to Britain in order they can claim their generous benefits and free healthcare, but still they can't be bothered to learn the language, or wear similar clothing to ourselves. We are a very overpopulated country, as we don't have the infrastructure to cope with the volume of people, and the population mix now means we are losing our identity. It is my belief that human beings are pack animals, and will never feel comfortable sharing their territory with other cultures. The problem isn't colour or race, it's culture, and as long as immigrants refuse to adopt OUR culture, multiculturalism will NEVER work.

I heard on the radio that your fool of a president is in the process of giving green cards to thousands of illegal immigrants, I just bet that has gone down like a lead balloon.

I think multiculturalism can work if everyone accepts the liberal value that we are all free and equal to do as we please. Conservative ideologies muck it up.

Also Obama isn't giving out green cards. All he's doing is not deporting people who come out of the shadows.
1Percenter
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 12:56:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 9:23:21 PM, DarthVitiosus wrote:
At 11/24/2014 3:37:27 PM, 1Percenter wrote:
Multi-ethnic state experiments always fail. The result is usually civil war or ethnic cleansing. Multiculturalism isn't merely a failure, it is a leftist program that is delivering the opposite of what it purported to deliver. Instead of creating racial peace, it has creates racial hate. Instead of ending nationalism, it is delivering ethnic strife. Post-apartheid South Africa is a good example. Sometime in the near future we will probably see something similar to the Reconquista as Europeans reclaim land taken from them by immigrants. Likewise for America, albeit on a much larger scale given we have 40 million foreign born residents. It's going to get ugly.

Not true. Multi-ethnic states can succeed when those in power represent multiple ethnicities. This is why the United States has been successful because the political system encourages cooperation(winner takes all) rather than division(proportional representation). The United States supports a two party system which prevents racialists, language extremists, religious extremists, and other extremes from ever retaining control. In order for someone to win political power in the United States, they must appeal to various elements of the country.

Singapore is another country where multiculturalism works. However, a political system that supports and encourages proportional representation with multiple ethnicities is very likely to fail or become extremely problematic(I.E. Nigeria, Lebanon, India, etc.). People will simply represent the groups they are from rather attempting to be cooperative. The best example of this would be former prime minister Nouri Maliki in Iraq how he supported his fellow Shia Muslims and disarmed and disenfranchised Sunni Muslims(which led to the increase in ISIS numbers).

America is not special. America is not different. History declares with certainty the eventual fate of multi-ethnic states. Even our political party system cannot overcome the divide that comes with multiculturalism. Cultural friction, like gravity, always prevails in the end. We are already starting to see identity politics in the United States. Republican and Democrat are no longer just political entities, but are quickly becoming markers of ethnic/cultural loyalties.

http://bigstory.ap.org...

Notice that the four outlying states (OR, MN, NH, MI) where whites did not overwhelmingly favor Republicans are typically Democratic and significantly whiter than the national average. They are geographically removed from the consequences of multicultural policies (for now). America is going down the same avenue almost all other multi-ethnic states in history have gone, and it will likely end in bloodshed.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 3:16:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
There are cases where multiculturalism works. The example familiar to me is Hawaii, where whites are about 30% of the population and there is a great deal ethnic diversity. I think the key is that there must be a common set of core values across the diversity, and Hawaiians have that. Multiculturalism will not work if there is an Islamic segment that believes in sharia law. I lived in a California city that had a 30% Islamic population, mostly Afghan refugees. There was no problem, because the Muslims were not devoted to imposing a radical ideology.

Japan is monocultural, and it works well for them. If you apply to become a Japanese citizen, an inspector will look in your refrigerator to see if you are eating Japanese food. I suspect a weenie will get you booted. The advantage is cultural literacy. People can communicate with great ease, because everyone shares a very large body of knowledge, not only language, but traditions and methods.

The advantage of multiculturalism is that exposure to different ways of thinking can produce good ideas. I used to think that overall it was about a tie, but I'm coming to the position that monoculturalism has an edge. For multiculturalism to work, there must be a common set of core values and a common language. Without that, society is dysfunctional. Our governor in California says that 38% of the students in California schools do not speak English. That is dysfunctional, and California schools rank 47th in the nation despite enormous spending. The allowed differences must be limited.
Cryo
Posts: 202
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 5:38:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/24/2014 3:43:59 PM, wsmunit7 wrote:
Xenophobia.

This. It's not the concept of multiculturalism that's the problem, it's the xenophobia from the indigenous group combined with the refusal to assimilate from the immigrants.

There's no reason why you can't hold on to your family's culture and also assimilate into the culture of the country you live in. People do it all time.
DarthVitiosus
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 7:02:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 12:51:01 AM, Bennett91 wrote:

Do you live in America? The two party system promotes extremism and the grid lock in Washington shows it. The Republican party usually doesn't appeal to other groups, just white conservatives.

