Org Mobile Site
Originally Posted by rvg:
Locked up for what exactly? Saying stupid things is not a crime.
If I went around shouting about 'deconstructing Asians in Europe' or some such I would locked up pretty damn quick. If the law is equal he deserves the same for being offensive to me.Locked up for what exactly? Saying stupid things is not a crime.
Originally Posted by SoFarSoGood:
If I went around shouting about 'deconstructing Asians in Europe' or some such I would locked up pretty damn quick. If the law is equal he deserves the same for being offensive to me.
A: No, you wouldn't.If I went around shouting about 'deconstructing Asians in Europe' or some such I would locked up pretty damn quick. If the law is equal he deserves the same for being offensive to me.
B: He's an academic, and HoreTore is almost certainly quoting from mid-way through a paper he has written or a lecture he has given, i.e. out of context.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
A: No, you wouldn't.
B: He's an academic, and HoreTore is almost certainly quoting from mid-way through a paper he has written or a lecture he has given, i.e. out of context.
Interview, actually. A: No, you wouldn't.
B: He's an academic, and HoreTore is almost certainly quoting from mid-way through a paper he has written or a lecture he has given, i.e. out of context.
Edit: just noticed pvc's and ser_clegane's posts; you get silver and bronze respectively. Good job!
Edit2: 'deconstruction' is actually a method sociology has nicked from literature studies. From my understanding the method is a little different there, but since I'm clueless about literature I have no idea what that is.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
'deconstruction' is actually a method sociology has nicked from literature studies. From my understanding the method is a little different there, but since I'm clueless about literature I have no idea what that is.
In my limited exposure to academics, I have come to believe that "deconstruction" can mean pretty much anything.'deconstruction' is actually a method sociology has nicked from literature studies. From my understanding the method is a little different there, but since I'm clueless about literature I have no idea what that is.
Originally Posted by SoFarSoGood:
If I went around shouting about 'deconstructing Asians in Europe' or some such I would locked up pretty damn quick. If the law is equal he deserves the same for being offensive to me.
Whathe said just before my quote, was that we have already deconstructed the asians.If I went around shouting about 'deconstructing Asians in Europe' or some such I would locked up pretty damn quick. If the law is equal he deserves the same for being offensive to me.
I'm going on a safari tomorrow, so unfortunately I have to end my trolling. Krazilec wins the thread!
Hedid thecorrect thing, and asked "what does it mean?" yes.... What does deconstruction mean? It's quite obvious that none of the conservatives here know it. To me, that perfectly sums up the right's appraochto science; they don't have a clue, but act like they do.
So, on totheanswer; what does deconstruction mean?
Deconstruction is a scientific method in social anthropology(Hylland Eriksen's field). The method is to break down the field of study into as small parts as possible, identify all the parts and then see how they relate to each other. So, if you wanted to deconstruct the Norwegian population, you could start by breaking it up into "ethnic norwegians" and "immigrants". Then you could divide the "ethnic norwegians" into "northerners" and southerners, for example. Then you can go further and break them down to "rural" and "urban", "rich" and "poor", and so on.
As for the entire quote, what he is talking about is the following:
We have deconstructed all the various minority groups. We have studies on pakistanies who have been born herem pakistani's who have immigrated here, gay and straight muslims, rural and urban immigrants, etc etc. We have, however, not done the same with the majority population. Thomas Hylland Eriksen thus means that we do not have as good knowledge of the majority as we should have, and then urges his fellow researchers to focus on the various groups that make up the category "majority". He also wants it done properly, so that in the future there is no need to refer to a vague term like "the majority".
Sound scary? Nah. If you know the term, you know what it's about. If you don't, you should try to find outwhat that unknown word means, like Krazilec did. Add a hefty dose of ignorance and paranoia, however, and what you have is a conspiracy theory worthy of David Icke.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Whathe said just before my quote, was that we have already deconstructed the asians.
I'm going on a safari tomorrow, so unfortunately I have to end my trolling. Krazilec wins the thread!
Hedid thecorrect thing, and asked "what does it mean?" yes.... What does deconstruction mean? It's quite obvious that none of the conservatives here know it. To me, that perfectly sums up the right's appraochto science; they don't have a clue, but act like they do.
So, on totheanswer; what does deconstruction mean?
Deconstruction is a scientific method in social anthropology(Hylland Eriksen's field). The method is to break down the field of study into as small parts as possible, identify all the parts and then see how they relate to each other. So, if you wanted to deconstruct the Norwegian population, you could start by breaking it up into "ethnic norwegians" and "immigrants". Then you could divide the "ethnic norwegians" into "northerners" and southerners, for example. Then you can go further and break them down to "rural" and "urban", "rich" and "poor", and so on.
