Breaking News - Major Terrorist Attack In Oslo, Norway

[Martinus]

I understood it differently. I think what (at least Norgy) is saying is that people like him should be allowed to spout their bullshit without being muzzled. There is a fine line, however. As far as I understood, he was not being prosecuted in any way for his musings or manifestos - it's just that none of the mainstream newspapers wanted to print his letters. I think it is a rather extraordinary demand that a newspaper should be obliged to print ravings of a madman only because otherwise he would start shooting people up.

[grumbler]

Pretty clearly, newspapers cannot print every letter to the editor.  What makes the internet so powerful is that they can post every comment on their web site.

I fear that what ABB was asking for was not to be heard, but to be validated.  He was going to be frustrated no matter what the papers and whatnot did.

[Berkut]

Also, I think it is a bit disingenuous for Americans to look down upon Europeans and talk about their melting pot superiority. The melting pot doctrine developed when the majority of immigrants to the US were fellow Europeans (or, at most, Latinos, who are also pretty European - at least their are Christian). When non-European, non-Christian immigrants were coming - and not that many did - they were slaughtered, like the Chinese in California, or deprived of constitutional rights - like the Japanese during WW2.

Yeah, I think it is very fair to sum up the overall success of Japanese Americans in US society based on a singular incident spanning a couple years during the worst war that humanity has ever experienced.

As usual, Marty strikes at the core of what it is to understand America.

[The Brain]

RIP Norwegians.

[Slargos]

I understood it differently. I think what (at least Norgy) is saying is that people like him should be allowed to spout their bullshit without being muzzled. There is a fine line, however. As far as I understood, he was not being prosecuted in any way for his musings or manifestos - it's just that none of the mainstream newspapers wanted to print his letters. I think it is a rather extraordinary demand that a newspaper should be obliged to print ravings of a madman only because otherwise he would start shooting people up.

Norwegian papers are deliberately keeping anyone not conforming to multiculturalist dogma from expressing themselves. It's a very one-sided business in both Norway and Sweden.

90% of journalists in Norway vote for the Social democrats, the quasi-commies or the real commies. I'll source this if you wish.

[The Brain]

Slargos gets to post from jail?

[Queequeg]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the first truly political spree killing by an individual? 

I want to compare this to Mumbai more than Columbine, but I can't help but feel that this is something very new; a spree killer who methodically planned and calmly went about mass murder to further his own, largely idiosyncratic ideology. 

What concern me the most right now is that I don't know if there are a whole lot of ways to stop copy-cats.  How are you supposed to apprehend a suspect who works alone, is well funded, avoids social contact, plans obsessively and comprehensively, is extremely well armed and wants to kill as many people as possible?

[Jacob]

I'm a strong advocate of immigration as I think it can be the fuel of a country's economy, especially if the country has low natural birth rate.

However, and I am biased, I prefer the melting-pot to multiculturalism. To me the viewpoint that immigrants should live in their own separate societies as part of the larger host country's culture is the worst kind of "-ism" (I won't say racism or nationalism or whatever because I don't want to get into a wank fest over what proper "-ism" it should be termed.)

To me thus multiculturalism says this:

1. The immigrants home culture must take precedence over the culture of their host country, for them personally it is extremely important they maintain their own distinct culture.
2. The host country's culture must not be diluted by mixing directly with the immigrants culture, otherwise it would "dilute" the host country's culture.

Instead, there is this desire to have a "patchwork" society in which there are multiple distinct cultures that do not significantly mix together. That to me is the worst way of doing things and I think it can lead to horrible results all around. It makes it harder for immigrants to become part of mainstream society and to succeed economically (many of multicultural Europe's immigrant groups have much higher unemployment rates than the country at large) and it also leads some in the "host culture" to feel that they are being slowly made into minorities in their own land, in essence it makes them feel as though they are being invaded and conquered by a thousand cuts. I am not talking about whether that actually happens or doesn't happen, only about how certain people feel--and I think that is how this Breivik fellow indeed felt. You shouldn't model your society based on the actions of a mad man, but it doesn't hurt to sometimes correctly recognize that the mad man was a result of a certain system. To me one loan gunman killing 100 or even 500 people isn't reason to change anything, so that is neither here nor there. But the two points I outlined above are to me, much more significant in the long term than a single person killing a lot of people.