Check your first world privilege buddy lol jk. But seriously do you even know what extremism is? Sorry, to inform your idealistic view of American politics but majority of Americans are apolitical. Most people in the Democratic Party are not liberals. Most people in the Republican Party are not conservatives. The data has shown, that most people don't care about most of the ideas being proposed(look up studies done at Princeton on voting behavior) because they are irrelevant to majority of the American populace.

You seem to be very naive if you think the Republican Party is "extreme" as you put it. It also shows you are an intolerant ideologue and inexperienced if you think that as well. There are political parties far more extreme in other countries who retain political power. Do I need to list them? We can talk Western Europe, Southern Europe, South Asia, Far East Asia, the Middle East, and Sub-Saharan Africa because I can list far more extreme parties that hold political power in these regions. Comparatively you can't make the case that the Republican Party is extreme compared to political parties in most other countries.

On another note, the American political system was set up to create gridlock. The founding fathers didn't want 51% to take from 49%. That is why the US Senate requires a super majority. This is why the American electoral college exists as well. The founding fathers wanted to have a consensus rather than a simple majority. After all if it is 51% to 49%, that means 5 out of 10 against 4 out of 10 roughly.
WILL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL:
#1. I have met 10 people worth discussing with on DDO who are not interested in ideological or romantic visions of the world we all live in.
#2. 10 people admit they have no interest in any one else's opinion other than their own.
#3. 10 people admit they are products of their environment and their ideas derive from said environment rather than doing any serious critical thinking and search for answers themselves.
DarthVitiosus
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/25/2014 7:32:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 12:56:02 AM, 1Percenter wrote:

America is not special. America is not different. History declares with certainty the eventual fate of multi-ethnic states. Even our political party system cannot overcome the divide that comes with multiculturalism. Cultural friction, like gravity, always prevails in the end. We are already starting to see identity politics in the United States. Republican and Democrat are no longer just political entities, but are quickly becoming markers of ethnic/cultural loyalties.

http://bigstory.ap.org...

Notice that the four outlying states (OR, MN, NH, MI) where whites did not overwhelmingly favor Republicans are typically Democratic and significantly whiter than the national average. They are geographically removed from the consequences of multicultural policies (for now). America is going down the same avenue almost all other multi-ethnic states in history have gone, and it will likely end in bloodshed.

You just made the case that you have blatantly ignored most of American history with the statements you have made above. Anyone who knows the history of America knows that it has always been a multi-ethnic state. I rolled over with laughter when you said "We are already starting to see identity politics in the United States. Republican and Democrat are no longer just political entities, but are quickly becoming markers of ethnic/cultural loyalties. " Go tell that to Al Smith and why he never became president because he was Catholic. Better yet, go back tell that to the Irishmen who forced themselves into the doors of Tammany Hall in the 1820s in order to force their representation in politics. You should also go tell that to the American Party which attempted to stop and impede Catholics in the 1840s and 1850s. Then go and tell that to the most conservative Catholic Irish Democrat in the 1960s who previously would never even imagined becoming a Republican(consider Irishmen were overwhelmingly Democrats prior to the 1960s). I could go on with how erroneous that statement is about identity politics. But it is always good to focus on the Irishmen since they dominated many places in America from the 1840s to the 1940s. Identity politics has always been American politics nationally.

Then you go on about the Republican Party being more whiter. I would state this emphatically, the Republican Party has been and probably always be the nativist party. When the American population boomed with over 30 million European immigrants in the 19th century until the 20th century, majority of those immigrants registered as Democrats resoundingly. Many of which still overwhelmingly vote Democrat(I.E Jews 3 out of 4 are registered Democrats). The state that had the strongest Republican Party during this period was Pennsylvania I would argue without question. The Republican Party controlled both Pittsburgh and Philadelphia along with dominating the state legislature from the late 19th century until the 1920s. Why? Pennsylvania only received half the amount of the population growth of other states. Therefore, most of their cities were still made up of nativists versus fresh off the boat immigrants. Compared to New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and a few other states that had their most populous cities dominated by Democrats due to the increase in immigration. The only time immigrants would consider voting Republican was when they were voting against Democrats. Notable examples of this would be Fiorello LaGuardia and Vito Marcantonio in New York City whom never adhered to the Republican platform. Folks like this around the country, simply, ran as Republicans because they were prevented from running as Democrats due to Irish dominance in the Democratic machines.

America can't go down a route it has always been on either. Stop re-imagining history please. Identity politics has always existed in America and probably always wil

Monocultural societies don't even gurantee stability. Nevertheless, it is the empires who make history, not nations. Empires are inherently multi-ethnic bodies.
WILL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL:
#1. I have met 10 people worth discussing with on DDO who are not interested in ideological or romantic visions of the world we all live in.
#2. 10 people admit they have no interest in any one else's opinion other than their own.
#3. 10 people admit they are products of their environment and their ideas derive from said environment rather than doing any serious critical thinking and search for answers themselves.
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 12:02:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Ha ha wow. Way to over react to your own misunderstanding. Project much? Because you seem to assume A LOT from just 2 sentences.