As for the entire quote, what he is talking about is the following:
We have deconstructed all the various minority groups. We have studies on pakistanies who have been born herem pakistani's who have immigrated here, gay and straight muslims, rural and urban immigrants, etc etc. We have, however, not done the same with the majority population. Thomas Hylland Eriksen thus means that we do not have as good knowledge of the majority as we should have, and then urges his fellow researchers to focus on the various groups that make up the category "majority". He also wants it done properly, so that in the future there is no need to refer to a vague term like "the majority".
Sound scary? Nah. If you know the term, you know what it's about. If you don't, you should try to find outwhat that unknown word means, like Krazilec did. Add a hefty dose of ignorance and paranoia, however, and what you have is a conspiracy theory worthy of David Icke.
So, basically what I said?Whathe said just before my quote, was that we have already deconstructed the asians.
I'm going on a safari tomorrow, so unfortunately I have to end my trolling. Krazilec wins the thread!
Hedid thecorrect thing, and asked "what does it mean?" yes.... What does deconstruction mean? It's quite obvious that none of the conservatives here know it. To me, that perfectly sums up the right's appraochto science; they don't have a clue, but act like they do.
So, on totheanswer; what does deconstruction mean?
Deconstruction is a scientific method in social anthropology(Hylland Eriksen's field). The method is to break down the field of study into as small parts as possible, identify all the parts and then see how they relate to each other. So, if you wanted to deconstruct the Norwegian population, you could start by breaking it up into "ethnic norwegians" and "immigrants". Then you could divide the "ethnic norwegians" into "northerners" and southerners, for example. Then you can go further and break them down to "rural" and "urban", "rich" and "poor", and so on.
As for the entire quote, what he is talking about is the following:
We have deconstructed all the various minority groups. We have studies on pakistanies who have been born herem pakistani's who have immigrated here, gay and straight muslims, rural and urban immigrants, etc etc. We have, however, not done the same with the majority population. Thomas Hylland Eriksen thus means that we do not have as good knowledge of the majority as we should have, and then urges his fellow researchers to focus on the various groups that make up the category "majority". He also wants it done properly, so that in the future there is no need to refer to a vague term like "the majority".
Sound scary? Nah. If you know the term, you know what it's about. If you don't, you should try to find outwhat that unknown word means, like Krazilec did. Add a hefty dose of ignorance and paranoia, however, and what you have is a conspiracy theory worthy of David Icke.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Then you can go further and break them down to "rural" and "urban", "rich" and "poor", and so on.
Also, they need to be broken down into "pragmatic" and "non-pragmatic". If you want people to understand you, then minimise the risk of misinterpretation. In non-linguistic terms, deconstruct is destruct with -con- added. It could be a mistake done by the author just as well as a genuine word with a different meaning. Whenever an academic is using words with a particular meaning within his field, he will be best understood if he deconstructs his words to the audience where potentially required.Then you can go further and break them down to "rural" and "urban", "rich" and "poor", and so on.
Since the guy was brought up, it might be relevant to provide more quotes by him:
Originally Posted by :
Cultural relativism provides no moral advices. It can only tell us that the world looks different from different viewpoints. Turning cultural relativism into a source of moral guidance will ultimately mean that one abandons every moral: then one will have to accept anything, if it just can be justified within some "culture". In our days, such a position is equal to no position at all.
Source:Cultural relativism provides no moral advices. It can only tell us that the world looks different from different viewpoints. Turning cultural relativism into a source of moral guidance will ultimately mean that one abandons every moral: then one will have to accept anything, if it just can be justified within some "culture". In our days, such a position is equal to no position at all.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Which is the truth. Cultural relativism sucks, just as hard as the results of multiculturalism do. A weak and vague monoculture is what to strive for.
Look it doesn't matter what he means by 'deconstruct' or that he's some Uni Prof (hell I've got an Phd myself but so what?) or that hes white or green or blue.
If you go throwing bricks off the top of buildings and one hits someone on the head then you are found negligent. He has said something damn silly and if it offends someone he should pay. To say that he didn't mean it offensively is like saying "I never meant the brick to hit someone on the head". To say that he's a Uni Prof giving a lecture on aerodynamics of bricks is not a defense either. What damn colour he happens to be is entirely irrelevant.
Look this Prof clearly disagrees with the notion of a 'white race'. Perhaps white people are more than one race? Slavs and say Celts may have their differences in genetic, language and cultural degrees but the fact is that they are white, predominantly (now) Christian and have lived in Europe for over 4000 years of known history. He may be right that it is a culture that Brevik and others wish to protect rather than a 'race'. Doesn't stop his comment being offensive. Lock him up!
