Total Posts:54|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

multiculturalism vs equality

Plato85
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 8:31:35 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
I was debating with someone who said he was in favour of multiculturalism because he's in favour of equality. I said to him doesn't everyone have equality under the law? He said that he was talking about 'real equality' and that it still has a long way to go.

My question is, if the biggest difference between people is their ideas and their outlook, and not the colour of their skin, shouldn't we all be against multi-culturalism and for a common culture?

Doesn't multi-culturalism just encourage sub-cultures and separatism? and just make inequality worse?

Why should we tolerate ideas we don't agree with rather than challenge them?
Kynikos
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 8:43:09 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
Na; ideas and outlook are part of culture.

The problem (with separatism, splintering etc.) is identitarianism. Thought per se isn't as much an irreconcilable rift as, say, ethnicity can be.
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 9:35:02 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/20/2016 8:31:35 AM, Plato85 wrote:
I was debating with someone who said he was in favour of multiculturalism because he's in favour of equality. I said to him doesn't everyone have equality under the law? He said that he was talking about 'real equality' and that it still has a long way to go.

My question is, if the biggest difference between people is their ideas and their outlook, and not the colour of their skin, shouldn't we all be against multi-culturalism and for a common culture?

Doesn't multi-culturalism just encourage sub-cultures and separatism? and just make inequality worse?

Why should we tolerate ideas we don't agree with rather than challenge them?

Bammmmm .
That's a nice response man.
However , however . To be in favour of multiculturalism seems smart it makes you sound intelligent, and it means you are a very considerable person. if your not in favour it means your a horrible wicked person. And care for nobody but yourself. Full stop.
Thinking it and saying it
Plato85
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 9:49:25 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/20/2016 8:43:09 AM, Kynikos wrote:
Na; ideas and outlook are part of culture.

The problem (with separatism, splintering etc.) is identitarianism. Thought per se isn't as much an irreconcilable rift as, say, ethnicity can be.

What is identitarianism?
Kynikos
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 10:00:16 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/20/2016 9:49:25 AM, Plato85 wrote:
What is identitarianism?

Identity politics. Are you tribe A or tribe B.
Plato85
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 10:09:43 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/20/2016 10:00:16 AM, Kynikos wrote:
At 11/20/2016 9:49:25 AM, Plato85 wrote:
What is identitarianism?

Identity politics. Are you tribe A or tribe B.

I'm against identity politics and tribalism. Isn't multiculturalism a branch of identity politics, and therefore part of the problem?
Kynikos
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 10:23:30 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/20/2016 10:09:43 AM, Plato85 wrote:
At 11/20/2016 10:00:16 AM, Kynikos wrote:
At 11/20/2016 9:49:25 AM, Plato85 wrote:
What is identitarianism?

Identity politics. Are you tribe A or tribe B.


I'm against identity politics and tribalism. Isn't multiculturalism a branch of identity politics, and therefore part of the problem?
In effect. Yeah.

Taken literally, it would mean something else. But it's a dogwhistle now.
Hiu
Posts: 978
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 11:31:58 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/20/2016 8:31:35 AM, Plato85 wrote:
I was debating with someone who said he was in favour of multiculturalism because he's in favour of equality. I said to him doesn't everyone have equality under the law? He said that he was talking about 'real equality' and that it still has a long way to go.

My question is, if the biggest difference between people is their ideas and their outlook, and not the colour of their skin, shouldn't we all be against multi-culturalism and for a common culture?

Doesn't multi-culturalism just encourage sub-cultures and separatism? and just make inequality worse?

Why should we tolerate ideas we don't agree with rather than challenge them?

Multi-culturalism (to me) is more along the lines of inclusivism, and that does mean accepting differences whether they're cultural or not. I think that is the beauty of it all being exposed to various cultures because our encounters of various cultures (I mean on a positive level) can combat some of our personal biases.
AlyceTheElectrician
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 3:01:45 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/20/2016 8:31:35 AM, Plato85 wrote:
I was debating with someone who said he was in favour of multiculturalism because he's in favour of equality. I said to him doesn't everyone have equality under the law? He said that he was talking about 'real equality' and that it still has a long way to go.

