Chat Forum
It is currently Thu Apr 27, 2017 12:33 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 384 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 9:29 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 1359
Interesting piece here about the moral quandary inherent in immigration. The nativist solution is to step away from the global moral imperative. The libtard solution is to call those who are caught in the quandry as a fact of their everyday lives racists.

Quote:
Immigration and integration rate among the public’s top concerns in most Western nations. Across Europe, support has grown for right-wing political parties that lobby for tighter border controls and tougher restrictions on migrants. The popularity of UKIP in the UK’s most recent election is just one example.

When examining this development, critics and commentators tend to focus on the broad brushstrokes: they rail against the ideological problems of racism, xenophobia, and religious intolerance. Of course, these kinds of abhorrent ideologies do still exist in societies across the globe. But the media tends to overlook the nuances of how Joe Bloggs and Jane Doe actually make sense of their relationships with the immigrants living nearby.

As a result, locals can feel ignored and misunderstood – like they’ve been put in a box marked “racist”. Governments and mainstream political parties could do more to address and reduce these people’s small, everyday fears about sharing spaces and experiences with immigrants. But as it stands, it’s more likely that these voters will be wooed by parties that express those fears, and demand more radical solutions.


http://theconversation.com/not-everyone ... bind-42705


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 9:31 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5231
We could start by trying to keep the population stable. Don't know how we do that AND get more younger people to look after my generation when we get more stupid and incontinent.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 9:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20080
Location: STRAYA PLUM
I always find it intersting when someone decides to use the words libtard and suggest that the left is shutting down the debate.
Surely the OP is in fact shutting down the debate?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 9:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 1359
Farva wrote:
I always find it intersting when someone decides to use the words libtard and suggest that the left is shutting down the debate.
Surely the OP is in fact shutting down the debate?


Yes. By pointing out the article and inviting discussion I am shutting down debate. f**k me days...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 9:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15133
Quote:
libtard

Yes, an honest attempt at starting a discussion. Certainly.

:roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 9:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 37427
Bullettyme wrote:
Quote:
libtard

Yes, an honest attempt at starting a discussion. Certainly.

:roll:



Boo hoo.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 9:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 1359
Quote:
A a consequence of these perceptions, locals who generally admire Turkish culture and people, and who disagree with racist ideologies, end up discriminating against Turkish immigrant consumers. They did this as a way of trying to protect an (outdated) relationship in which Austrians were the benevolent hosts, and Turkish immigrants the hard-working, undemanding guests.

A moral conflict

Clearly, these demands are incompatible. But it seems that locals have not yet figured out a way to reconcile the conflicting perspectives. Often, locals even realise that their discriminatory practices are morally wrong on a global scale, but have not found suitable ways to deal with these contradictions. This is the kind of challenge facing citizens of Western democracies around the globe.


I don't entirely accept his formulation. Especially the notion that the guest-host relationship is outdated. In my fieldwork amongst indigenous groups on western post colonies I found that that arrangement is very much in the forefront of indigenous attitudes even after several centuries.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 9:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 1359
Bullettyme wrote:
Quote:
libtard

Yes, an honest attempt at starting a discussion. Certainly.

:roll:


Or you could try having an opinion on the article. But no. Here you are shutting down a possible discussion with your irrelevancies.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 9:43 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15133
Santa wrote:
Bullettyme wrote:
Quote:
libtard

Yes, an honest attempt at starting a discussion. Certainly.

:roll:


Or you could try having an opinion on the article. But no. Here you are shutting down a possible discussion with your irrelevancies.

:lol:

EDIT: Let me get this straight, you're wailing about being called racist, but you're happy to call anyone with differing views to you a "libtard". Wonderful.


Last edited by Bullettyme on Mon Apr 10, 2017 9:44 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 9:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4405
The people have spoken. Leave, you bastards.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 9:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 1359
It's amazing. Here is an interesting article on a crucial phenomenon of the day written by an academic libtard PoCo PoMo homo mofo and all you 'tards can talk about is being called 'tards.

By your actions shall ye be known oh ' tards.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 9:46 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 1359
Bullettyme wrote:
Santa wrote:
Bullettyme wrote:
Quote:
libtard

Yes, an honest attempt at starting a discussion. Certainly.

:roll:


Or you could try having an opinion on the article. But no. Here you are shutting down a possible discussion with your irrelevancies.