As for 'cultural relativism' it's bollocks. Nor do I hold with religious relativism. I can respect the fact that others are different from me - even appreciate it at times (I very much like Bedouin Arab culture and visit Sinai where I have Bedu friends at least once a year) but I can only see the world through my eyes.
If you go throwing bricks off the top of buildings and one hits someone on the head then you are found negligent. He has said something damn silly and if it offends someone he should pay. To say that he didn't mean it offensively is like saying "I never meant the brick to hit someone on the head". To say that he's a Uni Prof giving a lecture on aerodynamics of bricks is not a defense either. What damn colour he happens to be is entirely irrelevant.
Look this Prof clearly disagrees with the notion of a 'white race'. Perhaps white people are more than one race? Slavs and say Celts may have their differences in genetic, language and cultural degrees but the fact is that they are white, predominantly (now) Christian and have lived in Europe for over 4000 years of known history. He may be right that it is a culture that Brevik and others wish to protect rather than a 'race'. Doesn't stop his comment being offensive. Lock him up!
As for 'cultural relativism' it's bollocks. Nor do I hold with religious relativism. I can respect the fact that others are different from me - even appreciate it at times (I very much like Bedouin Arab culture and visit Sinai where I have Bedu friends at least once a year) but I can only see the world through my eyes.
Originally Posted by SoFarSoGood:
Look it doesn't matter what he means by 'deconstruct' or that he's some Uni Prof (hell I've got an Phd myself but so what?) or that hes white or green or blue.
If you go throwing bricks off the top of buildings and one hits someone on the head then you are found negligent. He has said something damn silly and if it offends someone he should pay. To say that he didn't mean it offensively is like saying "I never meant the brick to hit someone on the head". To say that he's a Uni Prof giving a lecture on aerodynamics of bricks is not a defense either. What damn colour he happens to be is entirely irrelevant.
Look this Prof clearly disagrees with the notion of a 'white race'. Perhaps white people are more than one race? Slavs and say Celts may have their differences in genetic, language and cultural degrees but the fact is that they are white, predominantly (now) Christian and have lived in Europe for over 4000 years of known history. He may be right that it is a culture that Brevik and others wish to protect rather than a 'race'. Doesn't stop his comment being offensive. Lock him up!
You misunderstood he didn't say such a thing, post some context next time HoretoreLook it doesn't matter what he means by 'deconstruct' or that he's some Uni Prof (hell I've got an Phd myself but so what?) or that hes white or green or blue.
If you go throwing bricks off the top of buildings and one hits someone on the head then you are found negligent. He has said something damn silly and if it offends someone he should pay. To say that he didn't mean it offensively is like saying "I never meant the brick to hit someone on the head". To say that he's a Uni Prof giving a lecture on aerodynamics of bricks is not a defense either. What damn colour he happens to be is entirely irrelevant.
Look this Prof clearly disagrees with the notion of a 'white race'. Perhaps white people are more than one race? Slavs and say Celts may have their differences in genetic, language and cultural degrees but the fact is that they are white, predominantly (now) Christian and have lived in Europe for over 4000 years of known history. He may be right that it is a culture that Brevik and others wish to protect rather than a 'race'. Doesn't stop his comment being offensive. Lock him up!
Throw bricks and hit someone with a soft skull by accident? Still no defense.
Originally Posted by Fragony:
You misunderstood he didn't say such a thing, post some context next time Horetore
Context? Bah, you can dig that up on your own if you're interested... Anyway, consider this a "test" of the backroom. I believe I ave sufficient clues as to the nature of the statement; I gave his name and his profession, whic you could've googled and found his field. Then, you could've found out what "deconstruct" means.You misunderstood he didn't say such a thing, post some context next time Horetore
Instead, several here(with 3 notable exceptions) gave the word their own meaning, based on their own "frame". Noone has ever implied that deconstruction is a negative, but when one believes that there's a european civil war going on, one might be inclined to think so. That's the best explanation I can give for why some percieve deconstruction to be a negative term, anyway.
Also, it seems that two posters still haven't understood what deconstruction means, even though there are now several posts by several posters explaining what it is...
And Viking, who the hell supports normative cultural relativism instead of methodical cultural relativism? I want names, adresses and facebook pages to spam.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
And Viking, who the hell supports normative cultural relativism instead of methodical cultural relativism? I want names, adresses and facebook pages to spam.