My question is, if the biggest difference between people is their ideas and their outlook, and not the colour of their skin, shouldn't we all be against multi-culturalism and for a common culture?

Yes. Your color should not be the definition of you, only your character. Focus on race takes focus away from character, and results in misguided generalizations and bias.

I personally feel common culture encourages unity much more than multi-culturalism.

Doesn't multi-culturalism just encourage sub-cultures and separatism? and just make inequality worse?
Yes multi-culturalism encourages separatism, and discourages assimilation, and it has proven to be a recipe for disaster.

multiculturalism perpetuates inequality via racism, by giving preferential treatments to "groups" instead of an equal baseline standard for all.

Why should we tolerate ideas we don't agree with rather than challenge them?

I always encourage discourse and challenges to opposing ideals.
Be who you are, Say what you feel, Because those who mind don"t matter, And those who matter don't mind.

BANGTAN! Blood, Sweat, & Tears> Check it out yes! https://www.youtube.com...
AlyceTheElectrician
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 4:33:13 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
I'd also like to add that there is nothing inclusive about multiculturalism, "inclusive" is under tho guise of simply co-existing sans unity.
Be who you are, Say what you feel, Because those who mind don"t matter, And those who matter don't mind.

BANGTAN! Blood, Sweat, & Tears> Check it out yes! https://www.youtube.com...
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,720
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 8:22:35 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
Assuming mono culture is better, I'm interested in how you all expect that idea to influence policymaking. It's one thing to say it would be nice if we were all one culture, and another thing entirely to take that idea and use it as a basis to make decisions. I would venture a guess that there would be absolutely nothing good that comes from this. It is an ideal, unrealistic at that, that exists only as a meaningless theoretical result.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
Plato85
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 8:52:05 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/20/2016 8:22:35 PM, R0b1Billion wrote:
Assuming mono culture is better, I'm interested in how you all expect that idea to influence policymaking. It's one thing to say it would be nice if we were all one culture, and another thing entirely to take that idea and use it as a basis to make decisions. I would venture a guess that there would be absolutely nothing good that comes from this. It is an ideal, unrealistic at that, that exists only as a meaningless theoretical result.

Policy making wouldn't be greatly affected. We'd have equality under law, we'd scrap things like affirmative action. We'd have free speech so we can criticise bad ideas. We wouldn't be funding organisations that encourage separateness.

But what would need to change is our mindset. We need to say there is objective truth that everyone can agree on things rationally, rather than our current meek mindset that truth is subjective (what's true for me may not be true for you, and how do I really know my morals are better than your morals?).

We need to be able stand up truth and distinguish between good and bad, true and false. So rather than accepting someone's views just because they're different, we should be standing up for truth and argue things out.

This will help everyone come together and lead to equality.
Plato85
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2016 9:44:26 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
In other words we create a common culture through the open clash of ideas. If people find it hard to justify their beliefs rationally they will come out of their subculture to join the mainstream, or perhaps the mainstream will adopt the more rational view of a subculture.
Hiu
Posts: 978
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 2:00:20 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/20/2016 3:01:45 PM, AlyceTheElectrician wrote:
At 11/20/2016 8:31:35 AM, Plato85 wrote:
I was debating with someone who said he was in favour of multiculturalism because he's in favour of equality. I said to him doesn't everyone have equality under the law? He said that he was talking about 'real equality' and that it still has a long way to go.

My question is, if the biggest difference between people is their ideas and their outlook, and not the colour of their skin, shouldn't we all be against multi-culturalism and for a common culture?

Yes. Your color should not be the definition of you, only your character. Focus on race takes focus away from character, and results in misguided generalizations and bias.