:lol:

EDIT: Let me get this straight, you're wailing about being called racist, but you're happy to call anyone with differing views to you a "libtard". Wonderful.


Read the article twat.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20080
Location: STRAYA PLUM
Ive read the article and think its quite accurate.
People struggle to relate to those that are different and feel that they are being ignored, hence move towards more fringe groups who advocate protectionist and isolationist policy.

I also think that immigration is vital, and that monocultural societies are weaker.
But we do need to see processes put in place to assist immigrants to immigrate. Part of that might be to favour immigrants (differentiating immigrants from asylum seekers) who speak the language and having restrictions that prevent ghettoisation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:01 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18274
Santa wrote:
Bullettyme wrote:
Santa wrote:
Bullettyme wrote:
Quote:
libtard

Yes, an honest attempt at starting a discussion. Certainly.

:roll:


Or you could try having an opinion on the article. But no. Here you are shutting down a possible discussion with your irrelevancies.

:lol:

EDIT: Let me get this straight, you're wailing about being called racist, but you're happy to call anyone with differing views to you a "libtard". Wonderful.


Read the article twat.


You gave an excuse not to read it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:08 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20080
Location: STRAYA PLUM
Santa wrote:
Farva wrote:
I always find it intersting when someone decides to use the words libtard and suggest that the left is shutting down the debate.
Surely the OP is in fact shutting down the debate?


Yes. By pointing out the article and inviting discussion I am shutting down debate. f**k me days...


You clearly went to shut down the debate.
Here is what you said

Quote:
The libtard solution is to call those who are caught in the quandry as a fact of their everyday lives racists.

I am pointing out the hypocrisy there.
If you wanted to have a decent conversation about this topic you wouldnt have started with that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:10 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18274
Farva wrote:
Santa wrote:
Farva wrote:
I always find it intersting when someone decides to use the words libtard and suggest that the left is shutting down the debate.
Surely the OP is in fact shutting down the debate?


Yes. By pointing out the article and inviting discussion I am shutting down debate. f**k me days...


You clearly went to shut down the debate.
Here is what you said

Quote:
The libtard solution is to call those who are caught in the quandry as a fact of their everyday lives racists.

I am pointing out the hypocrisy there.
If you wanted to have a decent conversation about this topic you wouldnt have started with that.


An example of what I just wrote, Santa.

Although Farva has not used it as an excuse to avoid debate, TBF.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15133
Santa wrote:
Bullettyme wrote:
Santa wrote:
Bullettyme wrote:
Quote:
libtard

Yes, an honest attempt at starting a discussion. Certainly.

:roll:


Or you could try having an opinion on the article. But no. Here you are shutting down a possible discussion with your irrelevancies.

:lol:

EDIT: Let me get this straight, you're wailing about being called racist, but you're happy to call anyone with differing views to you a "libtard". Wonderful.


Read the article twat.


I read the article. It's pretty interesting.

It's perfectly legitimate to worry about immigration, and how immigration might conceivably (or inconceivably) change the makeup of a nation. I think mismanagement of those fears has lead to the rise of unsavoury sorts like Le Pen, UKIP and Trump, but I can't agree with their views and their dog whistle politics (and I don't necessarily think most of their voters do either). I do think some of the rhetoric is hilarious though, like someone claiming that the way things are going people will be drinking less beer in Europe because of Islam, for instance.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15133
Mick Mannock wrote:


Although Farva has not used it as an excuse to avoid debate, TBF.


I'm sure you have plenty to add, sniping away at the sidelines.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17349
Location: Sarnath in the land of Mnar
Farva wrote:
Ive read the article and think its quite accurate.
People struggle to relate to those that are different and feel that they are being ignored, hence move towards more fringe groups who advocate protectionist and isolationist policy.

I also think that immigration is vital, and that monocultural societies are weaker.
But we do need to see processes put in place to assist immigrants to immigrate. Part of that might be to favour immigrants (differentiating immigrants from asylum seekers) who speak the language and having restrictions that prevent ghettoisation.



By what metric?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18274
Farva wrote:
Ive read the article and think its quite accurate.
People struggle to relate to those that are different and feel that they are being ignored, hence move towards more fringe groups who advocate protectionist and isolationist policy.

I also think that immigration is vital, and that monocultural societies are weaker.
But we do need to see processes put in place to assist immigrants to immigrate. Part of that might be to favour immigrants (differentiating immigrants from asylum seekers) who speak the language and having restrictions that prevent ghettoisation.