At 11/25/2014 7:02:30 PM, DarthVitiosus wrote:
At 11/25/2014 12:51:01 AM, Bennett91 wrote:

Do you live in America? The two party system promotes extremism and the grid lock in Washington shows it. The Republican party usually doesn't appeal to other groups, just white conservatives.

Check your first world privilege buddy lol jk. But seriously do you even know what extremism is? Sorry, to inform your idealistic view of American politics but majority of Americans are apolitical. Most people in the Democratic Party are not liberals. Most people in the Republican Party are not conservatives. The data has shown, that most people don't care about most of the ideas being proposed(look up studies done at Princeton on voting behavior) because they are irrelevant to majority of the American populace.

In the American context extremism is far left (socialism) and far right (unregulated capitalism), this can be better defined as extreme polarization. Is it extreme compared to Soviet Communism or the Taliban? Of course not. But I'm talking in the American context with the American two party system. Truly "extreme" parties tend not to function within government as a whole as they would not get elected or would be antithetical to the democratic system.

But what I find hilarious is your evaluation of the American public in regards to the 2 party system. Your argument goes 'the majority of Americans are apolitical therefore the two party system does not promote extremism'. But what you don't consider is the VOTING POPULATION. Can you describe people who vote as apolitical? Misinformed perhaps, but apolitical? You don't even understand how polarization works! Sure there are apathetic Americans, but they tend not to vote or influence law makers. But you know does influence law makers? The politically motivated! And do you know who the politically motivated are? PARTISANS (partisan politics can turn into extreme polarization). Now follow the steps with me. Law makers respond to partisans, so that makes them also partisan. So polarized citizens vote for polarized candidates and we see congress is polarized which inevitably leads to gridlock. How this relates to the 2 party system is simple. Because we have a winner take all voting/single member district system this makes it difficult for 3rd parties (possibly moderate parties) to enter the race without causing a spoiler effect.

As for the argument that American politics is becoming more polarized here's a source for ya: http://www.people-press.org...

You seem to be very naive if you think the Republican Party is "extreme" as you put it. It also shows you are an intolerant ideologue and inexperienced if you think that as well. There are political parties far more extreme in other countries who retain political power. Do I need to list them? We can talk Western Europe, Southern Europe, South Asia, Far East Asia, the Middle East, and Sub-Saharan Africa because I can list far more extreme parties that hold political power in these regions. Comparatively you can't make the case that the Republican Party is extreme compared to political parties in most other countries.

I made 2 separate statements. 'The 2 party system promotes extremism [partisan gridlock]' and 'The GOP appeals to mostly white conservatives' I did not accuse the Republican party as extreme, even though they are moving farther to the right to appeal to the tea party. I'm an ideologue? You're the one blasting a straw man you cad.

You mention a lot of regions with extreme parties, but you don't seem to acknowledge that those regions contain non-democratic regimes. Of course compared to a democracy they're extreme. As I've said before I'm talking about strictly US politics.

On another note, the American political system was set up to create gridlock. The founding fathers didn't want 51% to take from 49%. That is why the US Senate requires a super majority. This is why the American electoral college exists as well. The founding fathers wanted to have a consensus rather than a simple majority. After all if it is 51% to 49%, that means 5 out of 10 against 4 out of 10 roughly.

The American system was designed for checks and balances, not dysfunctional gridlock. The US senate only requires a super majority to bypass a filibuster. It's not essential for passing laws, just for avoiding obstruction (which is a product of extreme polarization). Today's congress is possibly the worst ever in regards to productivity. This is not what the founders wanted. http://thehill.com...
DarthVitiosus
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 9:36:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 12:02:58 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
Ha ha wow. Way to over react to your own misunderstanding. Project much? Because you seem to assume A LOT from just 2 sentences.
I like offering facts that can be double checked unlike some people apparently. Let's do a fact check.

FACT CHECK #1: At 11/25/2014 12:51:01 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
"(1)Do you live in America? (2)The two party system promotes extremism and the grid lock in Washington shows it. (3)The Republican party usually doesn't appeal to other groups, just white conservatives."

WRONG, three sentences.

In the American context extremism is far left (socialism) and far right (unregulated capitalism), this can be better defined as extreme polarization.
FACT CHECK #2: Extremism is an adjective which can be relatively applied dependent upon perspective. Therefore, if those are extremes, what are the moderates? And who determines this? Until then, this point is irrelevant and inconsequential to this discussion.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

But I'm talking in the American context with the American two party system.
Clarified.

Truly "extreme" parties tend not to function within government as a whole as they would not get elected or would be antithetical to the democratic system.
FACT CHECK #3: Was the NSDAP and PNF not "extreme" according to your standard? Are Golden Dawn and National Front not "extreme"? The NSDAP won 43% in 1933 within a democracy. The PNF and NSAP were successful in democracies and were inherently against a democratic system. I have other examples but these would be the most familiar and easily known in the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...
http://en.wikipedia.org...