I personally feel common culture encourages unity much more than multi-culturalism.

Doesn't multi-culturalism just encourage sub-cultures and separatism? and just make inequality worse?
Yes multi-culturalism encourages separatism, and discourages assimilation, and it has proven to be a recipe for disaster.

multiculturalism perpetuates inequality via racism, by giving preferential treatments to "groups" instead of an equal baseline standard for all.

Why should we tolerate ideas we don't agree with rather than challenge them?

I always encourage discourse and challenges to opposing ideals.

Commenting on the following:

"multiculturalism perpetuates inequality via racism, by giving preferential treatments to "groups" instead of an equal baseline standard for all."

I am pretty sure I know where you are going with this.....So basically multiculturalism is bad because it takes some power away from the majority and shares it with the minority thus the idea of "preferential treatment." But let me ask you, what is the "equal baseline?" Using United States history the baseline of equality was surely dictated by the majority. Also how does multiculturalism perpetuates racism?

Also you said:

"Yes multi-culturalism encourages separatism, and discourages assimilation, and it has proven to be a recipe for disaster."

Assimilate to what? The dominant culture? I cannot speak for any other country but the U.S. does not have an official language, although some politicians in the past have tried such as John Adams in 1780. Ironically even in the 1700's proponents of the notion of one language was fought against because people at the time spoke many languages so the idea of picking one language was seen as undemocratic and a threat to individual liberty. So with that being said what are people of various nationalities assimilating to if that society has a history of diversity already? U.S. culture in itself is not homogeneous it naturally composes of many people with various cultures, ideas, languages etc....
Hiu
Posts: 978
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 2:03:25 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/20/2016 4:33:13 PM, AlyceTheElectrician wrote:
I'd also like to add that there is nothing inclusive about multiculturalism, "inclusive" is under tho guise of simply co-existing sans unity.

Considering an increased population of a specific region inclusiveness is inevitable because people live next to each other, therefore policies and legislation include all people. Co-existence is inevitable whenever a given population increase which means you have to see the various cultures that you see everyday. Segregation has shown to be a failure...
Hiu
Posts: 978
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 2:10:11 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/20/2016 9:44:26 PM, Plato85 wrote:
In other words we create a common culture through the open clash of ideas. If people find it hard to justify their beliefs rationally they will come out of their subculture to join the mainstream, or perhaps the mainstream will adopt the more rational view of a subculture.

I see you couldn't reply to my first response to you....That is fine so let me challenge this you said:

"In other words we create a common culture....."

Common culture defined by who? Using the United States for example the "common culture" and how it's defined would most certainly be dictated by the majority. The challenge is to define what is common using specific language that is inclusive.

You also said:

" If people find it hard to justify their beliefs rationally they will come out of their subculture to join the mainstream, or perhaps the mainstream will adopt the more rational view of a subculture."

This doesn't work.....For one, if a culture is so ingrained in their beliefs they most certainly wont come out to join a mainstream we can use the United Kingdom and Paris for example. Immigrants from war torn countries and countries who have a strict idea of culture will not join a mainstream if they migrate, they simply want an opportunity for a better life. Because of this the mainstream choose to adopt nothing of those migrating cultures because the migrants wont adopt mainstream culture. It is more like "since you wont join me I wont join you...."
AlyceTheElectrician
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 4:08:31 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/21/2016 2:00:20 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 11/20/2016 3:01:45 PM, AlyceTheElectrician wrote:
At 11/20/2016 8:31:35 AM, Plato85 wrote:
I was debating with someone who said he was in favour of multiculturalism because he's in favour of equality. I said to him doesn't everyone have equality under the law? He said that he was talking about 'real equality' and that it still has a long way to go.

My question is, if the biggest difference between people is their ideas and their outlook, and not the colour of their skin, shouldn't we all be against multi-culturalism and for a common culture?

