Why? Shouldn't they just have exactly the same basic freedoms and exactly the same level of support?the fact they are so statistically insignificant should mean that extra efforts are made to ensure they receive their basic freedoms
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2015-12-11 00:56:01)
you sound like a The Sun reader talking about "Muslamics". honestly how many Muslims do you know that want to turn a country into a Muslim state? are you harping on that shariah law scare tactic again? because that whole flashpoint has been done to death in the UK and has pretty much been shown to be a complete non-issue. Muslim, Jews, and even Christians are perfectly happy to settle a certain type of civil disagreement according to the codes of their religion – which are not legally binding in the same way the criminal law is. only the tiniest and most vociferous minority of nut job preachers and angry young men shout about making a whole nation bow to that stuff. and you find the same types of hardliner in north London or certain parts of new york, wearing black hats and curls in their hair. they aren't Muslim and they certainly don't pose a threat to the society at large.Dilbert_X wrote:
Still don't understand why muslims want to get out of muslim-land and then turn the next place into muslim-land.
A reasonable alternative would be to require people to renounce religion if they want to migrate.
Last edited by uziq (2015-12-11 01:02:27)
you must have trouble reading. I said extra effort should be made to ensure they receive the same basic freedoms as everyone else. basic freedoms. the extra effort is needed because it's so easy to psychologically and socially sideline these people, because they are a statistical few, or perhaps because their plight isn't widespread and noticeable. but the point of a democracy is everyone should have the same universal freedoms. you can't have a particular democracy. it's tenets are foundational and universal.Dilbert_X wrote:
Why? Shouldn't they just have exactly the same basic freedoms and exactly the same level of support?the fact they are so statistically insignificant should mean that extra efforts are made to ensure they receive their basic freedoms
This special treatment is what annoys people and is ultimately directly counterproductive, or opens the door to some other problem or abuse.
Last edited by uziq (2015-12-11 01:04:17)
A small proportion are working in that direction, the remainder acquiescing. The root of the reason people migrate from these places to the developed western countries is essentially to escape the backward culture - why do they then continue it in their new home? You'd think they'd switch to Mormonism or paganism - move on a few centuries perhaps.honestly how many Muslims do you know that want to turn a country into a Muslim state?
Last edited by uziq (2015-12-11 01:44:15)
Economic = as much cultural as anything else.uziq wrote:
the reason people emigrate is seldom ever cultural. that is a disingenuous comment. the reasons why most people uproot themselves, deracinate themselves, leave their social and cultural networks behind – is nearly always economic. they go "in search of a better life", which idiomatically cashes out as 'material improvement'. they want economic opportunities and advantages for their children that they cannot get in their homeland. no muslim is leaving bangladesh or pakistan because they're sick of the weather or the architecture or the islamic social life. that's the stuff they want to keep (if you're talking about refugees, that's another exceptional matter).
Democracy means majority rule. Majorities have a long history of wiping out minorities. Don't get it twisted, there's nothing inherently moral in a democratic system.uziq wrote:
what are you talking about? "0.9% is insignificant". the whole point of a democracy is that you judge it on how it treats its most marginalised groups. the fact they are so statistically insignificant should mean that extra efforts are made to ensure they receive their basic freedoms, not less. when you say they are insignificant, you are effectively saying they are negligible. that's the same lax attitude that slides into systemic inequality, state oppression, police brutality, war crimes. it's a very slippery slope. plenty of ethnic groups or religious sects have been brushed under the carpet of state power or surly neighbours in this way.SuperJail Warden wrote:
A ban on Muslim immigration is ridiculous. But it is politically feasible. Especially if it is narrowed down and made more specific combined with significant concessions to the democrats on other things they want. Like I said before 0.9% of the population is insignificant. It would have to be done off the back of a large terrorist attack or multiple smalls ones with a republican president though.
again, a democracy can only be judged on how it treats those most in need of democratic principles. otherwise you have a dictatorship of the majority. a baying populist mob out for dumb revenge is not the pinnacle of western political philosophy.
