Breaking News - Major Terrorist Attack In Oslo, Norway

[Martinus]

Are you seriously saying that all those who think that halal/kosher slaughter should be banned are really doing this out of hatred for islam or judaism and intolerance?

The issue of tolerance isn't simply about hatred of one group or another, but about justifying (or putting aside) that visceral reaction of "eeeeww!" when confronted with habits that do not match one's own.

Lots of people who are not gay are simply squigged out by homosexuality, particularly by those who practice anal sex, and justify that gut-reaction by adopting an anti-gay stance; they are all the more likely to view it as a public-heath risk, as "not normal", as "degenerate", etc. They may not be inherently gay-hating, but their unwillingness to set aside their gut feelings and attempt to examine matters objectively makes them so.

Similarly, lots of folks are squigged out by slaughter that involves slitting the throat (as opposed to driving a bolt through the brain). They are all the more likely to view it as "cruel" and "inhuman". They may have nothing in particular against Jews or Muslims, but again, their unwillingness to set aside their feelings and examine the matter objectively makes them so.

In both cases, one could if one wanted to justify the "ewww, yuck" reaction; in both cases, the justification is on its face weak and lame, and on its merits would not satisfy a neutral observer that restrictions on the practice are really justified. There is a lack of scientific evidence, for example, that animals killed by having their throats cut by ritual slaughterers actually suffer measurably more than animals being bolted. But scientific evidence isn't what that debate was about - it was more about the "eeeww" factor.

The difference of course is that gay men are born with a need to have sex with other men, but noone is born with a biological need to slit animals' throats.

That's not a significant diffence. If gay sex actually was objectively harmful to society, the fact that gay men were born with such a sex drive would not be any sort of excuse: see pedophiles.

It is a significant difference, though, in terms of there being imo a stronger onus against allowing a practice that is based on learned behaviour than a practice that is based in inherent/inborn behaviour.

Incidentally, my main beef with halal/kosher slaughter is that, apparently, the society has decided that this kind of slaughter actually is harmful - by prohibiting it to anyone else except the Muslims and the Jews. I oppose exceptionalism - if the society decided that slittering animals' throats is fine, it should be allowed for everybody.

By way of example, a society which would allow anal sex, but only between two men (and not a man and a woman) would be equally silly.

[Martinus]

But that is true of cultures in isolation - none simply continue unchanged. Cultures change all the time, whether one wants that or not.

Fact is though that some people don't seem to have much of a problem carrying on side by side with different folkways. See my own city as example. 

And even then it's not a static stratification. To an outsider it might seem that little Italy (or Portugal, or whatever) remains an unchanged section of town. But that's not true. Kids and grand kids move out to other parts of the city as they start to identify themselves as "Canadian" over what their cultural heritage is. As they leave they're replaced by new immigrants. They ("we" really, since I'm a kid of immigrants) join the mainstream culture soon enough. Multi Culturalism, as I see it, isn't permanent tribalism as some try to portray here, but more of a buffer between old and new with a constant turnover.

This is the melting pot as I have seen it. This is what we want. What we don't want is the third generation immigrant who's primary identity is the old country because for three generations his family have been told that they are different, that they will never be like the society around them and their troubles are due to discrimination and hatred by the evil local culture.

The thing is, American identity is so nebulous, it actually can allow people to keep some sense of their "old country" identity. Just look at six/seven generation's Poles in Chicago. Or Ceedee donating to IRA. Or Latinos waving Mexican flags for Cinqo de Mayo. Or katmai being fat on buritos.

Noone considers them to be bad Americans.

[Valmy]

Noone considers them to be bad Americans.

Except when they root for the Mexican team against team USA in soccer.  Treason trials are the only acceptable outcome

[Martinus]

Noone considers them to be bad Americans.

Except when they root for the Mexican team against team USA in soccer.  Treason trials are the only acceptable outcome

But they do. And Europeans seem to have this notion this is not the case. And in Europe indeed such behaviour is considered to prove that OMG ASSIMILATION FAILZ! WE NEED TO DEPORT ALL ARABZ!

[Viking]

This is the melting pot as I have seen it. This is what we want. What we don't want is the third generation immigrant who's primary identity is the old country because for three generations his family have been told that they are different, that they will never be like the society around them and their troubles are due to discrimination and hatred by the evil local culture.

The thing is, American identity is so nebulous, it actually can allow people to keep some sense of their "old country" identity. Just look at six/seven generation's Poles in Chicago. Or Ceedee donating to IRA. Or Latinos waving Mexican flags for Cinqo de Mayo. Or katmai being fat on buritos.

Noone considers them to be bad Americans.

Yes, that is precisely the point I'm trying to make here. When I was a kid growing up in Palo Alto California we had pinatas, wore green on st paddy's day, celebrated hanuka and christmas in school, learned stories about anansi the spider etc. While on the other hand we learned about the founding fathers and their values. The american approach to identity is not nebulous it is clear, if you adopt america's fundamental values you become an american. One of the problems that Europe is facing is that it's countries are not based on values, they are based on ethnicity. Europe's borders are where the invading armies were stopped and each side ethnically cleansed their side of the border.

[Martinus]

Anyway, speaking of grey areas, what about old men with herpes giving the disease to baby boys by sucking their bloody dicks?

Harmless or harmful?

[garbon]

Everyone sane is fine with there being ethnic restaurants and a Chinatown. So is that's all multiculturalism is almost everyone supports it.

Most of the Chinatowns that I've been to were key examples of urban blight. I don't really support those sorts of conditions.

[Martinus]

This is the melting pot as I have seen it. This is what we want. What we don't want is the third generation immigrant who's primary identity is the old country because for three generations his family have been told that they are different, that they will never be like the society around them and their troubles are due to discrimination and hatred by the evil local culture.