Yes. Your color should not be the definition of you, only your character. Focus on race takes focus away from character, and results in misguided generalizations and bias.

I personally feel common culture encourages unity much more than multi-culturalism.

Doesn't multi-culturalism just encourage sub-cultures and separatism? and just make inequality worse?
Yes multi-culturalism encourages separatism, and discourages assimilation, and it has proven to be a recipe for disaster.

multiculturalism perpetuates inequality via racism, by giving preferential treatments to "groups" instead of an equal baseline standard for all.

Why should we tolerate ideas we don't agree with rather than challenge them?

I always encourage discourse and challenges to opposing ideals.

Commenting on the following:

"multiculturalism perpetuates inequality via racism, by giving preferential treatments to "groups" instead of an equal baseline standard for all."

I am pretty sure I know where you are going with this.....So basically multiculturalism is bad because it takes some power away from the majority and shares it with the minority thus the idea of "preferential treatment." But let me ask you, what is the "equal baseline?" Using United States history the baseline of equality was surely dictated by the majority. Also how does multiculturalism perpetuates racism?

First, it is important to accept that in every aspect of nature except one that I can think of (a newborn baby is an example of minority rule/minority privilege) the majority rules, and the majority has the privilege.

Second, majority does not necessarily equate to superiority, nor does minority equate to inferiority, it is only a matter of numbers whenever content of character is the focus. Majority power becomes irrelevant.

'equal baseline for all' just refers to a consensus standard like the three inalienable rights.

Therefore, with common cultural norm through content of character as the focus, unity and cohesion is the result; An example I would give of common cultural norm is the Marine Corp or the Navy Sailors, even though sailors and marines come from all walks of life derived from many cultures, they willfully drop identity separatism and operate as one cohesive unit as sailors and marines.

However with multiculturalism as the norm, co-existing through the content of race or groups as the focus, give way to tribalism and common identity separatism resulting in bias. At this point the majority then becomes superior, the minority becomes inferior, and majority power becomes prevalent. An example I would give of a multiculturalism norm is high school identity groups; jocks, nerds, etc... each group operates as separate entities within the school, giving way to the "us against them" mentality. In the context of race being the focus, this is how multiculturalism perpetuates racism.

for clarification, preferential treatment is not exclusive to minorities in a multi-cultural society, it goes both ways.

Also you said:

"Yes multi-culturalism encourages separatism, and discourages assimilation, and it has proven to be a recipe for disaster."

Assimilate to what? The dominant culture? I cannot speak for any other country but the U.S. does not have an official language, although some politicians in the past have tried such as John Adams in 1780. Ironically even in the 1700's proponents of the notion of one language was fought against because people at the time spoke many languages so the idea of picking one language was seen as undemocratic and a threat to individual liberty. So with that being said what are people of various nationalities assimilating to if that society has a history of diversity already? U.S. culture in itself is not homogeneous it naturally composes of many people with various cultures, ideas, languages etc....

well yeah, drop identity separatism and become one cohesive unit overall, our American culture is a derivative a many cultures, and that's fine, but still we are all Americans, and America has cultural norms and values that all Americans should assimilate towards. Common culture norm does not require a total cease and desist of your back round culture, however there are cultural norms from others that are not compatible with American cultural norms and shouldn't be accepted, and example is "Sharia Court" or "Morality Patrols".
Be who you are, Say what you feel, Because those who mind don"t matter, And those who matter don't mind.

BANGTAN! Blood, Sweat, & Tears> Check it out yes! https://www.youtube.com...
Plato85
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 6:17:09 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
Hiu,

Sorry I didn"t answer your first post:
-Multi-culturalism is Inclusivism. I don"t agree. That is what"s intended, but if in practice if it encourages us to go into separate tribes, then it"s the opposite.
-Yes I agree that being exposed to various cultures is good because it can challenge our biases, and obviously the best way to have your bias challenged is in open discussion like this.