thanks for your 2-bit cynicism garnered after many hours of patient study of popular amazon best-sellers. also: no one mentioned morals. democracy in this sense is a strictly legalistic or legislative entity. it's not about enforcing a morality or an ethics.Jay wrote:
Democracy means majority rule. Majorities have a long history of wiping out minorities. Don't get it twisted, there's nothing inherently moral in a democratic system.uziq wrote:
what are you talking about? "0.9% is insignificant". the whole point of a democracy is that you judge it on how it treats its most marginalised groups. the fact they are so statistically insignificant should mean that extra efforts are made to ensure they receive their basic freedoms, not less. when you say they are insignificant, you are effectively saying they are negligible. that's the same lax attitude that slides into systemic inequality, state oppression, police brutality, war crimes. it's a very slippery slope. plenty of ethnic groups or religious sects have been brushed under the carpet of state power or surly neighbours in this way.SuperJail Warden wrote:
A ban on Muslim immigration is ridiculous. But it is politically feasible. Especially if it is narrowed down and made more specific combined with significant concessions to the democrats on other things they want. Like I said before 0.9% of the population is insignificant. It would have to be done off the back of a large terrorist attack or multiple smalls ones with a republican president though.
again, a democracy can only be judged on how it treats those most in need of democratic principles. otherwise you have a dictatorship of the majority. a baying populist mob out for dumb revenge is not the pinnacle of western political philosophy.
Last edited by uziq (2015-12-11 03:59:06)
I agree with you. I am not advocating banning Muslims. I am just saying it is a lot closer to the realm of possibility than a lot of lefties think it is. And the idea needs to be countered beyond just online petitions and MSNBC segments.uziq wrote:
what are you talking about? "0.9% is insignificant". the whole point of a democracy is that you judge it on how it treats its most marginalised groups. the fact they are so statistically insignificant should mean that extra efforts are made to ensure they receive their basic freedoms, not less. when you say they are insignificant, you are effectively saying they are negligible. that's the same lax attitude that slides into systemic inequality, state oppression, police brutality, war crimes. it's a very slippery slope. plenty of ethnic groups or religious sects have been brushed under the carpet of state power or surly neighbours in this way.SuperJail Warden wrote:
A ban on Muslim immigration is ridiculous. But it is politically feasible. Especially if it is narrowed down and made more specific combined with significant concessions to the democrats on other things they want. Like I said before 0.9% of the population is insignificant. It would have to be done off the back of a large terrorist attack or multiple smalls ones with a republican president though.
again, a democracy can only be judged on how it treats those most in need of democratic principles. otherwise you have a dictatorship of the majority. a baying populist mob out for dumb revenge is not the pinnacle of western political philosophy.
Right now a majority of this country supports a ban on Muslims. It's very easy to go from here to pogroms is what he's saying.uziq wrote:
oh sorry I misunderstood the tacit disapproval in your post. I thought you meant it feasible ergo recommendable.
Multiculturalism is unworkable in a democracy - try it and you'll go to pogroms eventually.SuperJail Warden wrote:
I think we need to come to an agreement on what sort of multiculturalism we are talking about before going down this rabbit hole. Multiculturalism runs the gamut from multiple Chinese restaurants to alternate Sharia courts.
Pushing these people to integrate instead of giving them special treatment is more productive in the long run.DesertFox- wrote:
I'd be more inclined to believe such manner of complaints about "multiculturalism" if it wasn't only a particular group of immigrants that the complaints are lobbied toward. In Chicagoland, there are huge, insular communities of Polish/Slovak people that are largely integrated now (because it's been ~100 years), but various other groups all stick together and don't immediately integrate the second they enter the U.S. Just think of immigrants from Asian countries, who often maintain strong family and cultural ties to their former countries for generations.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2015-12-11 15:49:59)
It doesn't, it leads to "separate and superior" treatment, allowing fringe groups to self-segregate and ignore the norms of the general community - often at the direct expense of the general community.Jay wrote:
Multiculturalism leads to "separate but equal" treatment.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2015-12-11 17:12:11)
The biggest abusers of the system like this are the Hasidic Jews living in the north east. Self segregating is one thing. But they coordinate to scam the system and slowly infiltrate local governments.Dilbert_X wrote:
It doesn't, it leads to "separate and superior" treatment, allowing fringe groups to self-segregate and ignore the norms of the general community - often at the direct expense of the general community.Jay wrote:
Multiculturalism leads to "separate but equal" treatment.
I'm thinking for example of allowing fringe groups to skip mainstream schooling, and then pay them dole for life as they're wholly unemployable as a direct consequence.