It was primarily to provide some extra material written by the guy. But regardless, there is a continuous spectrum between saying A) "It's OK that they do it because they culture says its OK" (e.g. "honour" killings) and B) "I'll tolerate that they do it because it harms nobody" (e.g. to wear national costumes.). It doesn't take too much for the two to be mixed, e.g. when it is not clear or known whether or not something is harmful, cultural tolerance can lead to the topic of whether or not it actually is harmful not being studied. It doesn't even have to be a foreign culture, it could also be tolerance for one's own culture.And Viking, who the hell supports normative cultural relativism instead of methodical cultural relativism? I want names, adresses and facebook pages to spam.
Originally Posted by SoFarSoGood:
Doesn't stop his comment being offensive. Lock him up!
Yikes, what a horrible sentiment. I'd hate to live in a world where any person choosing to take offense at an innocuous statement would be considered grounds for imprisonment. It's like a police state and a nanny state all rolled into one ball of horrible. Doesn't stop his comment being offensive. Lock him up!
Ajax
Originally Posted by SoFarSoGood:
If I went around shouting about 'deconstructing Asians in Europe' or some such I would locked up pretty damn quick. If the law is equal he deserves the same for being offensive to me.
Depends on if you was "Asian" or not. He is a "White" person saying about "De-constructing Whites in Europe" and as such, as if an "Asian" person said about "De-constructing Asians in Europe", no one will act as it is socially far more acceptable than an "Other-Racial-Construct" saying "De-constructing Different-Racial-Construct in Europe".If I went around shouting about 'deconstructing Asians in Europe' or some such I would locked up pretty damn quick. If the law is equal he deserves the same for being offensive to me.
Rather like some people use racial slurs against people of their own "race", but if you went up and went "sup n' ", you would be on the receiving end of a slap down. Such comments in context is described as "attacking yourself", and are viewed far more leniently than you attacking another person.
Anyway, he isn't a "lefty" anyway, if he was a lefty, he would be saying "The most important thing now, is to deconstruct the highly flawed socially constructed divides based on deep rooted prejudice with no consideration of the the facts". Ie: the notion of 'race'.
Originally Posted by Tiaexz:
Depends on if you was "Asian" or not. He is a "White" person saying about "De-constructing Whites in Europe" and as such, as if an "Asian" person said about "De-constructing Asians in Europe", no one will act as it is socially far more acceptable than an "Other-Racial-Construct" saying "De-constructing Different-Racial-Construct in Europe".
Rather like some people use racial slurs against people of their own "race", but if you went up and went "sup n' ", you would be on the receiving end of a slap down.
Anyway, he isn't a "lefty" anyway, if he was a lefty, he would be saying "The most important thing now, is to deconstruct the highly flawed socially constructed divides based on deep rooted prejudice with no consideration of the the facts". Ie: the notion of 'race'.
He can't be overly leftist as he is getting millions from the Norwegian government for trying to make multiculti work, so sometimes he will actually have to admit some things.Depends on if you was "Asian" or not. He is a "White" person saying about "De-constructing Whites in Europe" and as such, as if an "Asian" person said about "De-constructing Asians in Europe", no one will act as it is socially far more acceptable than an "Other-Racial-Construct" saying "De-constructing Different-Racial-Construct in Europe".
Rather like some people use racial slurs against people of their own "race", but if you went up and went "sup n' ", you would be on the receiving end of a slap down.
Anyway, he isn't a "lefty" anyway, if he was a lefty, he would be saying "The most important thing now, is to deconstruct the highly flawed socially constructed divides based on deep rooted prejudice with no consideration of the the facts". Ie: the notion of 'race'.
Just saying,
Five faculties collaborate in the University of Oslo’s great investment in “multicultural” questions. Since CULCOM was started up in the fall of 2004, eight doctoral projects have gotten underway, and soon nearly 30 Master’s theses will have been completed, three publications in CULCOM’s book series about fundamental questions concerning “Norway in the 21st century” have come out, and many conferences and seminars have been arranged. In particular, CULCOM has linked researchers from different fields of study who perhaps did not know about each other previously.
Over here we would call that a project
Originally Posted by Fragony:
He can't be overly leftist as he is getting millions from the Norwegian government for trying to make multiculti work, so sometimes he will actually have to admit some things.
The thing is that two different concepts are so close together but they fundamentally different things. He can't be overly leftist as he is getting millions from the Norwegian government for trying to make multiculti work, so sometimes he will actually have to admit some things.
If we go back to before christiandom, you have the Roman Empire and Rome. You would you say that "Rome" was pretty much "Roman" for a very long time? Possibly even imagine Rome being full of genetically similar people, born and raised there, perhaps expanding out across the ancient world which the history books sometimes portray it as? The reality is far far different. Rome was heavily reliant on bringing in foreigners, and the great expanse of the empire was not to create a lebensraum for the Roman people, but to bring more people into Rome. The City of Rome itself so genetically diverse far more so then the cosmopolitan cities of today with great waves of people entering the city having no clue on how to even speak Latin. What always persisted was the fundamentals on what it is to be Roman, certain cultural tenets which live on to this day. So people entered the city, bringing with them great ideas, their cultures, their diversity, then they were assimilated, pretty much like borg, adding their cultural and technological distinctive to Roman's own, then they were spat back out as Romans.