Post #16
- Yes a common culture 'encouraged" by the majority. That sounds democratic, and liberal to me. I think we need to avoid 'specific language' and use rational argument. If you want specific language listen to a politician. They have no soul.

"This doesn't work.....For one, if a culture is so ingrained in their beliefs they most certainly wont come out to join a mainstream we can use the United Kingdom and Paris for example. Immigrants from war torn countries and countries who have a strict idea of culture will not join a mainstream if they migrate, they simply want an opportunity for a better life. Because of this the mainstream choose to adopt nothing of those migrating cultures because the migrants wont adopt mainstream culture. It is more like "since you wont join me I wont join you...."

I don"t know how you think this culture will make life better for us or why we should tolerate it? I'd like to think that if someone wanted to come to our country that there was something about our culture that they liked, and therefore they would be ready to join the mainstream culture.
Kynikos
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 6:30:40 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
I assume Plato means "culture"/"multiculture" in the solely identitarian sense. Some commenters seem to be confused.

That being the case, his stance is right. And Hiu's is wrong.
Plato85
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 7:40:32 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/21/2016 6:30:40 AM, Kynikos wrote:
I assume Plato means "culture"/"multiculture" in the solely identitarian sense. Some commenters seem to be confused.

Yes, when I say culture I mean what is common for everyone, as opposed to multi culture in which people identify more with a subculture (or group) than with the culture.
Hiu
Posts: 978
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 7:45:23 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
You said:

"First, it is important to accept that in every aspect of nature except one that I can think of (a newborn baby is an example of minority rule/minority privilege) the majority rules, and the majority has the privilege."

Again who is the majority? Who has the most members of one group? People who have power in government? Who?

You said:

"Second, majority does not necessarily equate to superiority, nor does minority equate to inferiority, it is only a matter of numbers whenever content of character is the focus. Majority power becomes irrelevant."

Content of character was never established in United States history, if that was the case civil rights groups of groups that want their character to be accepted equally would exist. Majority power established these groups because of the presence of inequality.

You said:

"equal baseline for all' just refers to a consensus standard like the three inalienable rights."

As I said above, if this were true civil rights groups would not have existed. This is an idealist mentality but taking history into consideration this was not reality.

You:

"Therefore, with common cultural norm through content of character as the focus, unity and cohesion is the result; An example I would give of common cultural norm is the Marine Corp or the Navy Sailors, even though sailors and marines come from all walks of life derived from many cultures, they willfully drop identity separatism and operate as one cohesive unit as sailors and marines."

My family served (except me) you do realize racism still exists even in the United States military. Not all serviceman drop their racist ideals. Sure the idea of coming together and dropping our cultural differences is great, but certain behaviors cannot simply dissolve just because you all identify as one.

You said:

"However with multiculturalism as the norm, co-existing through the content of race or groups as the focus, give way to tribalism and common identity separatism resulting in bias."

Not necessarily. I'll use my hospital as an example. We have different cultural groups that work together: black, white, asian, pacific-islander, hispanic etc.....We all work as a cohesive unit because our goal is to help patients. When we have potlucks we taste each other's food. We learn each other languages. We ask questions about cultural norms and habits. We are a cohesive unit even though we come from different backgrounds. That is multi-culturalism. To be immersed in cultures other than your own allows you to expand certain biases you may have of another but you learn and you work those issues out.

You said:

"At this point the majority then becomes superior, the minority becomes inferior, and majority power becomes prevalent. An example I would give of a multiculturalism norm is high school identity groups; jocks, nerds, etc... each group operates as separate entities within the school, giving way to the "us against them" mentality. In the context of race being the focus, this is how multiculturalism perpetuates racism."

This is a false analogy. High School segregation based on groups is a natural phenomena because not everyone has the same goals or motivation. A jock has nothing in common with a goth so most likely a jock will hang with another jock. It is not to segregate themselves its because jocks tend to play on the same team. Same thing with nerds. Nerds may have an intellectual passion for learning but they aren't goal to hang out with band members because nerds share no passion to play an instrument (although some nerds do). This is different when it comes to race. Depending on the school most kids tend to mingle with each other despite differences.

You said:

"for clarification, preferential treatment is not exclusive to minorities in a multi-cultural society, it goes both ways."

If you say so.

You said:

"well yeah, drop identity separatism and become one cohesive unit overall, our American culture is a derivative a many cultures, and that's fine, but still we are all Americans, and America has cultural norms and values that all Americans should assimilate towards. Common culture norm does not require a total cease and desist of your back round culture, however there are cultural norms from others that are not compatible with American cultural norms and shouldn't be accepted, and example is "Sharia Court" or "Morality Patrols".

The day society sees me as an American human being I'll stop being black.
Kynikos
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 7:54:16 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/21/2016 7:45:23 AM, Hiu wrote:
This is different when it comes to race. Depending on the school most kids tend to mingle with each other despite differences.
Na; most empirical research shows interracial mingling is rare.
Plato85
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 9:40:01 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
"To be immersed in cultures other than your own allows you to expand certain biases you may have of another but you learn and you work those issues out."

I like this. This sounds good, but I don't think it works like this in multiculturalism.

In multiculturalism we value tolerance which in practice means we don't have often have moral discussions with other cultures, we live and let live. So we don't get into those conversations otherwise someone is likely to be offended, and the person who started the conversation is labeled as a racist which is socially unacceptable.

Along with tolerance we have moral relativism, which means we refuse to be so arrogant as to even think that our morals are better than someone else's morals. In practice we let people get away with things we disagree with, and some people go further and stand up for them because they're different.
Hiu
Posts: 978
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 10:42:54 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/21/2016 7:54:16 AM, Kynikos wrote:
At 11/21/2016 7:45:23 AM, Hiu wrote:
This is different when it comes to race. Depending on the school most kids tend to mingle with each other despite differences.
Na; most empirical research shows interracial mingling is rare.

source?
Plato85
Posts: 15
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 10:45:12 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
Just to clarify, I dont think it's racist to offend someone's idenity, I think it can be constructive if done in a respectful way. In the same way offending a drug user's identity can be constructive.

But under multi-culturalism, this can be considered racist, and you can be vilified even with the best intentions.
Kynikos
Posts: 53
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 11:03:44 AM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/21/2016 10:42:54 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 11/21/2016 7:54:16 AM, Kynikos wrote:
At 11/21/2016 7:45:23 AM, Hiu wrote:
This is different when it comes to race. Depending on the school most kids tend to mingle with each other despite differences.
Na; most empirical research shows interracial mingling is rare.

source?
https://www.nyu.edu...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
There's a lot of inter-school segregation too: http://www.usatoday.com...
Hiu
Posts: 978
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 12:56:34 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/21/2016 10:45:12 AM, Plato85 wrote:
Just to clarify, I dont think it's racist to offend someone's idenity, I think it can be constructive if done in a respectful way. In the same way offending a drug user's identity can be constructive.

But under multi-culturalism, this can be considered racist, and you can be vilified even with the best intentions.

There is nothing constructive about offending someone's identity especially when it comes to culture. If I call a white person a peckerwood (definition of a peckerwood means a poor white person with a hard head thus the "wood") there is nothing constructive about it. Using pejoratives even in a "respectful" way still hurts. Just as some white person calls me a "coon" is not respectful. Dialoging about cultural stereotypes is one thing but to use historical pejoratives is not constructive.