So, do monocultural societies need protection to remain monocultural?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 31821
Being raped by a HIV-riddled refugee is preferable to partaking in these 'debates' on here these days.

The level of acrimony is staggering. As is the level of intellectual posturing, and that's from me ffs.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:17 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18274
henry wrote:
Being raped by a HIV-riddled refugee is preferable to partaking in these 'debates' on here these days.

The level of acrimony is staggering. As is the level of intellectual posturing, and that's from me ffs.


Certainly the level of personal abuse is sad.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20080
Location: STRAYA PLUM
Hellraiser wrote:
Farva wrote:
Ive read the article and think its quite accurate.
People struggle to relate to those that are different and feel that they are being ignored, hence move towards more fringe groups who advocate protectionist and isolationist policy.

I also think that immigration is vital, and that monocultural societies are weaker.
But we do need to see processes put in place to assist immigrants to immigrate. Part of that might be to favour immigrants (differentiating immigrants from asylum seekers) who speak the language and having restrictions that prevent ghettoisation.



By what metric?


In my opinion, diversity of ideas provide a far superior society, as the diversity offers different viewpoints, thinking outside the box if you will, which allows the society to find innovative solutions to its problems. I think monocultures get stuck with non-development of their society.
I come from a country that has had a lot of success with over a century of immigration being well integrated. There are examples of immigration not works, but largely it does in Australia. And Australia has benefited massively for it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20080
Location: STRAYA PLUM
Mick Mannock wrote:
Farva wrote:
Ive read the article and think its quite accurate.
People struggle to relate to those that are different and feel that they are being ignored, hence move towards more fringe groups who advocate protectionist and isolationist policy.

I also think that immigration is vital, and that monocultural societies are weaker.
But we do need to see processes put in place to assist immigrants to immigrate. Part of that might be to favour immigrants (differentiating immigrants from asylum seekers) who speak the language and having restrictions that prevent ghettoisation.


So, do monocultural societies need protection to remain monocultural?


If the society wants to remain a monoculture then obviously it is needed.
I dont think that is an optimal outcome though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20080
Location: STRAYA PLUM
Mick Mannock wrote:
Farva wrote:
Santa wrote:
Farva wrote:
I always find it intersting when someone decides to use the words libtard and suggest that the left is shutting down the debate.
Surely the OP is in fact shutting down the debate?


Yes. By pointing out the article and inviting discussion I am shutting down debate. f**k me days...


You clearly went to shut down the debate.
Here is what you said

Quote:
The libtard solution is to call those who are caught in the quandry as a fact of their everyday lives racists.

I am pointing out the hypocrisy there.
If you wanted to have a decent conversation about this topic you wouldnt have started with that.


An example of what I just wrote, Santa.

Although Farva has not used it as an excuse to avoid debate, TBF.


So not an example of what you just wrote?

My issue here is that if someone with a left wing view had started their post with "The right wing nazi solution is to call those who are caught in the quandry as a fact of their everyday lives libtards" would have had most of those posting on this thread up in arms and calling it out as an example of the left shutting down the debate - which it would have been. If we want to have a decent discussion like the OP wants, then its fair to call out this sort of shit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:45 am
Posts: 1144
Farva wrote:
Hellraiser wrote:
Farva wrote:
Ive read the article and think its quite accurate.
People struggle to relate to those that are different and feel that they are being ignored, hence move towards more fringe groups who advocate protectionist and isolationist policy.

I also think that immigration is vital, and that monocultural societies are weaker.
But we do need to see processes put in place to assist immigrants to immigrate. Part of that might be to favour immigrants (differentiating immigrants from asylum seekers) who speak the language and having restrictions that prevent ghettoisation.



By what metric?


In my opinion, diversity of ideas provide a far superior society, as the diversity offers different viewpoints, thinking outside the box if you will, which allows the society to find innovative solutions to its problems. I think monocultures get stuck with non-development of their society.
I come from a country that has had a lot of success with over a century of immigration being well integrated. There are examples of immigration not works, but largely it does in Australia. And Australia has benefited massively for it.


Homogeneity is quite central to Japanese and Korean culture. You might not like it, but who are you to impose your values on another culture? Weaker you say, yet somehow Japan is far more powerful and important in the world than Australia.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:30 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 1359
Farva wrote:
Mick Mannock wrote:
Farva wrote:
Ive read the article and think its quite accurate.
People struggle to relate to those that are different and feel that they are being ignored, hence move towards more fringe groups who advocate protectionist and isolationist policy.