But what I find hilarious is your evaluation of the American public in regards to the 2 party system. Your argument goes 'the majority of Americans are apolitical therefore the two party system does not promote extremism'. But what you don't consider is the VOTING POPULATION.
FACT CHECK #4: The greatest electoral landslides in American history have all happened within the last five or six decades(Goldwater, McGovern, Carter, Mondale). That is because ideologues have no understanding of politics(many do ideologues understand governance but not politics). As the data pointed out by Wattenberg and Scammon in "The Real Majority" that whoever takes the political center or is to the closest center wins the presidential elections and inevitably will have the stronger political coalition long term. The New Left created the current Republican coalition when they seized control of the Democratic Party(post -68) which ultimately cultivated the 94' Republican Revolution. This is why the Democrats couldn't win a presidential election until the DLCers and Bill Clinton were the face of the Democratic Party. NOTE: Carter only became president because Americans were voting against Ford as a response for what he did with Nixon.

http://www.ourcuriousworld.com...

An ideologue will never win the presidency since they are too far politically from the average American. Ideologically motivated people are only significant in off presidential election years and in primaries. This is why Goldwater and McGovern were trounced because the primaries were overrun by ideologues who nominated someone ideologically motivated as well.

Can you describe people who vote as apolitical? Misinformed perhaps, but apolitical?
FACT CHECK #5: The case was delivered long ago by George Washington Plunkitt when he said "It is his belief that arguments and campaign literature have never gained votes." The data has only confirmed his wise intuition that he uttered long ago. Majority of voters are apolitical. People who are ideological tend to be angry but I don't want to go off track here with more studies.

http://www.mit.edu...
http://www.theguardian.com...
http://www.scientificamerican.com...
http://www.examiner.com...
http://culturalneuro.psych.northwestern.edu...
http://www.academia.edu...

You don't even understand how polarization works!
A good joke. Look at the Federalists in 1812 and the election of 1860 before talking anymore. The link you posted doesn't even use OC or use actual events to have a significant comparative analysis. The study is weak just like most of your claims. 1994? That was only two decades ago when the United States has existed for 229 years. Too inconsequential to be discussed any further.

But you know does influence law makers? The politically motivated! And do you know who the politically motivated are?
FACT CHECK #6: The economic affluent influence law makers decisions not partisans.

http://www.columbia.edu...
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/08/rich-people-rule/

I made 2 separate statements. 'The 2 party system promotes extremism [partisan gridlock]' and 'The GOP appeals to mostly white conservatives' I did not accuse the Republican party as extreme, even though they are moving farther to the right to appeal to the tea party. I'm an ideologue? You're the one blasting a straw man you cad.
FACT CHECK #7: No one brought up race until you did in Post #11. Therefore, you have a reason for bringing race into a subject which we were not discussing.



The American system was designed for checks and balances, not dysfunctional gridlock. The US senate only requires a super majority to bypass a filibuster. It's not essential for passing laws, just for avoiding obstruction (which is a product of extreme polarization). Today's congress is possibly the worst ever in regards to productivity. This is not what the founders wanted. http://thehill.com...

FACT CHECK #8: This is the most productive Congress in American history hands down. The fact of the matter is that there has never been as much detailed legislation ever proposed annually ever in American history.

I find it funny how John Dingell in that article is complaining about Congress being unproductive when he brought the most substantial piece of legislation ever written in American history before the Congress in 2009. That is why John Boehner was correct when he said about people reading about Obamacare "Hell no you haven't." They are not writing Homestead Act in Congress, it is not a simple few pages. In 1948, the average bill was only 2.5 pages. While in 2006, the average bill is 15 pages. Bills are far more complex in today's time compared to any other period in American history. To even attempt to deal with so many bills, congressional staffs have grown drastically. No way, could elected officials living before 1949 could imagine such large staffs that exist in the present time.

http://www.politico.com...
http://www.slate.com...
http://www.cato.org...
http://www.jstor.org...

Those darn facts lol
WILL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL:
#1. I have met 10 people worth discussing with on DDO who are not interested in ideological or romantic visions of the world we all live in.
#2. 10 people admit they have no interest in any one else's opinion other than their own.
#3. 10 people admit they are products of their environment and their ideas derive from said environment rather than doing any serious critical thinking and search for answers themselves.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 12:10:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/23/2014 4:15:47 AM, paininthenuts wrote:
In the UK this is a read hot subject. The media try and portray the public as being in favour of it, however I have only ever one person that thinks it works. We hear things such as "the richness and beauty diversity brings" whereas in reality all it brings is bitterness and the creation of slums. Mass immigration has dragged down wages, and created unemployment for the indigenous population. We have people crossing dozens of safe countries to get to Britain in order they can claim their generous benefits and free healthcare, but still they can't be bothered to learn the language, or wear similar clothing to ourselves. We are a very overpopulated country, as we don't have the infrastructure to cope with the volume of people, and the population mix now means we are losing our identity. It is my belief that human beings are pack animals, and will never feel comfortable sharing their territory with other cultures. The problem isn't colour or race, it's culture, and as long as immigrants refuse to adopt OUR culture, multiculturalism will NEVER work.