The thing is, American identity is so nebulous, it actually can allow people to keep some sense of their "old country" identity. Just look at six/seven generation's Poles in Chicago. Or Ceedee donating to IRA. Or Latinos waving Mexican flags for Cinqo de Mayo. Or katmai being fat on buritos.

Noone considers them to be bad Americans.

Yes, that is precisely the point I'm trying to make here. When I was a kid growing up in Palo Alto California we had pinatas, wore green on st paddy's day, celebrated hanuka and christmas in school, learned stories about anansi the spider etc. While on the other hand we learned about the founding fathers and their values. The american approach to identity is not nebulous it is clear, if you adopt america's fundamental values you become an american. One of the problems that Europe is facing is that it's countries are not based on values, they are based on ethnicity. Europe's borders are where the invading armies were stopped and each side ethnically cleansed their side of the border.

Yeah but the thing is the American cultural "template" is quite hole-y and sparse - it leaves a lot of room for Anasi the Spider, St. Patrick's Day and Hanuka. I have an impression that in most European countries this is not the case - the cultural "template" is very dense - it leaves very little room for external things like that.

[Viking]

Yeah but the thing is the American cultural "template" is quite hole-y and sparse - it leaves a lot of room for Anasi the Spider, St. Patrick's Day and Hanuka. I have an impression that in most European countries this is not the case - the cultural "template" is very dense - it leaves very little room for external things like that.

That might be a reason why MC is so popular in europe. In one stroke you can happily ignore the immigrants and pretend they don't exist because they never get out of their ghettos because they don't assimilate and on the other hand you can be tolerant and multicultural when you bother to think about them while you get outraged at the racist patriachal hierachical society which discriminates these poor people forcing them into these ghettos where their criminal, violent and mysogynistic behavoir can only be explain as a reaction to racism and hegemonic oppression.

[Barrister]

This is the melting pot as I have seen it. This is what we want. What we don't want is the third generation immigrant who's primary identity is the old country because for three generations his family have been told that they are different, that they will never be like the society around them and their troubles are due to discrimination and hatred by the evil local culture.

The thing is, American identity is so nebulous, it actually can allow people to keep some sense of their "old country" identity. Just look at six/seven generation's Poles in Chicago. Or Ceedee donating to IRA. Or Latinos waving Mexican flags for Cinqo de Mayo. Or katmai being fat on buritos.

Noone considers them to be bad Americans.

Yes, that is precisely the point I'm trying to make here. When I was a kid growing up in Palo Alto California we had pinatas, wore green on st paddy's day, celebrated hanuka and christmas in school, learned stories about anansi the spider etc. While on the other hand we learned about the founding fathers and their values. The american approach to identity is not nebulous it is clear, if you adopt america's fundamental values you become an american. One of the problems that Europe is facing is that it's countries are not based on values, they are based on ethnicity. Europe's borders are where the invading armies were stopped and each side ethnically cleansed their side of the border.

Yeah but the thing is the American cultural "template" is quite hole-y and sparse - it leaves a lot of room for Anasi the Spider, St. Patrick's Day and Hanuka. I have an impression that in most European countries this is not the case - the cultural "template" is very dense - it leaves very little room for external things like that.

I dunno man - the British/English "cultural template" is similarily pretty dense, but has shown a great ability to incorporate new elements, particularly from India.

[Viking]

I dunno man - the British/English "cultural template" is similarily pretty dense, but has shown a great ability to incorporate new elements, particularly from India.

But, strangely enough, Anglo Saxon institutions survived all the way into the enlightenment.

When we say Europe we don't mean England.

[dps]

So by this logic, in 1859, in the wake of John Brown's raid, should abolishionists have re-evaluated their views and decided that human chattel slavery was OK?

I'm not familiar enough with American Civil War events to have that discussion in a useful way.

But when someone things an abstract political struggle* is important enough to start murdering innocents merely "to be heard" then I think the people should have a good long think about exactly what it is they're saying, what they want and how they're going about getting it.

*(and I think "cultural marxists vs nationalists" is much more abstract than "slavery yes or no")

Indeed.  The only way John Brown could've been cooler is if he'd killed more people.

Amen, brother.

See, Slargos isn't the only poster here who thinks murdering innocent civilians is fine as long as it's done for a political ideal you agree with.

[Valmy]

See, Slargos isn't the only poster here who thinks murdering innocent civilians is fine as long as it's done for a political ideal you agree with.

Those who were silent in the face of the injustices of Slavery were complicit and thus guilty

[crazy canuck]

And who decides what violates the general and criminal law? You are talking as if law was immutable or a given - it is the expression of the will of the people. Surely, the law actually reflects what the majority sees as being harmful or beneficial - no?

Do you really think the criminal law is based on what is beneficial so that anything not deemed beneficial is outlawed.  Is that really how the law works in Poland?

[Slargos]

So by this logic, in 1859, in the wake of John Brown's raid, should abolishionists have re-evaluated their views and decided that human chattel slavery was OK?

I'm not familiar enough with American Civil War events to have that discussion in a useful way.

But when someone things an abstract political struggle* is important enough to start murdering innocents merely "to be heard" then I think the people should have a good long think about exactly what it is they're saying, what they want and how they're going about getting it.

*(and I think "cultural marxists vs nationalists" is much more abstract than "slavery yes or no")

Indeed.  The only way John Brown could've been cooler is if he'd killed more people.

Amen, brother.

See, Slargos isn't the only poster here who thinks murdering innocent civilians is fine as long as it's done for a political ideal you agree with.

When have I ever said that?