Breaking News - Major Terrorist Attack In Oslo, Norway

[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.

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.

Precisely, when everybody gets to have his own culture and define his own words society crumbles. There is neither Truth nor truth. I've been trying to move the discussion onto defining MC before we argue about it but that seems to fail. Seeing Valmy and CC argue about how it is or isn't possible for MC to survive when one is talking about self ghettoizing immigrant tribes and the other is talking about exotic food.

[Viking]

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.

You'know, you convinced me..



<snip>about 80 blank lines</snip>

V.

[Valmy]

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.

Yeah that supposedly happens in New York and other big American cities.  I think it is an illusion those cultures have been profoundly changed from their roots because of their interaction with the people around them.

Besides preserving those sorts of ethnic ghettos is not really a positive...just imo...and it needs fresh blood coming in to be sustainable which is only possible in cities that get constant flows of immigrants.  If Italians were still pouring into New York 'Little Italy' (as something other than a tourist place) would still be around.

[Gups]

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.

That's the trouble isn't it. It's a virtually meaningless term.

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

Nobody sane wants Sharia law being introduced as an equal system of law in western societies. Nobody wants women to be forced to be married etc.

If that's multiculturalism hardly anyone supports it.

It's all the stuff in the middle that's difficult and proably defines whether you are a multiculturalist or not. Should Sikhs have to wear helmets if they ride bikes, is halal food cruel or OK etc etc.

[Grallon]

You'know, you convinced me..

And whats your point about this?




G.

[Malthus]

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.

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. 

[HVC]

You'know, you convinced me..

And whats your point about this?




G.

he's just lashing out. And with his propensity to hate minorities he picked you

[Grallon]

Nobody sane wants Sharia law being introduced as an equal system of law in western societies. Nobody wants women to be forced to be married etc.

If that's multiculturalism hardly anyone supports it.

You might not be aware that the introduction of Sharia as a valid, parallel legal system was almost accomplished in Ontario a few years ago...  I daresay there will more attempts in the future.




G.

[Malthus]

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.

Yeah that supposedly happens in New York and other big American cities.  I think it is an illusion those cultures have been profoundly changed from their roots because of their interaction with the people around them.

Besides preserving those sorts of ethnic ghettos is not really a positive...just imo...and it needs fresh blood coming in to be sustainable which is only possible in cities that get constant flows of immigrants.  If Italians were still pouring into New York 'Little Italy' (as something other than a tourist place) would still be around.

Well, certainly cultures have changed in America, but then so what? I mean, it isn't like Italians back in Italy are still the same as Italians in 1910, right? 

[Neil]

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.

Yeah, their ghettos are side-by-side.

[Viking]

That's the trouble isn't it. It's a virtually meaningless term.

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

Nobody sane wants Sharia law being introduced as an equal system of law in western societies. Nobody wants women to be forced to be married etc.

If that's multiculturalism hardly anyone supports it.

It's all the stuff in the middle that's difficult and proably defines whether you are a multiculturalist or not. Should Sikhs have to wear helmets if they ride bikes, is halal food cruel or OK etc etc.

Yes, and in these ethnic restaurants we expect clean water, clean toilets, valid food and health certificates  ect. Chinatown is fun, but it is a form of disneyland, a day out. When you get home to your apartment or house you want it to be in the boring west, free from the baggage these various cultures bring with them to our neighborhoods and schools.

I agree that nobody sane wants sharia as an equal system of laws and forced marriages, but we don't have the will or the sense to say that out loud. We accept what we know is wrong because it is of another culture and that culture must be respected. There are routine attempts to deal with the symptoms like attempting to ban FGM or child marriages etc. without looking at the root causes. The root causes we dealt with in the west when we did away with misogyny, racism, sectarianism and all the other noxious baggage that our culture dragged with it from previous centuries.

Personally I think it is rather pointless to discuss what nobody is criticizing (The Peking Golden Lion Restaurant, the one with the clean toilets and the certificate certifying it clean) and to move on to what is being criticized and what ABB identified as the problem; not good quality indian food; but rather the rash willingness to abandon the bedrock of western society.

[HVC]

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.

[Neil]

You might not be aware that the introduction of Sharia as a valid, parallel legal system was almost accomplished in Ontario a few years ago...  I daresay there will more attempts in the future.

Opposing Islam is fine, but do it with facts rather than lies.

[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.

[Viking]

You'know, you convinced me..

And whats your point about this?




G.

he's just lashing out. And with his propensity to hate minorities he picked you

I like him, If I didn't I'd be much more of a dick, see how I reply to grumbler when I actually do reply to him..