I heard on the radio that your fool of a president is in the process of giving green cards to thousands of illegal immigrants, I just bet that has gone down like a lead balloon.

What is your opinion on nationalism?
Nolite Timere
Bennett91
Posts: 4,227
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 2:19:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 9:36:31 AM, DarthVitiosus wrote:
At 11/26/2014 12:02:58 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
Ha ha wow. Way to over react to your own misunderstanding. Project much? Because you seem to assume A LOT from just 2 sentences.
I like offering facts that can be double checked unlike some people apparently. Let's do a fact check.

Lets double check then shall we?

FACT CHECK #1: At 11/25/2014 12:51:01 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
"(1)Do you live in America? (2)The two party system promotes extremism and the grid lock in Washington shows it. (3)The Republican party usually doesn't appeal to other groups, just white conservatives."

WRONG, three sentences.

Petty.

In the American context extremism is far left (socialism) and far right (unregulated capitalism), this can be better defined as extreme polarization.
FACT CHECK #2: Extremism is an adjective which can be relatively applied dependent upon perspective. Therefore, if those are extremes, what are the moderates? And who determines this? Until then, this point is irrelevant and inconsequential to this discussion.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com...

Oh ok then, because they are relative terms bereft of context then I'll let this pass.

But I'm talking in the American context with the American two party system.
Clarified.

Oh boy I'm glad I clarified for you. I hope it actually influences how you respond!

Truly "extreme" parties tend not to function within government as a whole as they would not get elected or would be antithetical to the democratic system.
FACT CHECK #3: Was the NSDAP and PNF not "extreme" according to your standard? Are Golden Dawn and National Front not "extreme"? The NSDAP won 43% in 1933 within a democracy. The PNF and NSAP were successful in democracies and were inherently against a democratic system. I have other examples but these would be the most familiar and easily known in the US.

Nazi's and Greeks in the context of extreme economic downturn oh my! Those sure fit into the modern American context! But what's extreme? These are relative terms! Who decides who's extreme? Who's moderate?

FACT CHECK #4: The greatest electoral landslides in American history have all happened within the last five or six decades(Goldwater, McGovern, Carter, Mondale). That is because ideologues have no understanding of politics(many do ideologues understand governance but not politics). As the data pointed out by Wattenberg and Scammon in "The Real Majority" that whoever takes the political center or is to the closest center wins the presidential elections and inevitably will have the stronger political coalition long term. The New Left created the current Republican coalition when they seized control of the Democratic Party(post -68) which ultimately cultivated the 94' Republican Revolution. This is why the Democrats couldn't win a presidential election until the DLCers and Bill Clinton were the face of the Democratic Party. NOTE: Carter only became president because Americans were voting against Ford as a response for what he did with Nixon.

http://www.ourcuriousworld.com...

I like how your source says Thomas Jefferson had the biggest blowout but you list LBJ - Reagan as the greatest electoral landslides. As for your history lesson, that doesn't really show anything substantive.

An ideologue will never win the presidency since they are too far politically from the average American. Ideologically motivated people are only significant in off presidential election years and in primaries. This is why Goldwater and McGovern were trounced because the primaries were overrun by ideologues who nominated someone ideologically motivated as well.

Well if you listen to Republicans there's an ideologue in the White House right now.

Can you describe people who vote as apolitical? Misinformed perhaps, but apolitical?
FACT CHECK #5: The case was delivered long ago by George Washington Plunkitt when he said "It is his belief that arguments and campaign literature have never gained votes." The data has only confirmed his wise intuition that he uttered long ago. Majority of voters are apolitical. People who are ideological tend to be angry but I don't want to go off track here with more studies.

All of these sources have to do with looks. They are not the cold hard deciders of people political orientation. If anything if you're saying people are apolitical then Wattenberg and Scammon's finding about the political center is false because it's a beauty contest! Even your own sources point it out as a trend.

You don't even understand how polarization works!
A good joke. Look at the Federalists in 1812 and the election of 1860 before talking anymore. The link you posted doesn't even use OC or use actual events to have a significant comparative analysis. The study is weak just like most of your claims. 1994? That was only two decades ago when the United States has existed for 229 years. Too inconsequential to be discussed any further.

Not really inconsequential since the American make-up/body politic has changed a lot since the last 20 years.

But you know does influence law makers? The politically motivated! And do you know who the politically motivated are?
FACT CHECK #6: The economic affluent influence law makers decisions not partisans.

http://www.columbia.edu...
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/04/08/rich-people-rule

To quote your own source: "We cannot find statistical evidence of differential representation."

Sooooo .... moving on.

FACT CHECK #7: No one brought up race until you did in Post #11. Therefore, you have a reason for bringing race into a subject which we were not discussing.