This happened throughout the ages, examples such as the British Empire were British people took up the habit of wearing pyjamas when going to bed. This whole notion now seems very British as depicted in the stereotypical "Arthur Dent" from Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, pyjamas, tea, tea towel... all this "Britishness" actually comes from the British colonisation of India, all these things are India concept that has been assimilated into British culture.
What actually happened was a liberation movement, a worldwide surge of nationalism which is more fundamentally a more rightist concept (division). This lead to the breakup of the colonial empires into many nation states we know today. In this brand new environment which is embracing diversity, the old ways of assimilation were thrown out of the window with people taking up the concept of "Multi-culturalism", the idea of having separate cultural identities all together upon the plate, far from the true "melting pot" of the old ways. Naturally, this does not work and people start fighting for more separation, as there is a tendency in human nature to run away from something, even if the solution is simply assimilation or in other words, giving each other a great big hug.
Sure but it was never active policy
Originally Posted by Tiaexz:
The thing is that two different concepts are so close together but they fundamentally different things.
If we go back to before christiandom, you have the Roman Empire and Rome. You would you say that "Rome" was pretty much "Roman" for a very long time? Possibly even imagine Rome being full of genetically similar people, born and raised there, perhaps expanding out across the ancient world which the history books sometimes portray it as? The reality is far far different. Rome was heavily reliant on bringing in foreigners, and the great expanse of the empire was not to create a lebensraum for the Roman people, but to bring more people into Rome. The City of Rome itself so genetically diverse far more so then the cosmopolitan cities of today with great waves of people entering the city having no clue on how to even speak Latin. What always persisted was the fundamentals on what it is to be Roman, certain cultural tenets which live on to this day. So people entered the city, bringing with them great ideas, their cultures, their diversity, then they were assimilated, pretty much like borg, adding their cultural and technological distinctive to Roman's own, then they were spat back out as Romans.
This happened throughout the ages, examples such as the British Empire were British people took up the habit of wearing pyjamas when going to bed. This whole notion now seems very British as depicted in the stereotypical "Arthur Dent" from Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, pyjamas, tea, tea towel... all this "Britishness" actually comes from the British colonisation of India, all these things are India concept that has been assimilated into British culture.
What actually happened was a liberation movement, a worldwide surge of nationalism which is more fundamentally a more rightist concept (division). This lead to the breakup of the colonial empires into many nation states we know today. In this brand new environment which is embracing diversity, the old ways of assimilation were thrown out of the window with people taking up the concept of "Multi-culturalism", the idea of having separate cultural identities all together upon the plate, far from the true "melting pot" of the old ways. Naturally, this does not work and people start fighting for more separation, as there is a tendency in human nature to run away from something, even if the solution is simply assimilation or in other words, giving each other a great big hug.
Sorry but I fundamentally disagree with your historical analysis. Rome started very much as a nationalist construct; "We're Romans and your Latins". The Roman Republic (which gained 80% of Romes Empire) was essentially aristocratic by nature (the land reforms of the Gracchi gave rise to a 'populist' movement of which Ceaser was the eventual heir). The British Empire was also a nationalistic and aristocratic enterprise. It is sometimes argued that the British Empire was based on trade while the Roman on war but this is rubbish too. The Roman Empire and it 'Equites' became the mercantile class in the Republican and Early Empire phases; if effect they became a 'middle class'. In the British and other European Empires the same applied - the would be middle class became managers of the Empire while the head of an administration, the Governor General or Pontius Pilate type always remained an aristocrat. Both Empires that you cite were brought about essentially through the need to protect their revenues (the Romans needed Sicily for food) and both were run at the time of their greatest expansion by aristocracies.The thing is that two different concepts are so close together but they fundamentally different things.
If we go back to before christiandom, you have the Roman Empire and Rome. You would you say that "Rome" was pretty much "Roman" for a very long time? Possibly even imagine Rome being full of genetically similar people, born and raised there, perhaps expanding out across the ancient world which the history books sometimes portray it as? The reality is far far different. Rome was heavily reliant on bringing in foreigners, and the great expanse of the empire was not to create a lebensraum for the Roman people, but to bring more people into Rome. The City of Rome itself so genetically diverse far more so then the cosmopolitan cities of today with great waves of people entering the city having no clue on how to even speak Latin. What always persisted was the fundamentals on what it is to be Roman, certain cultural tenets which live on to this day. So people entered the city, bringing with them great ideas, their cultures, their diversity, then they were assimilated, pretty much like borg, adding their cultural and technological distinctive to Roman's own, then they were spat back out as Romans.