I also think that immigration is vital, and that monocultural societies are weaker.
But we do need to see processes put in place to assist immigrants to immigrate. Part of that might be to favour immigrants (differentiating immigrants from asylum seekers) who speak the language and having restrictions that prevent ghettoisation.


So, do monocultural societies need protection to remain monocultural?


If the society wants to remain a monoculture then obviously it is needed.
I dont think that is an optimal outcome though.


What needs to be optimised?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20080
Location: STRAYA PLUM
Sensible Stephen wrote:
Farva wrote:
Hellraiser wrote:
Farva wrote:
Ive read the article and think its quite accurate.
People struggle to relate to those that are different and feel that they are being ignored, hence move towards more fringe groups who advocate protectionist and isolationist policy.

I also think that immigration is vital, and that monocultural societies are weaker.
But we do need to see processes put in place to assist immigrants to immigrate. Part of that might be to favour immigrants (differentiating immigrants from asylum seekers) who speak the language and having restrictions that prevent ghettoisation.



By what metric?


In my opinion, diversity of ideas provide a far superior society, as the diversity offers different viewpoints, thinking outside the box if you will, which allows the society to find innovative solutions to its problems. I think monocultures get stuck with non-development of their society.
I come from a country that has had a lot of success with over a century of immigration being well integrated. There are examples of immigration not works, but largely it does in Australia. And Australia has benefited massively for it.


Homogeneity is quite central to Japanese and Korean culture. You might not like it, but who are you to impose your values on another culture? Weaker you say, yet somehow Japan is far more powerful and important in the world than Australia.


Im not imposing anything on Japan. They are free to do as they wish.
I think they would be stronger for a varying culture. I also understand that they have a culture of homogeneity.
Id argue that the success in Japan has far more to do with the introduction of American culture to Japan than the influence of Japanese culture. Ditto with Korea.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17349
Location: Sarnath in the land of Mnar
Farva wrote:
Hellraiser wrote:
Farva wrote:
Ive read the article and think its quite accurate.
People struggle to relate to those that are different and feel that they are being ignored, hence move towards more fringe groups who advocate protectionist and isolationist policy.

I also think that immigration is vital, and that monocultural societies are weaker.
But we do need to see processes put in place to assist immigrants to immigrate. Part of that might be to favour immigrants (differentiating immigrants from asylum seekers) who speak the language and having restrictions that prevent ghettoisation.



By what metric?


In my opinion, diversity of ideas provide a far superior society, as the diversity offers different viewpoints, thinking outside the box if you will, which allows the society to find innovative solutions to its problems. I think monocultures get stuck with non-development of their society.
I come from a country that has had a lot of success with over a century of immigration being well integrated. There are examples of immigration not works, but largely it does in Australia. And Australia has benefited massively for it.



Right, the airy-fairy bollocks metric. :thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 8979
Location: Watson city, MN
henry wrote:
Being raped by a HIV-riddled refugee is preferable to partaking in these 'debates' on here these days.

The level of acrimony is staggering. As is the level of intellectual posturing, and that's from me ffs.

Agreed.

f**k all of you.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20080
Location: STRAYA PLUM
Santa wrote:
Farva wrote:
Mick Mannock wrote:
Farva wrote:
Ive read the article and think its quite accurate.
People struggle to relate to those that are different and feel that they are being ignored, hence move towards more fringe groups who advocate protectionist and isolationist policy.

I also think that immigration is vital, and that monocultural societies are weaker.
But we do need to see processes put in place to assist immigrants to immigrate. Part of that might be to favour immigrants (differentiating immigrants from asylum seekers) who speak the language and having restrictions that prevent ghettoisation.


So, do monocultural societies need protection to remain monocultural?


If the society wants to remain a monoculture then obviously it is needed.
I dont think that is an optimal outcome though.


What needs to be optimised?


I wrote above that I think that different views allow for innovation.
Sensible Stephen gave a great example. Japan has managed to meld its traditional culture with American culture well to become one of the strongest economies in the world.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3529
Farva wrote:
Sensible Stephen wrote:
Farva wrote:
Hellraiser wrote:
Farva wrote:
Ive read the article and think its quite accurate.
People struggle to relate to those that are different and feel that they are being ignored, hence move towards more fringe groups who advocate protectionist and isolationist policy.