You do realize this forum is about multiculturalism right? That involves race. I brought up the white majority of republicans because you said "Multi-ethnic states can succeed when those in power represent multiple ethnicities." The GOP does not represent multiple ethnicities. That was pretty much my point. Well except talking about the 2 party winner take all system but we have hardly touched that.

FACT CHECK #8: This is the most productive Congress in American history hands down. The fact of the matter is that there has never been as much detailed legislation ever proposed annually ever in American history.

I find it funny how John Dingell in that article is complaining about Congress being unproductive when he brought the most substantial piece of legislation ever written in American history before the Congress in 2009. That is why John Boehner was correct when he said about people reading about Obamacare "Hell no you haven't." They are not writing Homestead Act in Congress, it is not a simple few pages. In 1948, the average bill was only 2.5 pages. While in 2006, the average bill is 15 pages. Bills are far more complex in today's time compared to any other period in American history. To even attempt to deal with so many bills, congressional staffs have grown drastically. No way, could elected officials living before 1949 could imagine such large staffs that exist in the present time.

http://www.politico.com...
http://www.slate.com...
http://www.cato.org...
http://www.jstor.org...

Your sources contradict each other. Bill length should have nothing to do with efficiency if they have the staff to manage it, which your sources clearly indicate they do.

Those darn facts lol

Yea if only they applied to the conversation.
DarthVitiosus
Posts: 624
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/26/2014 5:18:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/26/2014 2:19:57 PM, Bennett91 wrote:

Oh boy I'm glad I clarified for you. I hope it actually influences how you respond!
Humor is not an argument but then again I don't expect you to be capable of understanding that.
Nazi's and Greeks in the context of extreme economic downturn oh my! Those sure fit into the modern American context! But what's extreme? These are relative terms! Who decides who's extreme? Who's moderate?
What is the matter? You don't want to back up anything you say? After I refuted your petty claim thoroughly.

"Truly "extreme" parties tend not to function within government as a whole as they would not get elected or would be antithetical to the democratic system."

I like how your source says Thomas Jefferson had the biggest blowout but you list LBJ - Reagan as the greatest electoral landslides. As for your history lesson, that doesn't really show anything substantive.
Do you suffer from a reading deficiency? The Thomas Jefferson election was ranked #10. While the LBJ and Reagan elections are ranked #1 and #2. READ before you speak but then again that might be too much work for you to do. The fact of the matter is that as elections have had more ideologically motivated candidates, they have lost in significant landslides victories(which were the top 4 elections). Therefore more partisan candidates will lose presidential elections.

Well if you listen to Republicans there's an ideologue in the White House right now.
You are moving goal posts again. I am not here to discuss the man in the White House nor did I bring him up.

All of these sources have to do with looks. They are not the cold hard deciders of people political orientation. If anything if you're saying people are apolitical then Wattenberg and Scammon's finding about the political center is false because it's a beauty contest! Even your own sources point it out as a trend.
I said majority of voters don't care about politics when voting. There are other factors that are more significant which looks is one of the the most notable factors.

The Wattenberg/Scammon study actually backs up the data about looks. The study by Scammon and Wattenberg studied the alignment of average American voter compared to politicians. Which Americans are not very political which leaves them in the center with not much of an affinity to the right or left since the average American probably has views compatible with both sides of the political spectrum(of course this varies for individual groups). Therefore other factors come into play aside from politics. Which leads to what I previously stated about that partisans tend to be angry or very demanding which is ill-suited for presidential elections. Anger or too much aggressiveness is a negative in terms of their physical appearance.

Not really inconsequential since the American make-up/body politic has changed a lot since the last 20 years.
Conjecture doesn't validate the premise and the results of the study. The facts are the study only examines a short time period relative to most of American history.

To quote your own source: "We cannot find statistical evidence of differential representation."

Sooooo .... moving on.
Nice try, not going to work.

"The rich are more attentive and more likely to vote. Second, the rich are more
likely to contribute to campaigns. For these reasons, reelection-seeking Senators have
reason to pay more attention to rich opinion than to poor opinion. Moreover, Senators are themselves from the social strata of the relatively rich. To some extent, they would share the views of the relatively rich and interact with constituents who themselves are
relatively rich. To the extent that the poor are invisible to Senate members, it is unlikely
that Senators consider the views of the poor."

You do realize this forum is about multiculturalism right? That involves race. I brought up the white majority of republicans because you said "Multi-ethnic states can succeed when those in power represent multiple ethnicities." The GOP does not represent multiple ethnicities. That was pretty much my point. Well except talking about the 2 party winner take all system but we have hardly touched that.
Stop moving goal posts, no one was discussing race until you brought it up. Learn the difference between ethnicity and race because they are not the same.

Yes,the GOP does represent multiple ETHNICITIES. The GOP is made up of Scots-Irish, Scandinavians, Germans, Dutch, Jewish protestants, Anglo-Saxon Protestants, Cubans, and many others. These are just a quick sample.