This applies to muslim, jewish and other 'scholar' groups.
Once they're settled and its established they don't have to follow the local norms, then the creep starts as they expand their 'freedoms' from local other mores, laws etc.
Then, inevitably they start pushing for the local society to adapt to them, pushing their 'values' onto everyone else.
It happens every time, its easier to nip it right at the start.
as above, i live with a muslim girl and do not agree with your spurious statements. does multiculturalism lead to ghettos? if it does, the reason is primarily economic. i lived in london for 5 years and it was what i would consider happily multicultural. at a certain socio-economic class this mixing becomes fairly easy and natural. it's only the poor and disadvantaged who sequester themselves in their traditional communities, viz. support networks. go to pretty much any good college campus or corporate environment and you're seeing internationalism at work.Jay wrote:
Right now a majority of this country supports a ban on Muslims. It's very easy to go from here to pogroms is what he's saying.uziq wrote:
oh sorry I misunderstood the tacit disapproval in your post. I thought you meant it feasible ergo recommendable.
You can espouse liberal multiculturalism ideology until you're blue in the face. The very real fact is that most people don't buy into it. Most people are instead like dilbert, expecting full assimilation into the new society. Frankly, I agree with him more than I disagree. If you move to a place you should conform to the norms rather than expecting people to accommodate you.
Multiculturalism leads to "separate but equal" treatment. It's essentially voluntary apartheid with peoples brushing past each other rather than really interacting. It's not tenable. It leads to fear, distrust and ultimately conflict.
Sure, and when you enter the cafeteria you see black people over here, Asians over there, Indians in the corner etc. In self segregated groups. Sure, the geeks, nerds and jocks self segregate as well but they aren't using their grouping to demand special favors.uziq wrote:
as above, i live with a muslim girl and do not agree with your spurious statements. does multiculturalism lead to ghettos? if it does, the reason is primarily economic. i lived in london for 5 years and it was what i would consider happily multicultural. at a certain socio-economic class this mixing becomes fairly easy and natural. it's only the poor and disadvantaged who sequester themselves in their traditional communities, viz. support networks. go to pretty much any good college campus or corporate environment and you're seeing internationalism at work.Jay wrote:
Right now a majority of this country supports a ban on Muslims. It's very easy to go from here to pogroms is what he's saying.uziq wrote:
oh sorry I misunderstood the tacit disapproval in your post. I thought you meant it feasible ergo recommendable.
You can espouse liberal multiculturalism ideology until you're blue in the face. The very real fact is that most people don't buy into it. Most people are instead like dilbert, expecting full assimilation into the new society. Frankly, I agree with him more than I disagree. If you move to a place you should conform to the norms rather than expecting people to accommodate you.
Multiculturalism leads to "separate but equal" treatment. It's essentially voluntary apartheid with peoples brushing past each other rather than really interacting. It's not tenable. It leads to fear, distrust and ultimately conflict.
Um, nah. Maybe in the 90's. I finished HS in 2008 and the various races intermingled and dated. All groups partied and knew each other too.Jay wrote:
Sure, and when you enter the cafeteria you see black people over here, Asians over there, Indians in the corner etc. In self segregated groups. Sure, the geeks, nerds and jocks self segregate as well but they aren't using their grouping to demand special favors.uziq wrote:
as above, i live with a muslim girl and do not agree with your spurious statements. does multiculturalism lead to ghettos? if it does, the reason is primarily economic. i lived in london for 5 years and it was what i would consider happily multicultural. at a certain socio-economic class this mixing becomes fairly easy and natural. it's only the poor and disadvantaged who sequester themselves in their traditional communities, viz. support networks. go to pretty much any good college campus or corporate environment and you're seeing internationalism at work.Jay wrote:
Right now a majority of this country supports a ban on Muslims. It's very easy to go from here to pogroms is what he's saying.
You can espouse liberal multiculturalism ideology until you're blue in the face. The very real fact is that most people don't buy into it. Most people are instead like dilbert, expecting full assimilation into the new society. Frankly, I agree with him more than I disagree. If you move to a place you should conform to the norms rather than expecting people to accommodate you.
Multiculturalism leads to "separate but equal" treatment. It's essentially voluntary apartheid with peoples brushing past each other rather than really interacting. It's not tenable. It leads to fear, distrust and ultimately conflict.
