Multiculturalism is dead

[al Roumi]

"valuing diversity"

Perhaps I owe you a more substantive response, but I do think you are missing the point in railing against "diversity".

"Some immigrant groups have nothing but admirable qualities. They should be admired for their admirable qualities. We should say "they are objectively good people". But when you 'value diversity" you aren't doing that. And the flipside is that when they aren't admirable, you are still "valuing diversity". It's wrong both ways. It's a phrase that's terribly weak in praise, and lacks the capacity for criticism.

"Diversity", and valuing it is precisely not about productivity or worth and is certainly not a scoring chart for integration. It's just about not being a homogenous blob of society and taking pleasure in that.

[Furunculus]

it is not the governments job to enforce diversity on its citizens, which is what has happened in towns and cities up and down the land.

[Fragony]

Perhaps I owe you a more substantive response, but I do think you are missing the point in railing against "diversity".



"Diversity", and valuing it is precisely not about productivity or worth and is certainly not a scoring chart for integration. It's just about not being a homogenous blob of society and taking pleasure in that.

When done right, but 'wanting' diversity is a form of racism, the 'how good of you!' kind. Equality should be a given, a policy of diversity rules that out. People feel best when treated with respect.

[al Roumi]

it is not the governments job to enforce diversity on its citizens, which is what has happened in towns and cities up and down the land.

Indeed not, how is it that the (presumably past) government has enforced diversity?

[Fragony]

Indeed not, how is it that the (presumably past) government has enforced diversity?

They even admitted that it was active policy 'rubbing diversity in the noses of the right', exact words, googlydo

[Furunculus]

Indeed not, how is it that the (presumably past) government has enforced diversity?

by uncontrolled immigration leading to the ghettoisation of our immigrant populations, and the crowding out of marginal groups among the native population.

if you want to create a more cohesive and happy society, which ought to be the goal of any government, then uncontrolled immigration is exactly the wrong way to go about it.

i realise you are happy eating your cous-cous salad in the local somalian restaurant, well guess what, so am i, but there are a lot of working class people who feel marginalised in their own society and squeezed out of their own community.

that does not make a cohesive and happy society, it is that simple. end of!

[al Roumi]

by uncontrolled immigration leading to the ghettoisation of our immigrant populations, and the crowding out of marginal groups among the native population.

if you want to create a more cohesive and happy society, which ought to be the goal of any government, then unconctrolled immigration is exactly the wrong way to go about it.

While I might quibble on what the assumed alternative is to uncontrolled immigration (but not here), I agree that it was wishfull thinking, verging on negligence, to assume that everyone would just get along fine.

i realise you are happy eating your cous-cous salad in the local somalian restaurant, well guess what, so am i

[rory_20_uk]

I have always thought that the purpose of immigration should be to try to improve the populace of the country - to gain those with the most to give in terms of skills etc, not to take in all and sundry who view it as a better option than where they currently come from by means legal or otherwise.

Coupled with the utter fear of implicit or explicit integration one ends up where we currently are.

[Furunculus]

While I might quibble on what the assumed alternative is to uncontrolled immigration (but not here), I agree that it was wishfull thinking, verging on negligence, to assume that everyone would just get along fine.

just so long as you don't lose sight of the most important part of what i said, the bit you forgot to quote:

but there are a lot of working class people who feel marginalised in their own society and squeezed out of their own community.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

"Diversity", and valuing it is precisely not about productivity or worth and is certainly not a scoring chart for integration. It's just about not being a homogenous blob of society and taking pleasure in that.

I still don't quite get it though.

The sport I like is football. Other people in the world watch cricket and nascar and baseball etc. But I don't take pleasure in the fact that football isn't the only sport that everyone watches. I watch the olympics and the world cup, and I'm glad they exist because they are fun to watch. But there's never a moment when my happiness comes from being glad that there's diversity. Same with food, music, art...so I don't understand where that pleasure comes from for you. I like what I like, other people like what they like. There's also lots of cultural practices that I think we'd be better off if they died out. Generally people are always striving to change their own culture for the better. I don't think it's different for other cultures. If drinking too much soda is a negative aspect of american culture, then it's a negative aspect of mexican culture too.

I don't think any culture is a homogeneous blob either. There's many different kinds of people in the world.

Thirdly (I think), it seems to me that culture is something that comes into existence in response to a certain situation (like how companies will work to create a certain company culture). So non-western cultures becoming westernized seems perfectly natural.

And I think it goes without saying that it would be nice if society was a homogeneous blog regarding things like the equality of women.

[Fragony]

Not just those, it's kinda ironic but my anti-immigration blond Mozart would be nothing without immigrants. He gets a considerable amount of votes from non-ethnic Dutch

edit @ furuncules, and yay to SK

[Strike For The South]

I have always hoped that Germany would return to a more normal stance regarding culture and integration before serious damage was done. The country has one of the richest - and most productive - cultures in the world; a culture that has produced many - dare I say, most - of the advancements in science, industry, art, and technology that occurred during the 19th and 20th centuries. 12 years of Nazism shouldn't erase that. It is perfectly acceptable for Germans to expect immigrants to learn the language and the cultural standards. Whether Merkel brought it up for political reasons or not, it is good for Germany that she broached the subject.

While Germany was at the forefront of many achivements during this time, I think you would be remiss if you didn't point out that Germany did try to exterminate many of these people who actually achieved these things.

[al Roumi]

just so long as you don't lose sight of the most important part of what i said, the bit you forgot to quote:

...but there are a lot of working class people who feel marginalised in their own society and squeezed out of their own community.

Their marginalisation is a massive issue, but not one I would blame on or tie to immigration. I concede that the public eye has perhaps strayed from their plight to that of more recent arrivals to the UK, but again -that does not mean that immigrants or immigration are the cause or root of the UK's poor and their condition.

I still don't quite get it though.

Are you not interested in the world and understanding the people and things around you? I know how trite that sounds but if I'm totally honest, that's about the most basic level of "valuing diversity".

Have you ever travelled outside of the US? We can stop this conversation right here if you never have and have no interest in doing so, but that would (IMO) be a pretty sad indictement on your view of the world.

It's perfectly understandle that one might prefer familliar things, but familliar things are only so by dint of er, familliarity -built up over time. Don't you get bored of them either? On the most basic level, are you never tempted to try a different beer, just to mix things up a bit (maybe the one in the odd bottle with the strange writing)?

You don't have to take "valuing diversity" to the level of anthropology (or turning the world into a cultural zoo) but, for my part I find it fascinating to understand how and why people live in differnt ways -precisely because they are and have been affected by such a range of circumstances.

Neither do I think valuing diversity is turning one's back on one's "mother culture", to drop another cliche, you appreciate things more when you come back to them. Having a strong grounding in one's own culture also helps to contextualise another -it also gives you more to share (i.e. not just the dope or LSD I'm clearly taking to get this - far out, man).

[al Roumi]

While Germany was at the forefront of many achivements during this time, I think you would be remiss if you didn't point out that Germany did try to exterminate many of these people who actually achieved these things.

That's not what Himmler said! How dare you say otherwise!

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Are you not interested in the world and understanding the people and things around you? I know how trite that sounds but if I'm totally honest, that's about the most basic level of "valuing diversity".

Have you ever travelled outside of the US? We can stop this conversation right here if you never have and have no interest in doing so, but that would (IMO) be a pretty sad indictement on your view of the world.

It's perfectly understandle that one might prefer familliar things, but familliar things are only so by dint of er, familliarity -built up over time. Don't you get bored of them either? On the most basic level, are you never tempted to try a different beer, just to mix things up a bit (maybe the one in the odd bottle with the strange writing)?

You don't have to take "valuing diversity" to the level of anthropology (or turning the world into a cultural zoo) but, for my part I find it fascinating to understand how and why people live in differnt ways -precisely because they are and have been affected by such a range of circumstances.

Neither do I think valuing diversity is turning one's back on one's "mother culture", to drop another cliche, you appreciate things more when you come back to them. Having a strong grounding in one's own culture also helps to contextualise another -it also gives you more to share (i.e. not just the dope or LSD I'm clearly taking to get this - far out, man).

Well we are back to semantics again, but I think that's the key (it's no the trivial kind of semantics). It seems to me that the multiculturalist movement starts from what you are saying here and then by using poor language to argue for it gets itself all mixed up.

I enjoy a wide variety of things, and the anthropology type stuff is interesting (history falls into this category too I think, one of the most fascinating things about it is getting a glimpse of a different time), but none of that is valuing diversity. It's always the thing itself that's valuable. I think you take this as a trivial criticism but how is it trivial? It seems important to me to be clear on what it is we are valuing. In America we have a kind of amusing thing where in a cafeteria we might have an italian food stand, a hot dog stand, a taco stand, and then to add some "diversity" we add vietnamese food. Because pizza, hot dogs, and taco's are all american food now due to being so popular. They were valued because of their qualities as food. The appeal of diversity just seems to be that people feel good about not being western-centric or whatever it is they think is so terrible. It's akin to how they market certain products as environmentalist and people buy them for that. I feel strongly that if I am reading a book of philosophy from another culture, it should be because I want and expect to learn something that will change my life--it shouldn't be because it's different. Because if I value it just because its different then I don't care if it's true or false. But the author cared if it was true or false, he cared very much!

Well, that is why I think the semantic difference is important. One way of talking about it verbally lends itself to relativism and a purely anthropological view of other cultures. It's not my belief that all the people who call themselves multiculturalists go that route, but the language leads them that way. How we talk reflects how we think. I think the other way of talking treats other cultures on the same level that we treat our own.

[al Roumi]

I enjoy a wide variety of things, and the anthropology type stuff is interesting (history falls into this category too I think, one of the most fascinating things about it is getting a glimpse of a different time), but none of that is valuing diversity. It's always the thing itself that's valuable. I think you take this as a trivial criticism but how is it trivial? It seems important to me to be clear on what it is we are valuing. In America we have a kind of amusing thing where in a cafeteria we might have an italian food stand, a hot dog stand, a taco stand, and then to add some "diversity" we add vietnamese food. Because pizza, hot dogs, and taco's are all american food now due to being so popular. They were valued because of their qualities as food. The appeal of diversity just seems to be that people feel good about not being western-centric or whatever it is they think is so terrible. It's akin to how they market certain products as environmentalist and people buy them for that. I feel strongly that if I am reading a book of philosophy from another culture, it should be because I want and expect to learn something that will change my life--it shouldn't be because it's different. Because if I value it just because its different then I don't care if it's true or false. But the author cared if it was true or false, he cared very much!

Maybe the difference is that you want to know what is "true", where I'm more interested in understanding how someone else thinks something can be "true" -whether I agree with them or not. You seem to be keen to ascribe a sort of absolute value to diverse things, whereas I think that there is no absolute, especially when you consider the multiplicity of perceptions and how our own perceptions change according to experiences and exposure.

Fascinating. What tribe did you say you were from?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Maybe the difference is that you want to know what is "true", where I'm more interested in understanding how someone else thinks something can be "true" -whether I agree with them or not. You seem to be keen to ascribe a sort of absolute value to diverse things, whereas I think that there is no absolute, especially when you consider the multiplicity of perceptions and how our own perceptions change according to experiences and exposure.

Fascinating. What tribe did you say you were from?

But, some things are true and some things are false. Surely our perception of something can't change what's true? It can only change things that have to do with our perceptions. It may be our perception that the sun goes around the earth, and there may be a multiplicity of perceptions about it, but there is still an absolute truth about astronomy. If you were reading Aristotle, and he argued that a certain way of life lead to happiness and not living that way led to less happiness, wouldn't you be interested in whether what he was saying was true?

[al Roumi]

But, some things are true and some things are false. Surely our perception of something can't change what's true? It can only change things that have to do with our perceptions. It may be our perception that the sun goes around the earth, and there may be a multiplicity of perceptions about it, but there is still an absolute truth about astronomy. If you were reading Aristotle, and he argued that a certain way of life lead to happiness and not living that way led to less happiness, wouldn't you be interested in whether what he was saying was true?

Well, for one I think there are times when many things can be true -even at the same time. Secondly, I think that -using your example of astronomy, things can be and are disproven, then replaced by another "truth".

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Well, for one I think there are times when many things can be true -even at the same time.

Yeeeess, 1+1=2 is true at the same time as 2+2=4 is true and so one to infinity. I don't think that's what you are talking about. But you agree that 1+1=2 is true and it is not true that 1+1=3?

Secondly, I think that -using your example of astronomy, things can be and are disproven, then replaced by another "truth".

You mean, sometimes we think something is true and it turns out it isn't? Ok. Is that a reason to doubt that the earth goes around the sun?

[al Roumi]

Yeeeess, 1+1=2 is true at the same time as 2+2=4 is true and so one to infinity. I don't think that's what you are talking about. But you agree that 1+1=2 is true and it is not true that 1+1=3?

The fact you are using maths to define your logic is illustrative of your absolute way of seeing things, while I'd perhaps not dare be so absolute. While obviously I'd be hard pushed to argue that 1+1.5 also equaled 2, that is kind of what I'm saying -it just depends what 1, 1.5 and 2 actually are to you. Maths is not the tool to explain this, just as its also not the best tool to use in approaching the massively complex issues of real life.

Basically, what I'm saying is that to so someone who has grown up believing in god and the bible verbatim, creation and god's existence will be "true" to them, as sure as 1+1=2. Equally, to someone who has grown up without religion -but with science, the absence of god and theory of evolution wil be "true" -also as 1+1=2 to them.

You mean, sometimes we think something is true and it turns out it isn't? Ok. Is that a reason to doubt that the earth goes around the sun?

Well, we believe something is true untill it is proved otherwise. Our opinions change -as may our beliefs, according to external circumstances, basicaly according to new information. Science is only as robust as the evidence it uses. Even then, the brain can make one individual disbelieve things in the face of what to another might be apparently overbearing evidence to the contrary.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The fact you are using maths to define your logic is illustrative of your absolute way of seeing things, while I'd perhaps not dare be so absolute. While obviously I'd be hard pushed to argue that 1+1.5 also equaled 2, that is kind of what I'm saying -it just depends what 1, 1.5 and 2 actually are to you. Maths is not the tool to explain this, just as its also not the best tool to use in approaching the massively complex issues of real life.

Basically, what I'm saying is that to so someone who has grown up believing in god and the bible verbatim, creation and god's existence will be "true" to them, as sure as 1+1=2. Equally, to someone who has grown up without religion -but with science, the absence of god and theory of evolution wil be "true" -also as 1+1=2 to them.

I am using: true
you are using: "true"

But those are not the same. Saying that it is

"true" to them

Is just another way of saying they believe it. So what you said is that someone who believes in god believes in god, and someone who believes that 1+1=2 believes that 1+1=2. And as you say, someone may believe that 1+1.5 =2. But that is false.

Basically I am talking about truth, and you are talking about belief, except you call belief "truth". Don't do that.

1+1=2 is a standard example of something that is true. I used it not because I'm not aware that human situations are more complex, but rather because I'm still not sure whether you think it is true or not. Truth is different from perception or belief. When I get my eyes checked and they show me the list of letters, I may perceive an F as an E. But the truth is that it is an F. I may believe it is an E. But the truth is that it is an F. And I don't think the scaling is that drastic into human situations. I may perceive that someone is insulting me, and I may believe it, but the truth can be that they weren't insulting me. I don't think you have any grounds for claiming that the difficult is impossible.

Well, we believe something is true untill it is proved otherwise. Our opinions change -as may our beliefs, according to external circumstances, basicaly according to new information. Science is only as robust as the evidence it uses. Even then, the brain can make one individual disbelieve things in the face of what to another might be apparently overbearing evidence to the contrary.

Yes.

[al Roumi]

1+1=2 is a standard example of something that is true. I used it not because I'm not aware that human situations are more complex, but rather because I'm still not sure whether you think it is true or not. Truth is different from perception or belief. When I get my eyes checked and they show me the list of letters, I may perceive an F as an E. But the truth is that it is an F. I may believe it is an E. But the truth is that it is an F. And I don't think the scaling is that drastic into human situations. I may perceive that someone is insulting me, and I may believe it, but the truth can be that they weren't insulting me. I don't think you have any grounds for claiming that the difficult is impossible.

yes I do believe 1+1=2, don't worry! I do also agree that absolute truth is very different to belief, hence my trying to demonstrate that two apparently simple but radicaly opposing equations can, to humans, appear as simple a truth as 1+1=2. Numbers are clean of the dross of reality.

The reason I am ambiguous about truth is that in reality, the occasions where we master complete information - and would hence be able to determine the absolute truth, are scarce. This means that when we bandy around terms like truth or fact in real life, we are actually talking more about a perception based on a quantity of information -which is itself perhaps not accurate and hence unfounded.

This has completey gone over into the territory of the current thread "a lie", but anyhoo.

[gaelic cowboy]

yes I do believe 1+1=2, don't worry! I do also agree that absolute truth is very different to belief, hence my trying to demonstrate that two apparently simple but radicaly opposing equations can, to humans, appear as simple a truth as 1+1=2. Numbers are clean of the dross of reality.

The reason I am ambiguous about truth is that in reality, the occasions where we master complete information - and would hence be able to determine the absolute truth, are scarce. This means that when we bandy around terms like truth or fact in real life, we are actually talking more about a perception based on a quantity of information -which is itself perhaps not accurate and hence unfounded.

This has completey gone over into the territory of the current thread "a lie", but anyhoo.

In any situation where one or more of the parties involved has incomplete information that still does not make there reasoning or beliefs true for whatever they are doing or thinking.

Some years back we would use asbestos to fireproof a house because we had incomplete information we felt it had no health risk this was still wrong even though we did not know it.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

yes I do believe 1+1=2, don't worry! I do also agree that absolute truth is very different to belief, hence my trying to demonstrate that two apparently simple but radicaly opposing equations can, to humans, appear as simple a truth as 1+1=2. Numbers are clean of the dross of reality.

The reason I am ambiguous about truth is that in reality, the occasions where we master complete information - and would hence be able to determine the absolute truth, are scarce. This means that when we bandy around terms like truth or fact in real life, we are actually talking more about a perception based on a quantity of information -which is itself perhaps not accurate and hence unfounded.

This has completey gone over into the territory of the current thread "a lie", but anyhoo.

Well lets jump back to this threads topic. I mentioned as an example reading Aristotle not just because of the interesting other culture but because he might have ideas that were true and I might learn some truth from reading them. His questions "what is virtue" etc are not as clear cut as 1+1. But you said you weren't interested in whether what he said was true. Why not? Nothing you've said about truth since then has explained it. In fact, the more complicated it is to get close to the truth the more I think you'd want to read philosophers with that end in mind.

[Rhyfelwyr]

someone may believe that 1+1.5 =2. But that is false.

Or do you just believe it to be false?

[Tellos Athenaios]

Well as with all Mathematical proofs: either they are correct, or the axioms from which they derive do not hold. For an “impossible” scenario wherein it is possible that all natural numbers are in fact equal to 21:

There's this village with a barber shop.
All the village's men are shaved.
All the men who do not shave themselves are shaved by the barber from the barber's shop.
The barber is one of the village's men.

If you can find this village it follows that 0 = 21, 1 + 1= 21, etc. etc.

[al Roumi]

Well lets jump back to this threads topic. I mentioned as an example reading Aristotle not just because of the interesting other culture but because he might have ideas that were true and I might learn some truth from reading them. His questions "what is virtue" etc are not as clear cut as 1+1. But you said you weren't interested in whether what he said was true. Why not? Nothing you've said about truth since then has explained it. In fact, the more complicated it is to get close to the truth the more I think you'd want to read philosophers with that end in mind.

I didn't (and wouldn't) say I am I not interested in absolute truth or not, ultimately I guess through wider experiences and learning of other views I'd hope to catch glimpses of it. What I was saying above is that (perhaps given the rarity of absolute truth), I am more interested in understanding how someone else might hold something to be true, which to me might be false. Why is this thing a truth for them? Why isn't it a truth for me? What are the conditions that lead us to our differening positions? Who is to say that one or the other is correct? Which is the truer truth?

Does anyone have a rope ladder? Only I seem to have disapeared up the [Place of little Sunshine] of philosophy and would like to get out now. No, frankly I couldn't give a [substance commonly associated with Place of little Sunshine] if that is true or not.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I didn't (and wouldn't) say I am I not interested in absolute truth or not, ultimately I guess through wider experiences and learning of other views I'd hope to catch glimpses of it. What I was saying above is that (perhaps given the rarity of absolute truth), I am more interested in understanding how someone else might hold something to be true, which to me might be false I don't believe. Why is this thing a truth for them do they believe it? Why isn't it a truth for me don't I believe it? What are the conditions that lead us to our differening positions? Who is to say that one or the other is correct? Which is the truer truth?

Fixed

I think I've said that why people go wrong in their thinking is interesting, but mostly because it helps you find out what the truth is (which is more interesting). And you said you would hope to "catch glimpses of it through diverse ideas" which means you sort of agree, although I don't know why you don't pursue it directly.

But I don't think the approach of "well this is true to this culture, but not true to me" is a good way to approach it. It lends itself to sticking with your current beliefs. If their idea isn't true to you, if it's just kinda relative, why change your mind in any radical way? But if you don't just value diversity, and approach say, buddhism, with the idea that it is either a good way of life or not, then you may very well reject it (how intolerant?) but you actually give yourself more of a chance of embracing it. Because you are treating seriously buddhism's claim that your beliefs are false.

[Vladimir]

2+2=1

1+1=1

[al Roumi]

I think I've said that why people go wrong in their thinking is interesting, but mostly because it helps you find out what the truth is (which is more interesting). And you said you would hope to "catch glimpses of it through diverse ideas" which means you sort of agree, although I don't know why you don't pursue it directly.

But I don't think the approach of "well this is true to this culture, but not true to me" is a good way to approach it. It lends itself to sticking with your current beliefs. If their idea isn't true to you, if it's just kinda relative, why change your mind in any radical way? But if you don't just value diversity, and approach say, buddhism, with the idea that it is either a good way of life or not, then you may very well reject it (how intolerant?) but you actually give yourself more of a chance of embracing it. Because you are treating seriously buddhism's claim that your beliefs are false.

I'm not sure it IS about changing my mind, although I have adopted habits or beliefs from others. It is good to experience things and "expand horizons" but perhaps more important than affecting the latest fad is an appreciation of why and how things are different for other people.