Your sources contradict each other. Bill length should have nothing to do with efficiency if they have the staff to manage it, which your sources clearly indicate they do.

Again, you are moving goal posts here. This is not the least productive congress, fact.

Bill length has everything to do with efficiency. You want bills to pass with no one reading and understanding them? You sound like Jonathan Gruber now encouraging a lack of transparency. One of the most respected lines I have heard was by Dennis Kucinich when he stated why he voted against the Patriot Act, "because I read it."

If the average bill is 15 pages and each year over 5,000 bills(probably over 75,000 pages) are pushed into congress, each bill can not be studied thoroughly by staff. There are simply are not enough staffers to deal with this plague of bills. Then the actual CBO projections need to be studied as well for bills. Then the possible legal ramifications of said bills need to be studied as well. There are not enough people for this process.
WILL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL:
#1. I have met 10 people worth discussing with on DDO who are not interested in ideological or romantic visions of the world we all live in.
#2. 10 people admit they have no interest in any one else's opinion other than their own.
#3. 10 people admit they are products of their environment and their ideas derive from said environment rather than doing any serious critical thinking and search for answers themselves.
paininthenuts
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 5:00:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 12:54:36 AM, Bennett91 wrote:
At 11/23/2014 4:15:47 AM, paininthenuts wrote:
In the UK this is a read hot subject. The media try and portray the public as being in favour of it, however I have only ever one person that thinks it works. We hear things such as "the richness and beauty diversity brings" whereas in reality all it brings is bitterness and the creation of slums. Mass immigration has dragged down wages, and created unemployment for the indigenous population. We have people crossing dozens of safe countries to get to Britain in order they can claim their generous benefits and free healthcare, but still they can't be bothered to learn the language, or wear similar clothing to ourselves. We are a very overpopulated country, as we don't have the infrastructure to cope with the volume of people, and the population mix now means we are losing our identity. It is my belief that human beings are pack animals, and will never feel comfortable sharing their territory with other cultures. The problem isn't colour or race, it's culture, and as long as immigrants refuse to adopt OUR culture, multiculturalism will NEVER work.

I heard on the radio that your fool of a president is in the process of giving green cards to thousands of illegal immigrants, I just bet that has gone down like a lead balloon.

I think multiculturalism can work if everyone accepts the liberal value that we are all free and equal to do as we please. Conservative ideologies muck it up.

Also Obama isn't giving out green cards. All he's doing is not deporting people who come out of the shadows.

========

The trouble there is that the vast majority of us hate liberalism.
paininthenuts
Posts: 161
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 5:05:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/25/2014 3:16:35 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
There are cases where multiculturalism works. The example familiar to me is Hawaii, where whites are about 30% of the population and there is a great deal ethnic diversity. I think the key is that there must be a common set of core values across the diversity, and Hawaiians have that. Multiculturalism will not work if there is an Islamic segment that believes in sharia law. I lived in a California city that had a 30% Islamic population, mostly Afghan refugees. There was no problem, because the Muslims were not devoted to imposing a radical ideology.

Japan is monocultural, and it works well for them. If you apply to become a Japanese citizen, an inspector will look in your refrigerator to see if you are eating Japanese food. I suspect a weenie will get you booted. The advantage is cultural literacy. People can communicate with great ease, because everyone shares a very large body of knowledge, not only language, but traditions and methods.

The advantage of multiculturalism is that exposure to different ways of thinking can produce good ideas. I used to think that overall it was about a tie, but I'm coming to the position that monoculturalism has an edge. For multiculturalism to work, there must be a common set of core values and a common language. Without that, society is dysfunctional. Our governor in California says that 38% of the students in California schools do not speak English. That is dysfunctional, and California schools rank 47th in the nation despite enormous spending. The allowed differences must be limited.

=================

Muslims are a great example of how not to make multiculturalism work. They insist on developing there own areas, they are the world leaders in terrorism, and will not allow a white male who is not a Muslim anywhere near their daughters. In the UK we have a big problem with Muslim males trafficking white girls, because they think of them as less than human. As long as I have a hole in my arse will Muslims ever integrate with civilsed people.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 12:21:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/29/2014 5:05:44 AM, paininthenuts wrote:
Muslims are a great example of how not to make multiculturalism work. They insist on developing there own areas, they are the world leaders in terrorism, ...

Not all Muslims. I gave my example of Muslims integrating well into my community. I think it would be reasonable to exclude all people who were educated in schools that teach jihadist terrorism as a virtue. That includes most of the Palestinian schools and all the Wahabi schools, for example. The burden should be on the visa applicant to show education in some non-terrorist school. I think religious institutions are a product of society, and the problem is that Islam has been isolated from the rest of civilization for too long, so it's evolution has been slowed.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 12:34:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I do not accept that Democrats favor multiculturalism. They favor expanding the population and giving benefits to anyone they think will vote for Democrats, but that's about the end of it. They use a theory of "disadvantaged minorities" to discriminate against Asians. In international affairs they discriminate against Jews. They strongly favor low-skilled immigrants over high-skilled immigrants. High skilled immigrants won't need government handouts. They don't like Cuban refugees, who tend to vote Republican. They oppose measures to integrate new Spanish-speaking immigrants into society; California is one of our most Democrat dominated states, and according to Governor Brown 38% of students cannot speak English.

