Breaking News - Major Terrorist Attack In Oslo, Norway

[Jacob]

-The thing is, the line is not as clearly drawn as you claim. The slaughter of animals thread proves that there is quite a division as to what people perceive to be "harmless" and "harmful" expression of different cultures. There is also an issue of circumcision of boys for example. Or arranged marriages. Or polygamy. A lot of cultural issues like this are in a grey area, and this creates conflicts.

I am not saying that your approach is wrong, just that you seem to draw this rosy, optimistic picture of these issues being a no brainer, but they aren't.

The conflict isn't caused by gray areas; it results from the fact that for all the rhetorical lip service individuals may give to the concept of tolerance, many people (most?) don't actyally practice it.  The person who opposes the right of two gay men to enjoy the benefits of civil marriage can and does raise all sorts of harms like "undermining the sanctity of marriage" and "flaunting" a "degnerate lifestyle".  But the reality is that the opposition is not based on any legitimate fear of tangible social harm but just on personal revulsion.  It is illiberalism, pure and simple.   Your own attitude towards what you refer to "bronze age" religious practice is exactly in this same illiberal mode of thought - you are tolerant, except for those practices that offend you.

What makes these issues difficult is not the inherent difficulty of figuring out what is truly "harmful" from what is not, but simply the unfortunate fact that all too many people - even those insist on how tolerant they are - are not.

I think this is unfortunately very true.

[Slargos]

What I mean is that he and his ilk needs to be allowed in the public sphere where the sheer magnitude of their mistaken beliefs will be exposed. The situation today is that they are marginalised and radicalised further, and like most Norwegians, I know that trolls turn to stone in the sunlight. Fundamental rights to express opinions that are complete and utter bollocks should be reinforced, not trampled on.

I got the impression that FrP says things that aren't too far off what this guy's been saying,

The irony is so thick, you would have to cut it with an as of yet invented asteroid mining laser. 

[Malthus]

See, that's where we disagree. IMO, if you move to live in a culturally different society, you are expected to adapt to it, not the other way around. Thus, you are expected to learn the official language of the country you live in, and if there are laws mandating wearing or not wearing a particular piece of clothing in a certain situation, you are expected to follow them instead of getting special treatment.

Well right.  American cultural values (at least the good ones) are about freedom of religion and expression and basically letting people do their own thing.  That is a good thing for people who want to preserve certain parts of their cultural traditions but first they must accept these basic tenents of our culture or they need to go someplace else.

Exactly. Multiculturalism is just a slightly different way of expressing an ideal, similar to that American ideal, in the context of how different cultures interact.

As far as I can see, the only difference between "multiculturalism" and the "melting pot" is aspirational: under multiculturalism, the notion appears to be that in the future every immigrant will be a good law-abiding citizen, but preserve their original folk dances, foods, etc.; in the "melting pot", the notion appears to be that in the future every immigrant will be a good law-abiding citizen and eat at McDonalds. 

Under both systems, you in fact get a bit of both.

[Jacob]

The irony is so thick, you would have to cut it with an as of yet invented asteroid mining laser. 

This exactly illustrates the problem.

You've expressed your opinions time and time again. You bring it up incessantly. It's been argued ad infinitum. I think it's garbage.

You feel you're being oppressed and not listened to because people don't agree with you, not because you're not listened to or because people ignore the bullshit you spout.

[Viking]

Were they previously trampled on in Norwegian society? I trust your assessment of this more than Slargos'.

I got the impression that FrP says things that aren't too far off what this guy's been saying, and that anti-immigrant rhetoric et. al. isn't that hard to find; but it's just that, an impression. Are robust, culturally conservative views like those espoused by Viking and this Fjordman blogger really driven underground and rarely discussed in Norway?

Me and Fjordman are not of the same ilk, he is a conservative christian; I am a liberal atheist. The reason I posted that I was not him is that we share many similarites, these similaries are age, location and opposition to certain ideas (though from different positions, I attack from the modernist perspective, he attacks it from a pre-modernist perspective).

The FrP has been a party in change. In the 70s it was a one man libertarian party, in the 80s it was a hodge podge of homeless idealists (everything from flaming queens to racists), in the 90s it was reformed the wierdos kicked out and it is now a right populist party with a focus on generous welfare spending on the elderly, libertarian economic policies and un-PC attitudes towards foreigners. This has resulted in the party being labelled as brown racists. The reform process has been successful and the party has kicked out the wierdos and racists and is a normal political party.

Slargos is right, however, about un-PC attitudes and ideas being labelled as racist. Norgy is right when he observes that these un-PC racists feel rejected by society which condemns them.

[Viking]

G.

stop signing your fucking posts like that, your name is on the top of your post...

[Valmy]

Exactly. Multiculturalism is just a slightly different way of expressing an ideal, similar to that American ideal, in the context of how different cultures interact.