This happened throughout the ages, examples such as the British Empire were British people took up the habit of wearing pyjamas when going to bed. This whole notion now seems very British as depicted in the stereotypical "Arthur Dent" from Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy, pyjamas, tea, tea towel... all this "Britishness" actually comes from the British colonisation of India, all these things are India concept that has been assimilated into British culture.
What actually happened was a liberation movement, a worldwide surge of nationalism which is more fundamentally a more rightist concept (division). This lead to the breakup of the colonial empires into many nation states we know today. In this brand new environment which is embracing diversity, the old ways of assimilation were thrown out of the window with people taking up the concept of "Multi-culturalism", the idea of having separate cultural identities all together upon the plate, far from the true "melting pot" of the old ways. Naturally, this does not work and people start fighting for more separation, as there is a tendency in human nature to run away from something, even if the solution is simply assimilation or in other words, giving each other a great big hug.
As for the end of the empires arguably the Anglo Saxon Empire has not finished. What is the USA but a continuation of the same policy as the old Empire?
Originally Posted by SoFarSoGood:
Sorry but I fundamentally disagree with your historical analysis...
Nothing you said disagrees with anything I was talking about or has much relevance to it. However, if you want to know more of what I was talking about, feel free to watch "Meet the Romans" by Mary Beard which covers it in a nice presentational format.Sorry but I fundamentally disagree with your historical analysis...
Originally Posted by Fragony:
He can't be overly leftist as he is getting millions from the Norwegian government for trying to make multiculti work, so sometimes he will actually have to admit some things.
Just saying,
Five faculties collaborate in the University of Oslo’s great investment in “multicultural” questions. Since CULCOM was started up in the fall of 2004, eight doctoral projects have gotten underway, and soon nearly 30 Master’s theses will have been completed, three publications in CULCOM’s book series about fundamental questions concerning “Norway in the 21st century” have come out, and many conferences and seminars have been arranged. In particular, CULCOM has linked researchers from different fields of study who perhaps did not know about each other previously.
Over here we would call that a project
Culcom finished in 2010.He can't be overly leftist as he is getting millions from the Norwegian government for trying to make multiculti work, so sometimes he will actually have to admit some things.
Just saying,
Five faculties collaborate in the University of Oslo’s great investment in “multicultural” questions. Since CULCOM was started up in the fall of 2004, eight doctoral projects have gotten underway, and soon nearly 30 Master’s theses will have been completed, three publications in CULCOM’s book series about fundamental questions concerning “Norway in the 21st century” have come out, and many conferences and seminars have been arranged. In particular, CULCOM has linked researchers from different fields of study who perhaps did not know about each other previously.
Over here we would call that a project
It's mission was to intensify research on a changing Norway. Everything from industrial change to demographic chanve. What was 'special' was that it joined several different fields together. I don't see how that can be seen as "multicultis takin' over our gubermintz", but then again I'm no big fan of conspiracy theories.
Also, what I like best about Hylland Eriksen is his writing style and well-timed arrogance.
You stir mud and people react. Happy?
Why doesn't the learned Prof 'deconstruct' something useful? I have nothing against studying for the sake of it but seriously we don't need 'educating' about who we are.
Why doesn't the learned Prof 'deconstruct' something useful? I have nothing against studying for the sake of it but seriously we don't need 'educating' about who we are.
Originally Posted by SoFarSoGood:
You stir mud and people react. Happy?
Why doesn't the learned Prof 'deconstruct' something useful? I have nothing against studying for the sake of it but seriously we don't need 'educating' about who we are.
I am very much content, yes. I am also pleased to note that I am not really surprised to see who jumped on the bandwagon, and who had the ability to think things through.You stir mud and people react. Happy?
Why doesn't the learned Prof 'deconstruct' something useful? I have nothing against studying for the sake of it but seriously we don't need 'educating' about who we are.
And we don't need this kind of study, eh? We don't need to know what kind of measures for integration works best? We don't need to know how to best change from an old industrial society to a new industrial society? We don't need to know why people living on the east side of Oslo lives 10 years shorter than people on the west side? We should just accept whatever moronic and populist explanation right-wing leaders offer, eh? What has knowledge ever done for us? Much better to live in ignorance! That way we can be more effective at turning a blind eye to the problems in our societies.
That's a load of crap right there, good Sir.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
I am very much content, yes. I am also pleased to note that I am not really surprised to see who jumped on the bandwagon, and who had the ability to think things through.