Democrats only favor multiculturalism as a means to their ends.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/29/2014 2:12:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/29/2014 12:34:41 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I do not accept that Democrats favor multiculturalism. They favor expanding the population and giving benefits to anyone they think will vote for Democrats, but that's about the end of it. They use a theory of "disadvantaged minorities" to discriminate against Asians. In international affairs they discriminate against Jews. They strongly favor low-skilled immigrants over high-skilled immigrants. High skilled immigrants won't need government handouts. They don't like Cuban refugees, who tend to vote Republican. They oppose measures to integrate new Spanish-speaking immigrants into society; California is one of our most Democrat dominated states, and according to Governor Brown 38% of students cannot speak English.

Democrats only favor multiculturalism as a means to their ends.

I think multiculturalism is too broad a term.

It is more relevant to specify how you want to treat other cultures.

For example: Do you believe we should integrate other cultures? (this is the historic tradition of America)

Do you believe we should co-exist with multiple cultures? (more recent trend)

Do you believe we should go out of our way to accommodate other cultures in the same exact way as we would for a handicapped person? (most recent trend)

Multiculturalism needs qualifying goals.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 9:06:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/29/2014 2:12:24 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
For example: Do you believe we should integrate other cultures? (this is the historic tradition of America)

I think that in the US we should integrate other cultures, but only up to a point. Everyone in the US should be taught to speak English, and to understand and embrace Constitutional government with guarantees of individual rights. So sharia law replacing individual freedoms is an unacceptable cultural artifact. Schools need to teach cultural literacy so that there is common ground for communication across cultures. So everybody should be taught Shakespeare. It's not too important what the body of cultural literacy is, so long as there is a body of material that is common.

Beyond those basics, there is no reason for government to get involved. It's none of government's business what customs or beliefs people practice, and diversity provides a benefit.

Do you believe we should co-exist with multiple cultures? (more recent trend)

In the US, we should not co-exist with cultures that do not believe in individual rights. Those are barbarians, and coexistence is not possible. We can argue over the borderline cases of what does and does not constitute a right. That's always been the case.

Do you believe we should go out of our way to accommodate other cultures in the same exact way as we would for a handicapped person? (most recent trend)

No. We should not go out of our way to suppress an individual culture, but the government shouldn't be forcing accommodation. Individuals, organizations, and businesses can do as they please.

I point to examples of places like Hawaii where multiculturalism works well. There is a common core of beliefs and traditions, while individuals maintain very strong cultural identities. The US as a whole has accommodated many waves of immigrants (e.g. Italian, German, Scandanavian, Chinese) using the principle of having a core of common culture and diversity beyond that. The goal of multiculturalism should be to instill a common American heritage, while letting people maintain their individual cultural traditions. The essential core belief is belief in freedom.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/30/2014 10:38:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/23/2014 4:15:47 AM, paininthenuts wrote:
In the UK this is a read hot subject. The media try and portray the public as being in favour of it,

For example..? The Guardian?

however I have only ever one person that thinks it works. We hear things such as "the richness and beauty diversity brings" whereas in reality all it brings is bitterness and the creation of slums.

No, that's capitalism.

Mass immigration has dragged down wages, and created unemployment for the indigenous population.

No, that's capitalism.

We have people crossing dozens of safe countries to get to Britain in order they can claim their generous benefits and free healthcare,

Has it ever occurred to you that there are many other reasons to come to Britain? The English language probably being the most prominent.

but still they can't be bothered to learn the language, or wear similar clothing to ourselves.

I had no idea that the languages we speak and the clothes we wear are something the state ought to legislate for.

We are a very overpopulated country, as we don't have the infrastructure to cope with the volume of people,

The United Kingdom is rank 51 in the world for population density.

and the population mix now means we are losing our identity.

What is that suppose to mean?

It is my belief that human beings are pack animals, and will never feel comfortable sharing their territory with other cultures.

Yes, you're right. The English will never feel comfortable eating Indian food, listening to American hip hop or watching Japanese cartoons.

The problem isn't colour or race, it's culture, and as long as immigrants refuse to adopt OUR culture, multiculturalism will NEVER work.

If everyone adopts the same culture, then that's not multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is when you realise that the clothes you wear, the food you eat and the traditions you practise are all things that people are free to do as they please.

I heard on the radio that your fool of a president is in the process of giving green cards to thousands of illegal immigrants, I just bet that has gone down like a lead balloon.

Hey, maybe there would be less of them if his country hadn't ruined theirs.