The term multiculturalism suggests that different cultures can exist side by side.  I think, at least my American in me feels, that that is just impossible.  Both cultures will die (and rather quickly, in just a few generations) and be replaced by a new one with aspects of both.  Multi-culturalism actually means the death of culture which, to me, is fine but it seems a bit disingenous to sell it otherwise.  Our melting pot is honest and to the point.  Yes your culture will be preserved but not as it entered this country and this country will be changed by your arrival and joining our colorful tapestry of American slobbery.

[Slargos]

The irony is so thick, you would have to cut it with an as of yet invented asteroid mining laser. 

This exactly illustrates the problem.

You've expressed your opinions time and time again. You bring it up incessantly. It's been argued ad infinitum. I think it's garbage.

You feel you're being oppressed and not listened to because people don't agree with you, not because you're not listened to or because people ignore the bullshit you spout.

Nah, man. I'm laughing at the fact that you accuse ME of drawing conclusions without considering facts. 

[crazy canuck]

To elaborate on Jacob said, I think the sane multiculturalism is essentially eudaimonics applied to people of different cultures. It is the same argument as allowing gays to marry - as long as it makes people happier and does not harm anyone, why shouldn't the state allow it?

Who is going to decide whether the act causes sufficient happiness and no harm and on what basis?   Havent you just defined "sane" multiculturalism as things that make Marti happy.

Shouldn't there be a more basic recognition of cultural differences and values so long as they do not violate the general and criminal law.  Why do you also require that cultural practices make people "happier" - a rather hedonistic and impossibly subjective requirement.

[crazy canuck]

Nah, man. I'm laughing at the fact that you accuse ME of drawing conclusions without considering facts. 

I would have thought the events of this weekend gave you sufficient facts to consider.

[Viking]

As far as I can see, the only difference between "multiculturalism" and the "melting pot" is aspirational: under multiculturalism, the notion appears to be that in the future every immigrant will be a good law-abiding citizen, but preserve their original folk dances, foods, etc.; in the "melting pot", the notion appears to be that in the future every immigrant will be a good law-abiding citizen and eat at McDonalds. 

Under both systems, you in fact get a bit of both.

I hate to point out the semi-strawman nature of this discussion, since the defenders of MC are arguing that it really just means not being nasty to people with other cultures and those attacking MC are arguing against what they see as an ideology which is part of a mentality which is destructive to to society and social cohesion. What Jacob and Norgy are defending is not what me and Slargos are criticizing.

Caveat: Slargos may be criticizing what Jacob and Norgy are defending, sometimes I can't tell if he is joking when he's had a few beers.

[Slargos]

Nah, man. I'm laughing at the fact that you accuse ME of drawing conclusions without considering facts. 

I would have thought the events of this weekend would have given you sufficient facts to consider.

About FRP? Not particularly, no.

[crazy canuck]

Exactly. Multiculturalism is just a slightly different way of expressing an ideal, similar to that American ideal, in the context of how different cultures interact.

The term multiculturalism suggests that different cultures can exist side by side.  I think, at least my American in me feels, that that is just impossible.  Both cultures will die (and rather quickly, in just a few generations) and be replaced by a new one with aspects of both.  Multi-culturalism actually means the death of culture which, to me, is fine but it seems a bit disingenous to sell it otherwise.  Our melting pot is honest and to the point.  Yes your culture will be preserved but not as it entered this country and this country will be changed by your arrival and joining our colorful tapestry of American slobbery.

Then I think that is a particularly American view.  Come up to Vancouver or Toronto sometime and see various cultures living side by side as has been done for a number of generations now.

[Grallon]

stop signing your fucking posts like that, your name is on the top of your post...

I was educated to sign whatever I write.




G.

[Slargos]

As far as I can see, the only difference between "multiculturalism" and the "melting pot" is aspirational: under multiculturalism, the notion appears to be that in the future every immigrant will be a good law-abiding citizen, but preserve their original folk dances, foods, etc.; in the "melting pot", the notion appears to be that in the future every immigrant will be a good law-abiding citizen and eat at McDonalds. 

Under both systems, you in fact get a bit of both.

I hate to point out the semi-strawman nature of this discussion, since the defenders of MC are arguing that it really just means not being nasty to people with other cultures and those attacking MC are arguing against what they see as an ideology which is part of a mentality which is destructive to to society and social cohesion. What Jacob and Norgy are defending is not what me and Slargos are criticizing.

Caveat: Slargos may be criticizing what Jacob and Norgy are defending, sometimes I can't tell if he is joking when he's had a few beers.

I really don't know, I sort of space out on that kind of discussion because when everyone insists on their own definition of words, discussion becomes rather meaningless. Instinctively I would say that if Jacob is defending it, then yeah, I am probably dead set against it. The man could probably find ways to make puppies revolting.

Maybe if you could help me with some bullet points. I only like to passively consume information.