I also think that immigration is vital, and that monocultural societies are weaker.
But we do need to see processes put in place to assist immigrants to immigrate. Part of that might be to favour immigrants (differentiating immigrants from asylum seekers) who speak the language and having restrictions that prevent ghettoisation.



By what metric?


In my opinion, diversity of ideas provide a far superior society, as the diversity offers different viewpoints, thinking outside the box if you will, which allows the society to find innovative solutions to its problems. I think monocultures get stuck with non-development of their society.
I come from a country that has had a lot of success with over a century of immigration being well integrated. There are examples of immigration not works, but largely it does in Australia. And Australia has benefited massively for it.


Homogeneity is quite central to Japanese and Korean culture. You might not like it, but who are you to impose your values on another culture? Weaker you say, yet somehow Japan is far more powerful and important in the world than Australia.


Im not imposing anything on Japan. They are free to do as they wish.
I think they would be stronger for a varying culture. I also understand that they have a culture of homogeneity.
Id argue that the success in Japan has far more to do with the introduction of American culture to Japan than the influence of Japanese culture. Ditto with Korea.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

No success in Japan prior to occupation by the yanks. No siree Bob.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20080
Location: STRAYA PLUM
Hellraiser wrote:
Farva wrote:
Hellraiser wrote:
Farva wrote:
Ive read the article and think its quite accurate.
People struggle to relate to those that are different and feel that they are being ignored, hence move towards more fringe groups who advocate protectionist and isolationist policy.

I also think that immigration is vital, and that monocultural societies are weaker.
But we do need to see processes put in place to assist immigrants to immigrate. Part of that might be to favour immigrants (differentiating immigrants from asylum seekers) who speak the language and having restrictions that prevent ghettoisation.



By what metric?


In my opinion, diversity of ideas provide a far superior society, as the diversity offers different viewpoints, thinking outside the box if you will, which allows the society to find innovative solutions to its problems. I think monocultures get stuck with non-development of their society.
I come from a country that has had a lot of success with over a century of immigration being well integrated. There are examples of immigration not works, but largely it does in Australia. And Australia has benefited massively for it.



Right, the airy-fairy bollocks metric. :thumbup:


Are you after a number?
I dont think it exists. I could probably hunt for research papers to prove my point, but its all subjective anyway.
You seem to have an opinion that monoculture is stronger based on your post above. Perhaps you could provide a metric that proves it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:45 am
Posts: 1144
Farva wrote:
Sensible Stephen wrote:
Farva wrote:
Hellraiser wrote:
Farva wrote:
Ive read the article and think its quite accurate.
People struggle to relate to those that are different and feel that they are being ignored, hence move towards more fringe groups who advocate protectionist and isolationist policy.

I also think that immigration is vital, and that monocultural societies are weaker.
But we do need to see processes put in place to assist immigrants to immigrate. Part of that might be to favour immigrants (differentiating immigrants from asylum seekers) who speak the language and having restrictions that prevent ghettoisation.



By what metric?


In my opinion, diversity of ideas provide a far superior society, as the diversity offers different viewpoints, thinking outside the box if you will, which allows the society to find innovative solutions to its problems. I think monocultures get stuck with non-development of their society.
I come from a country that has had a lot of success with over a century of immigration being well integrated. There are examples of immigration not works, but largely it does in Australia. And Australia has benefited massively for it.


Homogeneity is quite central to Japanese and Korean culture. You might not like it, but who are you to impose your values on another culture? Weaker you say, yet somehow Japan is far more powerful and important in the world than Australia.


Im not imposing anything on Japan. They are free to do as they wish.
I think they would be stronger for a varying culture. I also understand that they have a culture of homogeneity.
Id argue that the success in Japan has far more to do with the introduction of American culture to Japan than the influence of Japanese culture. Ditto with Korea.


Better thanks to white people huh?

Look at history and you can see thats rubbish. There was a period in the 1800s when they lost their way, but apart form that they have been one of the strongest countries around. And 1945 too haha.

There is no right or wrong, both heterogeneous and homogeneous cultures can be strong, powerful and good. To say one is better than the other is just ignorant.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3285
Farva.

What about the monocultures of Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Norway and Iceland? You think they are weak?


Last edited by Man In Black on Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:38 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 1359
Farva wrote:
Santa wrote:
Farva wrote:
Mick Mannock wrote:
Farva wrote:
Ive read the article and think its quite accurate.
People struggle to relate to those that are different and feel that they are being ignored, hence move towards more fringe groups who advocate protectionist and isolationist policy.