If someone wants to insult my culture then there is no constructive dialogue there are only insults and opinions. Under multi-culturalism insulting someone's culture other than your own defeats the purpose of any form of unity. I think your logic is backward...
Hiu
Posts: 978
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 12:57:49 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/21/2016 11:03:44 AM, Kynikos wrote:
At 11/21/2016 10:42:54 AM, Hiu wrote:
At 11/21/2016 7:54:16 AM, Kynikos wrote:
At 11/21/2016 7:45:23 AM, Hiu wrote:
This is different when it comes to race. Depending on the school most kids tend to mingle with each other despite differences.
Na; most empirical research shows interracial mingling is rare.

source?
https://www.nyu.edu...
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
There's a lot of inter-school segregation too: http://www.usatoday.com...

I will examine your links after work
AlyceTheElectrician
Posts: 232
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 1:12:34 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
At 11/21/2016 7:45:23 AM, Hiu wrote:
You said:

"First, it is important to accept that in every aspect of nature except one that I can think of (a newborn baby is an example of minority rule/minority privilege) the majority rules, and the majority has the privilege."

Again who is the majority? Who has the most members of one group? People who have power in government? Who?

Majority meaning the group with the highest concentration in numbers.

You said:

"Second, majority does not necessarily equate to superiority, nor does minority equate to inferiority, it is only a matter of numbers whenever content of character is the focus. Majority power becomes irrelevant."

Content of character was never established in United States history, if that was the case civil rights groups of groups that want their character to be accepted equally would exist. Majority power established these groups because of the presence of inequality.

I Agree, this is a result of multicultural "separate but equal" ideology, under multiculturalism "equality" becomes a farce because majority power is prevalent, and the "us against them" mentality ensues, bias and preferential treatment occurs as a result.

You said:

"equal baseline for all' just refers to a consensus standard like the three inalienable rights."

As I said above, if this were true civil rights groups would not have existed. This is an idealist mentality but taking history into consideration this was not reality.

You:

"Therefore, with common cultural norm through content of character as the focus, unity and cohesion is the result; An example I would give of common cultural norm is the Marine Corp or the Navy Sailors, even though sailors and marines come from all walks of life derived from many cultures, they willfully drop identity separatism and operate as one cohesive unit as sailors and marines."

My family served (except me) you do realize racism still exists even in the United States military. Not all serviceman drop their racist ideals. Sure the idea of coming together and dropping our cultural differences is great, but certain behaviors cannot simply dissolve just because you all identify as one.

True, However racism/racist behavior is highly discouraged, and is punishable at it's most trivial occurrence because it disrupts good order and discipline needed to ensure unit cohesion.

You said:

"However with multiculturalism as the norm, co-existing through the content of race or groups as the focus, give way to tribalism and common identity separatism resulting in bias."

Not necessarily. I'll use my hospital as an example. We have different cultural groups that work together: black, white, asian, pacific-islander, hispanic etc.....We all work as a cohesive unit because our goal is to help patients. When we have potlucks we taste each other's food. We learn each other languages. We ask questions about cultural norms and habits. We are a cohesive unit even though we come from different backgrounds. That is multi-culturalism. To be immersed in cultures other than your own allows you to expand certain biases you may have of another but you learn and you work those issues out.

This is an example of common cultural norm unit cohesion as medical professionals.

You said:

"At this point the majority then becomes superior, the minority becomes inferior, and majority power becomes prevalent. An example I would give of a multiculturalism norm is high school identity groups; jocks, nerds, etc... each group operates as separate entities within the school, giving way to the "us against them" mentality. In the context of race being the focus, this is how multiculturalism perpetuates racism."

This is a false analogy. High School segregation based on groups is a natural phenomena because not everyone has the same goals or motivation. A jock has nothing in common with a goth so most likely a jock will hang with another jock. It is not to segregate themselves its because jocks tend to play on the same team. Same thing with nerds. Nerds may have an intellectual passion for learning but they aren't goal to hang out with band members because nerds share no passion to play an instrument (although some nerds do). This is different when it comes to race. Depending on the school most kids tend to mingle with each other despite differences.

The point is to show that tribalism and separatism is prevalent in a multicultural norm.

You said:

"for clarification, preferential treatment is not exclusive to minorities in a multi-cultural society, it goes both ways."