In the United States our immigrants have not had their culture destroyed by the greater American culture. Instead, they adopted a culture that was foreign to their own, but in doing so they changed American culture itself and made American culture better for it. It also has meant that the children and grand children of these immigrants have essentially had no limits on what they can achieve in America.

You know, I consider myself pro-multiculturalism and there's very little I disagree with in your post. I do, however, think the two points you use to describe multiculturalism are mischaracterizations. At least it's a mischaracterization of what I understand multiculturalism to be - and I think how it's understood by the people who actually believe in it (though quite possibly not by those who use arguments of "multiculturalism" to argue for their own cultural supremacy).

Multiculturalism is about freedom. Within a larger framework (respect for the rule of law, human rights and acceptance of the right of other people to pursue their life as they see fit etc), you can express your culture however you see. If your culture expects you to wear particular hats, only eat shellfish, speak a particular language and only marry people who're half your age - or whatever - that's fine. And if you want to mix that with elements of other cultures, that's your business as well. You are not to be treated as a lesser member of society because your culture differs from the mainstream's.

[The Brain]

How are you supposed to apprehend a suspect who works alone, is well funded, avoids social contact, plans obsessively and comprehensively, is extremely well armed and wants to kill as many people as possible?

They can be drawn out with references to maps that suck and Ottoman empires.

[Martinus]

I understood it differently. I think what (at least Norgy) is saying is that people like him should be allowed to spout their bullshit without being muzzled. There is a fine line, however. As far as I understood, he was not being prosecuted in any way for his musings or manifestos - it's just that none of the mainstream newspapers wanted to print his letters. I think it is a rather extraordinary demand that a newspaper should be obliged to print ravings of a madman only because otherwise he would start shooting people up.

Norwegian papers are deliberately keeping anyone not conforming to multiculturalist dogma from expressing themselves. It's a very one-sided business in both Norway and Sweden.

90% of journalists in Norway vote for the Social democrats, the quasi-commies or the real commies. I'll source this if you wish.

Ok but that's a pretty shitty argument, to be honest. Unless there is something about Norwegian press law that I don't know about, what stops those "not conforming to multiculturalist dogma" from starting their own newspaper? It's not like journalists (especially in this day and age of new media) are under some oath or duty to publish views they disagree with - people can always go to journalists who share their views. If there are no journalists with crazy right winger views (something I find it hard to believe), then you need to ask yourselves why. Where is a Norwegian Murdoch?

All in all, I'm not convinced. It sounds too much like conspiracy theory bullshit to me.

[Martinus]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the first truly political spree killing by an individual? 

I want to compare this to Mumbai more than Columbine, but I can't help but feel that this is something very new; a spree killer who methodically planned and calmly went about mass murder to further his own, largely idiosyncratic ideology. 

What concern me the most right now is that I don't know if there are a whole lot of ways to stop copy-cats.  How are you supposed to apprehend a suspect who works alone, is well funded, avoids social contact, plans obsessively and comprehensively, is extremely well armed and wants to kill as many people as possible?

Paradox forums. 

[Razgovory]

Norwegian papers are deliberately keeping anyone not conforming to multiculturalist dogma from expressing themselves. It's a very one-sided business in both Norway and Sweden.

90% of journalists in Norway vote for the Social democrats, the quasi-commies or the real commies. I'll source this if you wish.

Perhaps you should do something about all this.  It would seem the first logical step is to go into the agriculture business...

