Breaking News - Major Terrorist Attack In Oslo, Norway

[Valmy]

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.

[Norgy]

Hmm... if I understand what you're saying (and Viking too) it's that "we should understand what ABB is saying, why he's so alienated and change our society to be more in line with what he wants to avoid alienating people like him further."

I'm not sure that sentiment sits that well with me, whether it's Muslim terrorists, people like ABB or anyone else.

Or did I misunderstand?

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.

[Solmyr]

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.

That's why I think America is doing much better with its immigrants.

[The Minsky Moment]

Are you guys familiar with the maxim "hard cases make bad law" ?

One of the problems of the past 20 years or so is that this maxim has been forgotten or disregarded.  Norway is a lovely country, with excellent systems and laws vast oil deposits that have made most people's lives there pretty good.

FYP

[Oexmelin]

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.

But that seems to require

1) a "public sphere" (which is what, exactly, physically?) that does not function like an echo chamber like so many places on the web do. I fear our societies permit - because that seems to be one of their basic tenets - people to isolate themselves to such an extent that they need not engage with other people except on very superficial grounds.

2) An active debate where such ideas are debated rather than simply ignored or

3) A locus where such "ideas" are either mocked and their proponents shamed (that's basic social control) when there are not many points to be engaged, or when such "ideas" confront basic truisms or values, that in the process become reaffirmed. But that also requires a positive "affirmation" of whatever binds the society together. 

[Valmy]

1) a "public sphere" (which is what, exactly, physically?) that does not function like an echo chamber like so many places on the web do.

I don't know what you are talking about 

[Valmy]

That's why I think America is doing much better with its immigrants.

Well we have the huge advantage of not being an ethnically based state.  I just think it is nuts to allow large amounts of immigrants in if you ARE a state whose entire existance is based on being the homeland of some national group.  I mean why exist at all then?  It almost seems like an attempt to destroy what you are and recreate yourself as something else entirely but...I guess the question is what would that be exactly?  And for such a radical plan I sure hope most of the population is on board.  Otherwise you are bringing in people who are always going to be alienated from the basic mythology and purpose of the state.  And in Euroland that historically has been a disastrous formula.

[Tamas]

Are you guys familiar with the maxim "hard cases make bad law" ?

One of the problems of the past 20 years or so is that this maxim has been forgotten or disregarded.  Norway is a lovely country, with excellent systems and laws vast oil deposits that have made most people's lives there pretty good.

FYP

Iran, Venezuela, Saud Arabia, heck even Lybia have massive oil deposits.  Much good it did for their societies.

[The Minsky Moment]

-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.

[Slargos]

Are you guys familiar with the maxim "hard cases make bad law" ?

One of the problems of the past 20 years or so is that this maxim has been forgotten or disregarded.  Norway is a lovely country, with excellent systems and laws vast oil deposits that have made most people's lives there pretty good.

FYP

Iran, Venezuela, Saud Arabia, heck even Lybia have massive oil deposits.  Much good it did for their societies.

Pure chance and the oppression of the white man, I'm sure.

[The Minsky Moment]

The American whackos, -almost all I think- translate their bigotry and racism into a stalwart defense of their Constitution, or at least their interpretation of it.

I agree with Marti on this one.  The Bachmans of the world invoke the constitution like televangelists invoke the Bible: selectively, sometimes inaccurately, and bereft of any real understanding.  Their worldview is not based on the Constitution.  Rather they have created a fantasy Constitution (and history) that conforms to their worldview.

[Martinus]

-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.

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 Minsky Moment]

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.

As a general principle, people are more likely to show respect when they themselves are shown respect in return.\

That is one reason why the American approach re immigrants, for all its serious flaws, tends to have a better track for assimilation than those that take a more punitive, illiberal approach.

[Valmy]

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?

Where did he claim this?

[Martinus]

That's why I think America is doing much better with its immigrants.

Well we have the huge advantage of not being an ethnically based state.  I just think it is nuts to allow large amounts of immigrants in if you ARE a state whose entire existance is based on being the homeland of some national group.  I mean why exist at all then?  It almost seems like an attempt to destroy what you are and recreate yourself as something else entirely but...I guess the question is what would that be exactly?  And for such a radical plan I sure hope most of the population is on board.  Otherwise you are bringing in people who are always going to be alienated from the basic mythology and purpose of the state.  And in Euroland that historically has been a disastrous formula.

Yup. What the conservatives and nationalists do not understand is that you cannot function without immigrants these days, at least not if you want to maintain the kind of quality of living that we have in the West. So either you will keep your precious Belgian or Norwegian uniqueness intact and keep an ever growing underclass which feels alienated, or you will allow your culture to change by adapting to the newcomers just as they adapt to you. Assimilation is a two-way street. Europeans do not understand this - they look at the US, but fail to appreciate that in, for example, Norway, if you are black and from Africa, you will NEVER be considered a true Norwegian even if you ate lutefisk every day, went to the local lutheran church and waved the flag every day - simply because you are of a wrong ethnicity (something that would be completely different in the US).