I also think that immigration is vital, and that monocultural societies are weaker.
But we do need to see processes put in place to assist immigrants to immigrate. Part of that might be to favour immigrants (differentiating immigrants from asylum seekers) who speak the language and having restrictions that prevent ghettoisation.


So, do monocultural societies need protection to remain monocultural?


If the society wants to remain a monoculture then obviously it is needed.
I dont think that is an optimal outcome though.


What needs to be optimised?


I wrote above that I think that different views allow for innovation.
Sensible Stephen gave a great example. Japan has managed to meld its traditional culture with American culture well to become one of the strongest economies in the world.


Isolated human groups, let's call them monocultures, have always innovated as a matter of survival. Consider the ability of pre-contact Polynesians to exploit every aspect of their resource limited environments to successfully navigate the Pacific.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20080
Location: STRAYA PLUM
village wrote:
Farva wrote:
Sensible Stephen wrote:
Farva wrote:

In my opinion, diversity of ideas provide a far superior society, as the diversity offers different viewpoints, thinking outside the box if you will, which allows the society to find innovative solutions to its problems. I think monocultures get stuck with non-development of their society.
I come from a country that has had a lot of success with over a century of immigration being well integrated. There are examples of immigration not works, but largely it does in Australia. And Australia has benefited massively for it.


Homogeneity is quite central to Japanese and Korean culture. You might not like it, but who are you to impose your values on another culture? Weaker you say, yet somehow Japan is far more powerful and important in the world than Australia.


Im not imposing anything on Japan. They are free to do as they wish.
I think they would be stronger for a varying culture. I also understand that they have a culture of homogeneity.
Id argue that the success in Japan has far more to do with the introduction of American culture to Japan than the influence of Japanese culture. Ditto with Korea.


:lol: :lol: :lol:

No success in Japan prior to occupation by the yanks. No siree Bob.


There was success in Japan prior to the American influence.
But the current situation in Japan, which SS has reffered to, has massive amounts of American culture within it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 37741
Location: No. 2 to Cyprus
bimboman wrote:
Bullettyme wrote:
Quote:
libtard

Yes, an honest attempt at starting a discussion. Certainly.

:roll:



Boo hoo.



bimboman in missing the point shock


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:40 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 1359
Chuckles1188 wrote:
bimboman wrote:
Bullettyme wrote:
Quote:
libtard

Yes, an honest attempt at starting a discussion. Certainly.

:roll:



Boo hoo.



bimboman in missing the point shock


Keep up 'tard we're into a proper discussion now.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 10, 2017 10:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 299
Sensible Stephen wrote:
Farva wrote:
Sensible Stephen wrote:
Farva wrote:
Hellraiser wrote:

By what metric?


In my opinion, diversity of ideas provide a far superior society, as the diversity offers different viewpoints, thinking outside the box if you will, which allows the society to find innovative solutions to its problems. I think monocultures get stuck with non-development of their society.
I come from a country that has had a lot of success with over a century of immigration being well integrated. There are examples of immigration not works, but largely it does in Australia. And Australia has benefited massively for it.


Homogeneity is quite central to Japanese and Korean culture. You might not like it, but who are you to impose your values on another culture? Weaker you say, yet somehow Japan is far more powerful and important in the world than Australia.


Im not imposing anything on Japan. They are free to do as they wish.
I think they would be stronger for a varying culture. I also understand that they have a culture of homogeneity.
Id argue that the success in Japan has far more to do with the introduction of American culture to Japan than the influence of Japanese culture. Ditto with Korea.


Better thanks to white people huh?

Look at history and you can see thats rubbish. There was a period in the 1800s when they lost their way, but apart form that they have been one of the strongest countries around. And 1945 too haha.

There is no right or wrong, both heterogeneous and homogeneous cultures can be strong, powerful and good. To say one is better than the other is just ignorant.


I think Farva just been called a racist. #shuttingdowndebate. Sad


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 384 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BBB, beafheart, bealonian, Bing [Bot], Clive Simms, _fatprop, Flockwitt, frankster, fraz, Gospel, guy smiley, happyhooker, jambanja, Jay Cee Gee, Kiwias, redderneck, rett, rfurlong, Salanya, slow wing, Tehuringa, The Native, Wilderbeast and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group