[Razgovory]

Also, I think it is a bit disingenuous for Americans to look down upon Europeans and talk about their melting pot superiority. The melting pot doctrine developed when the majority of immigrants to the US were fellow Europeans (or, at most, Latinos, who are also pretty European - at least their are Christian). When non-European, non-Christian immigrants were coming - and not that many did - they were slaughtered, like the Chinese in California, or deprived of constitutional rights - like the Japanese during WW2.

Yeah, I think it is very fair to sum up the overall success of Japanese Americans in US society based on a singular incident spanning a couple years during the worst war that humanity has ever experienced.

As usual, Marty strikes at the core of what it is to understand America.

I want to know where all those Chinese mass graves are.

[Slargos]

I understood it differently. I think what (at least Norgy) is saying is that people like him should be allowed to spout their bullshit without being muzzled. There is a fine line, however. As far as I understood, he was not being prosecuted in any way for his musings or manifestos - it's just that none of the mainstream newspapers wanted to print his letters. I think it is a rather extraordinary demand that a newspaper should be obliged to print ravings of a madman only because otherwise he would start shooting people up.

Norwegian papers are deliberately keeping anyone not conforming to multiculturalist dogma from expressing themselves. It's a very one-sided business in both Norway and Sweden.

90% of journalists in Norway vote for the Social democrats, the quasi-commies or the real commies. I'll source this if you wish.

Ok but that's a pretty shitty argument, to be honest. Unless there is something about Norwegian press law that I don't know about, what stops those "not conforming to multiculturalist dogma" from starting their own newspaper? It's not like journalists (especially in this day and age of new media) are under some oath or duty to publish views they disagree with - people can always go to journalists who share their views. If there are no journalists with crazy right winger views (something I find it hard to believe), then you need to ask yourselves why. Where is a Norwegian Murdoch?

All in all, I'm not convinced. It sounds too much like conspiracy theory bullshit to me.

Yeah. I'm sure starting a newspaper, especially in this economical climate, is easy as taking a crap in the woods. 

[Jacob]

I think we do need some definitions here, since everybody seems to have his own definition of multi-culturalism. The thing is that it is a word with alot of associations to it outside of it's definition. I'm going to make a stab at it..


Multi culturalism is a set of ideas and attitudes which include
- the idea that no culture is superior to another culture
- the idea that inherited culture is vital so self image and self worth and must be cultivated
- the idea that assimilation is an act of hegemonic cultural repression
- the idea that one's own successful; since non failed culture has developed multi culturalism in it's own sphere; seeks to impose hegemony on other cultures

This is very much a case of the ideas of the '68ers with their post-modernism and cultural relativism and rejection of truth and Truth as mere constructs surviving into today. Obviously I am against it.

The US melting pot works precisely because you can bring your own food, your own god and your own music, but you will damn sure adopt the american dream and the values of the enlightenment. Multi-culturalism and cultural relativism means that societies like Norway cannot insist that immigrants adopt the norwegian dream and cannot insist that immigrants adopt the values of the enlightenment because we cannot, as a society, assert that our values are better than theirs.

Yeah, no.

That's not quite what multiculturalism means, IMO.

It means within a framework of basic liberal Western values (i.e. respect for individual rights, so no matter what your culture says, you don't get to abrogate another person's rights) the following applies:

- Your cultural identity has value and should only change at whatever pace you think appropriate (which includes not having to change at all).
- As a society, we respect different cultural identities (which may include support for various cultural functions, if that's how respect works in your particular society).

That's it, basically.

You want to go to church every Sunday morning, dress in distinctive garb from your culture's home region, enjoy entertainment from that same region, subscribe to a code of honour that doesn't quite make sense to anyone else but nonetheless doesn't break the law nor infringe on the rights of others, teach your kids your native language, try to convince them to marry "one of their own", use the political process appropriately to cater to your interests and so on? That's cool.

Do you want to limit other peoples' enjoyment of the rights, do you want to control members in your family through violence, do you want to impose change on society through violence or illegal acts, do you want to force other people to adhere to your particular cultural values? Not cool.