IMMIGRATION thread

[Greyblades]

It shouldn't surprise you that many terms in political discourse have many different meanings that are often used to misleading effect. In the post you quoted, then, I'm talking about the specific policies of multiculturalism that were endorsed by Western European governments after WW2 as part of reconstruction of their drained economies and as part of the broader offloading of some authority and responsibility from governments to business and finance. In the last generation, multiculturalism was co-opted by what Frag used to call (though he dropped it in the past year or so) "Cultural Marxists" who saw it not as an idea justifying the import of foreign labor, but as a sound and desirable ethical principle on its own. Those paleo-rightists who both resented globalized economics and the left-spectrum generally then associated "multiculturalism" with certain leftist groups and leftist social academics because by then the leftists were the only ones who bothered to mention the term.

Aside from being mildy interesting to hear once again what you think multiculturalism means, I am left wondering at the near alien thought process that gives such responses to what I write. I was not disputing what was being said I was commenting on the futility of arguing the meaning of a term that was vague to begin with and now is so disputed as to mean wildly different things to many different people.

I usually write on a secondary-school level.

I admit I was being a bit overly generous when I implied university level writing but I wouldnt go that far.

In fact, this is basically like my day-to-day speech.

Why does that not surprise me.

When I am giving a specific response to a specific sentence, I do it precisely and step-by-step. But this approach is infrequent in life outside of formal debate settings, since usually people in discussions bring in relevant ideas and arguments rather than lines that are explicitly tailored to a single other line or set of lines, and irrelevant or incomprehensible outside that context.

TLDR: Stop being so self-centered and try to follow what people are actually talking about rather than expecting people to limit themselves only to what little substance you yourself have posted about your own understanding, or otherwise to hold your hand.

So let me get this straight; you cant differentiate between more that one interlocutor besides yourself and need to impose a general overarching argument on everyone who contributes to the conversation on an opposing side, regardless of if they actually agree with that argument or not.

Additionally you are occasionally incapable of framing your individual posts to conform with the direction the conversation was going, to the point where instead of saying something along the lines of "I was thinking about what you were saying earlier and this is what I think" you just blurt out what you have to say with little regard of what was said before or how jarring and confusing the transition is and how much it impares any attempt to respond to it.

...I dont know if that is 100% accurate but it's certainly the only explanation I can think of that makes sense with both what you just said and your behavior previously.
I must admit I can sympathise with the former, threads do get confusing after a month or so, keeping track of who said what becomes confusing especially when they use the same avatars. Once or twice I have found myself mixing up you and pannonian, gets embarrasing quickly.