And we don't need this kind of study, eh? We don't need to know what kind of measures for integration works best? We don't need to know how to best change from an old industrial society to a new industrial society? We don't need to know why people living on the east side of Oslo lives 10 years shorter than people on the west side? We should just accept whatever moronic and populist explanation right-wing leaders offer, eh? What has knowledge ever done for us? Much better to live in ignorance! That way we can be more effective at turning a blind eye to the problems in our societies.
That's a load of crap right there, good Sir.
Suppose I start a thread called "The Deconstruction of Islam in Europe" and quote Anders Brevik. Does that make me clever? If you stir shit don't be surprised if you get hit by some.I am very much content, yes. I am also pleased to note that I am not really surprised to see who jumped on the bandwagon, and who had the ability to think things through.
And we don't need this kind of study, eh? We don't need to know what kind of measures for integration works best? We don't need to know how to best change from an old industrial society to a new industrial society? We don't need to know why people living on the east side of Oslo lives 10 years shorter than people on the west side? We should just accept whatever moronic and populist explanation right-wing leaders offer, eh? What has knowledge ever done for us? Much better to live in ignorance! That way we can be more effective at turning a blind eye to the problems in our societies.
That's a load of crap right there, good Sir.
As for your other questions 'integration' depends on immigration. Each will have their own their personal view on that but I fail to see how any academic thesis can help any integration. 'Deconstructing' your own society to integrate another is, in my opinion unacceptable. I do not want to become a minority in my homeland or accept sharia law. That of course is my own personal opinion.
Changing from an "old industrial society to a new industrial society" does not require a University Professor either... It is for business men and entrepreneurs to do, helped perhaps by low tax. A Uni Prof (which I once aspired to be) knows sod all of the reality of the business. Write all the theories you want... unless you get the money to start a business and can turn a profit it's all worthless.
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
We don't need to know why people living on the east side of Oslo lives 10 years shorter than people on the west side? We should just accept whatever moronic and populist explanation right-wing leaders offer, eh? What has knowledge ever done for us? Much better to live in ignorance! That way we can be more effective at turning a blind eye to the problems in our societies.
I don't know why the people on side of Oslo live longer than those the other side. Sure that is a decent area for research in my opinion - it is practical. We don't need to know why people living on the east side of Oslo lives 10 years shorter than people on the west side? We should just accept whatever moronic and populist explanation right-wing leaders offer, eh? What has knowledge ever done for us? Much better to live in ignorance! That way we can be more effective at turning a blind eye to the problems in our societies.
The rest is pure drivel... The implication is that if I reject Professor Eriksen then I reject knowledge and am thug populist. I reject his ideas because far from 'turning a blind eye to the problems in our societies' I believe he and his sort of pseudo communist 'cultural relativists' and the general 'socialist' 'intelligentsia', the European Nouveau Dictators and all of their ilk are causing and encouraging the problems in our societies.
Originally Posted by SoFarSoGood:
Why doesn't the learned Prof 'deconstruct' something useful? I have nothing against studying for the sake of it but seriously we don't need 'educating' about who we are.
Why doesn't the learned Prof 'deconstruct' something useful? I have nothing against studying for the sake of it but seriously we don't need 'educating' about who we are.
8:44 for the win
As an Aussie and a member of the majority here I have watched the high point of reality TV called Masterchef.
Now since it is on in my household, I like a lot of Aussies have learned a lot of culinary terms. One of which is the dreaded deconstruction.
Now considering this is reality TV not a single contestant misunderstood the term to mean blowing up or destroying ones food. Seriously think about it for a moment. Reality TV contestants understand what deconstruction means. Do you really want to have a limited vocabulary that places you below that of Jersey Shore or The Kardashians?
Deconstruction in cooking is to understand all the components in a dish. Then with a better understanding of the fundamentals you reconstruct it into modern fare.
For instance deconstruct a fast food hamburger into a quality mince patty, with a salad on the side and a damper bun. Essentially take the same flavours, basic components and lift them up a notch.
=][=
Deconstruction of a population is what a census allows. You can figure out demographics such as age, ethnic, income, population density etc. Armed with this knowledge you can build schools, roads, hospitals, shopping malls and power plants.
To deconstruct the white majority in the UK. Is to understand that you have Anglo-Saxons and Celts. That you have rural Yorkshiremen and densely populated Liverpool. It is to understand the cultural differences between Northern and Southern England. It is to understand the needs, wants and diversity of different groups.
Armed with that knowledge it is possible to create solutions to regional problems such as multigenerational unemployment caused by the collapse of the steel and manufacturing industry. Those solutions will be different to those in more isolated rural areas or the city.