If you say so.

You said:

"well yeah, drop identity separatism and become one cohesive unit overall, our American culture is a derivative a many cultures, and that's fine, but still we are all Americans, and America has cultural norms and values that all Americans should assimilate towards. Common culture norm does not require a total cease and desist of your back round culture, however there are cultural norms from others that are not compatible with American cultural norms and shouldn't be accepted, and example is "Sharia Court" or "Morality Patrols".

The day society sees me as an American human being I'll stop being black.

Exactly, that is the goal of common cultural norm. Under multiculturalism the state of nationalists cohesion is thrice as hard to achieve. USA is still struggling to unite under multiculturalism, we are probably the most devided we've been since the 60's

The film "Crash" is a great film( highly recommended) puts the concept of multiculturalism into perspective, focusing on the melting pot of California.

I have a question (for anyone to answer): Why do you reject common cultural norms?
Be who you are, Say what you feel, Because those who mind don"t matter, And those who matter don't mind.

BANGTAN! Blood, Sweat, & Tears> Check it out yes! https://www.youtube.com...
Hiu
Posts: 978
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2016 1:40:28 PM
Posted: 1 week ago
You said:

"Majority meaning the group with the highest concentration in numbers."

Ok.

You said:

"I Agree, this is a result of multicultural "separate but equal" ideology, under multiculturalism "equality" becomes a farce because majority power is prevalent, and the "us against them" mentality ensues, bias and preferential treatment occurs as a result."

Do you even know the definition of multi-culturalism? Because according to the above this is grossly the opposite from the sociologist point of view. The following states:

"In sociology, multiculturalism is the view that cultural differences should be respected or even encouraged. Sociologists use the concept of multiculturalism to describe one way of approaching cultural diversity within a society. Underlying multiculturalism is the belief that members of different cultures can live peacefully alongside each other; assimilation is not necessary, nor perhaps even desirable. Contrasted with multiculturalism is the "melting pot" perspective, according to which cultural differences " such as differences in religion, language, and other customs " blend into another to form a new whole."

See:http://www.chegg.com...

You said:

"True, However racism/racist behavior is highly discouraged, and is punishable at it's most trivial occurrence because it disrupts good order and discipline needed to ensure unit cohesion."

The military's rules on racism or racist behavior does not negate that the presence of racism is not an issue. Hell, rape is still an issue in the military.

You said:

"This is an example of common cultural norm unit cohesion as medical professionals."

Not always common especially if certain hospitals have a dominant ethnic group there could be a lot of resentment towards the dominant ethnic group due to intragroup biases. Again going back to balance of power. When power is shared equally there are less problems. There are hospitals with a lot of filipinos and very little representation of other ethnic groups and those that do exist, are a minority and in the medical field the one with the dominant ethnic group tends to favor its own unfortunately. In my care there is no dominant ethnic group per say.

You said:

"The point is to show that tribalism and separatism is prevalent in a multicultural norm."

No its not however I will entertain the thought that there are some cultures that do migrate that keep to themselves but their reasons for doing so could be a plethora of reasons.

You said:

"Exactly, that is the goal of common cultural norm. Under multiculturalism the state of nationalists cohesion is thrice as hard to achieve. USA is still struggling to unite under multiculturalism, we are probably the most devided we've been since the 60's."

Humanity has been divided since bronze age. Human beings regardless of multiculturalism or some other ism will always be divided unless something outside our species that threatens us.

You said:

"The film "Crash" is a great film( highly recommended) puts the concept of multiculturalism into perspective, focusing on the melting pot of California."

I saw and have the CD and yes it is a great movie, but I think you may have missed the point of the movie. It drew attention to various stereotypes and realities people face via coming from the perspective of the various actors viewpoints.

You said:

"I have a question (for anyone to answer): Why do you reject common cultural norms?"

Who said anyone is rejecting anything?