Deconstruction is about understanding what makes your population tick. IMDHO the professor was complaining that we understand the immigrants and it was about time we paid attention to the native majority so we can look to the majorities issues and resolve them.
In short deconstruction is about understanding the fundamentals components. It's the social equivalent of stripping down a car engine to understand how it works. It's about knowledge not obliteration.
Now since it is on in my household, I like a lot of Aussies have learned a lot of culinary terms. One of which is the dreaded deconstruction.
Now considering this is reality TV not a single contestant misunderstood the term to mean blowing up or destroying ones food. Seriously think about it for a moment. Reality TV contestants understand what deconstruction means. Do you really want to have a limited vocabulary that places you below that of Jersey Shore or The Kardashians?
Deconstruction in cooking is to understand all the components in a dish. Then with a better understanding of the fundamentals you reconstruct it into modern fare.
For instance deconstruct a fast food hamburger into a quality mince patty, with a salad on the side and a damper bun. Essentially take the same flavours, basic components and lift them up a notch.
=][=
Deconstruction of a population is what a census allows. You can figure out demographics such as age, ethnic, income, population density etc. Armed with this knowledge you can build schools, roads, hospitals, shopping malls and power plants.
To deconstruct the white majority in the UK. Is to understand that you have Anglo-Saxons and Celts. That you have rural Yorkshiremen and densely populated Liverpool. It is to understand the cultural differences between Northern and Southern England. It is to understand the needs, wants and diversity of different groups.
Armed with that knowledge it is possible to create solutions to regional problems such as multigenerational unemployment caused by the collapse of the steel and manufacturing industry. Those solutions will be different to those in more isolated rural areas or the city.
Deconstruction is about understanding what makes your population tick. IMDHO the professor was complaining that we understand the immigrants and it was about time we paid attention to the native majority so we can look to the majorities issues and resolve them.
In short deconstruction is about understanding the fundamentals components. It's the social equivalent of stripping down a car engine to understand how it works. It's about knowledge not obliteration.
Originally Posted by Viking:
Turning cultural relativism into a source of moral guidance will ultimately mean that one abandons every moral: then one will have to accept nothing
Turning cultural relativism into a source of moral guidance will ultimately mean that one abandons every moral: then one will have to accept nothing
Originally Posted by SoFarSoGood:
Why doesn't the learned Prof 'deconstruct' something useful? I have nothing against studying for the sake of it but seriously we don't need 'educating' about who we are.
The History PhD doesn't like the Anthro-Socio PhD? Hmm...Why doesn't the learned Prof 'deconstruct' something useful? I have nothing against studying for the sake of it but seriously we don't need 'educating' about who we are.
YOU'VE BEEN TROLLED BY HORETORE!
And the really sad part is that some of you still didn't get it several posts after he explained it...
I have to say that I didn't think of the scientific meaning at first either, even though I've heard it before.
And just to make that clear again, deconstruct in this context means to take it apart and then study the bits, not to destroy it or to make it less significant than it is today. It's a call for more detailed research. No reverse racism or self-hatred involved.
Whether a scientist should not usehis scientific language because some troll might quote him out of context to rile people up who will still be riled up because they're unable and unwilling to admit to being fooled after the troll explained them what he did there, is another question (and also somewhat laughable).
And the really sad part is that some of you still didn't get it several posts after he explained it...
I have to say that I didn't think of the scientific meaning at first either, even though I've heard it before.
And just to make that clear again, deconstruct in this context means to take it apart and then study the bits, not to destroy it or to make it less significant than it is today. It's a call for more detailed research. No reverse racism or self-hatred involved.
Whether a scientist should not usehis scientific language because some troll might quote him out of context to rile people up who will still be riled up because they're unable and unwilling to admit to being fooled after the troll explained them what he did there, is another question (and also somewhat laughable).
Originally Posted by HoreTore:
Culcom finished in 2010.
It's mission was to intensify research on a changing Norway. Everything from industrial change to demographic chanve. What was 'special' was that it joined several different fields together. I don't see how that can be seen as "multicultis takin' over our gubermintz", but then again I'm no big fan of conspiracy theories.
Also, what I like best about Hylland Eriksen is his writing style and well-timed arrogance.
No conspiracy just organised stupidityCulcom finished in 2010.
It's mission was to intensify research on a changing Norway. Everything from industrial change to demographic chanve. What was 'special' was that it joined several different fields together. I don't see how that can be seen as "multicultis takin' over our gubermintz", but then again I'm no big fan of conspiracy theories.
Also, what I like best about Hylland Eriksen is his writing style and well-timed arrogance.
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO