Political & Elections

Bogney · Senior Member

RE: "Muscular Liberalism" and the Failure of Multiculturalism

BigG · Guru

One catches more flies with honey than dilute acetic acid...

-- Edited by BigG on Thursday 10th of February 2011 06:59:09 PM

Abyss · Senior Member

Woodwork wrote:

This is a marvelous, funny and insightful deconstruction of Multiculturalists by one of the greatest humorists of our time, Mark Steyn:

Honestly, he just says what I say, but nicer.

-- Edited by Abyss on Thursday 10th of February 2011 05:33:26 PM

Bogney · Senior Member

I suspect that multiculturalism is a response to racism which led to the extermination, or near extermination of "inferior" cultures. Steyn points out some of the absurdities of it when taken to extremes. I believe in tolerance and diversity, but also do not believe that all cultures are equal. Hierarchy is not a pejorative term unless it is used to unfairly prejudice a individuals belonging to "inferior" cultures. The legal hierarchy of white males on top was believedto reflect the natural order of things - and if it did there would have been no need for laws to enforce their superiority in this country until 1964. Because one culture may be "superior" in objectively measurable ways does not mean every individual in that culture is superior to all other individuals from inferior cultures. Division and racism spring from "objective" evaluations of the relative merits of different cultures unless there is some effort to promote tolerance. Certainly, some things should not be tolerated and deserve condemnation, like stoning women who disobey their husbands, ethnic cleansing between different tribes, etc. Tolerance ceases to be a virtue when applied to the wrongdoing of others. Reflexive rejection of all distinctions and passive acceptance of all customs is foolish, but ultimately less dangerous than its opposite - rigid hierarchical racism. As always, a middle approach works best.

So part of the discussion is defining one's terms. I never viewed multiculturalism as completely uncritical acceptance of all other cultures. I have viewed it as an effort promote acceptance of individuals from others cultures and reduce prejudice agaiinst them based upon mere affiliation with other cultures, and an honest effort to acknowledge the strengths of other cultures. Multiculturalism meant tolerance to me, which should be the default position until proven otherwise.

-- Edited by Bogney on Thursday 10th of February 2011 07:48:15 AM

Woodwork · Senior Member

This is a marvelous, funny and insightful deconstruction of Multiculturalists by one of the greatest humorists of our time, Mark Steyn:

http://ricochet.com/main-feed/If-Joan-Walsh-Drives-You-Nuts-Then-Mark-Steyn-Has-The-Cure

Abyss · Senior Member

nbachris2788 wrote:
That's neither an argument nor an insightful observation. You're gonna have to do more work than that.
Every falafel-eating country in the world is generaly sh*t as well. If I were someone with a huge vendetta against that delicious chickpea-based food, I'd have just as much proof as you.

I'm not sure what your point is. I didn't contend to make an argument or be insightful with that statement.

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

Abyss wrote:

I just merely like pointing out that virtually every Muslim country in the world is a piece of ****
Some small exceptions for countries that won the geographic lottery with oil (but don't worry, those countries will fall once the next age of energy is identified).

That's neither an argument nor an insightful observation. You're gonna have to do more work than that.

Every falafel-eating country in the world is generaly sh*t as well. If I were someone with a huge vendetta against that delicious chickpea-based food, I'd have just as much proof as you.

Abyss · Senior Member

Poetsheart wrote:

Quote from Payne:Oh, what successful countries they are./Quote

And that statement is relevant to NBA's point....How?

I just merely like pointing out that virtually every Muslim country in the world is a piece of ****.

Some small exceptions for countries that won the geographic lottery with oil (but don't worry, those countries will fall once the next age of energy is identified).

Poetsheart · Senior Member

Quote from Payne:Oh, what successful countries they are./Quote

And that statement is relevant to NBA's point....How?

Abyss · Senior Member

nbachris2788 wrote:
We should probably note what the nationalities are of these Muslims. From the way we talk about Muslims, it seems like they come from some kind of supra-national religious kingdom, as opposed to diverse countries such as Mali, Bosnia, Indonesia, Pakistan, etc.

Oh, what successful countries they are.

Abyss · Senior Member

nbachris2788 wrote:

I wonder how the most rabid proponents of assimilation will react when immigrants assimilate TOO well.

Take the example of Mesut Ozil, the young German soccer player who will most likely be the most indispensible part of their national team for the next 10 years (Thomas Muller is good, but Ozil is a much rarer type of player). He is perhaps the most shining example of an assimilated Turkish-German; whereas many of his predecessors (German-born Turks) opted to play for Turkey, Ozil chose to play for Germany, citing the importance of German education in formulating his character.

But will the anti-multicultural crowd be able to take it when immigrants assimilate so well that they start to rise from merely being the deferential supporting cast to the stars of the show?

No one would be more happy than me if we somehow the next generation US born theoretical physicists were from Mexican heritage. Of course, this is so laughably far fetched it shouldn't have even been mentioned.

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

I wonder how the most rabid proponents of assimilation will react when immigrants assimilate TOO well.

Take the example of Mesut Ozil, the young German soccer player who will most likely be the most indispensible part of their national team for the next 10 years (Thomas Muller is good, but Ozil is a much rarer type of player). He is perhaps the most shining example of an assimilated Turkish-German; whereas many of his predecessors (German-born Turks) opted to play for Turkey, Ozil chose to play for Germany, citing the importance of German education in formulating his character.

But will the anti-multicultural crowd be able to take it when immigrants assimilate so well that they start to rise from merely being the deferential supporting cast to the stars of the show?

berurah · Senior Member

Good ol' Sharia Law:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/05/bangladesh-rape-fatwa-girl_n_819074.html

BigG · Guru

nbachris makes a valid point.

Islam is not a monolithic faith. Its adherents are not all from similar socioeconomic circumstances.

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

Woodwork wrote:

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but it is absolutely true that the average Muslim immigrant to America is substantially different than the average Muslim-European immigrant.

We should probably note what the nationalities are of these Muslims. From the way we talk about Muslims, it seems like they come from some kind of supra-national religious kingdom, as opposed to diverse countries such as Mali, Bosnia, Indonesia, Pakistan, etc.

Woodwork · Senior Member

I don't really have a dog in this fight, but it is absolutely true that the average Muslim immigrant to America is substantially different than the average Muslim-European immigrant.

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

Abyss wrote:

Past history is the best predictor of current behavior.

So, I'd probably split the difference between excellent Swiss history and terrible Muslim history.

-- Edited by Abyss on Tuesday 8th of February 2011 06:42:44 AM

Banning minarets is "Swiss history", but if the same people were to institute religious fundamentalism, it's "Muslim history"?

What if the same Swiss authorities (ethnicallyy and culturally speaking) decided to institute Jedi law as the basis of their legal system? Would they get a free pass on that because of "Swiss history"?

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

BigG wrote:

That is not a "logical fallacy".

That is "learning from experience".

The fallacy is committed by "intellectuals" who think they can sit around and make something up "out of their butts" (as the old folks say) which is better than decades and even centuries of observed function.

Let's abandon the traditions, observances, and institutions which have produced strong viable cultures in favor of Sharia Law which has produced misery and social dysfunction!

Oh boy. I can't wait. Burkas and kowtowing to the Iman.

Allowing a fifth minaret in all of Switzerland would bring the flood of Sharia law?

Abyss · Senior Member

Bogney wrote:

By the way, no one is arguing for Sharia law here. It is abominable and should never be tolerated where it conflicts with the criminal law of the host country, and rarely when it conflicts with the civil law. I am just pointing out that Swiss success has little to do with the argument. They are not necessarily more enlightened because they are wealthier than others. Tolerating Sharia law is a different question than tolerating Muslims generally. The Muslims I have known - less than ten - have not attempted to practice Sharia law with respect to family members but had assimilated to Silicon Valley life quite well and seemed as "American" as anyone else. Anyone with extreme religious practices, including Sharia law, would not find an ally in me. However, I don't view Islam as all crazy, only the zealots - and there are a lot of them.

American Muslims are significantly different than in other areas of the world. The highest levels of self selection make this paradox. A good thing for us, no doubt. If all Muslims were similar to American Muslims we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Bogney · Senior Member

By the way, no one is arguing for Sharia law here. It is abominable and should never be tolerated where it conflicts with the criminal law of the host country, and rarely when it conflicts with the civil law. I am just pointing out that Swiss success has little to do with the argument. They are not necessarily more enlightened because they are wealthier than others. Tolerating Sharia law is a different question than tolerating Muslims generally. The Muslims I have known - less than ten - have not attempted to practice Sharia law with respect to family members but had assimilated to Silicon Valley life quite well and seemed as "American" as anyone else. Anyone with extreme religious practices, including Sharia law, would not find an ally in me. However, I don't view Islam as all crazy, only the zealots - and there are a lot of them.

Abyss · Senior Member

nbachris2788 wrote:

Abyss wrote:

nbachris2788 wrote:
LOL, surely, you can do better than that. You're not even trying to argue for the merit of their actions.
I'm far more pragmatic than most liberals. The merit is almost irrelevant. They didn't kill anyone and they voted via plebicite. The Swiss have one of the highest per capita incomes, education rates, literacy rates, healthiest populations, etc. If they think something isn't going to work in their country - I see no reason to disagree.

Using your logic, if the ruling Swiss government was suddenly struck with extreme Islamic fundamentalism, you wouldn't question anything they do.
Classic logical fallacy: whatever was a pattern in the past must continue into the future.

Past history is the best predictor of current behavior.

So, I'd probably split the difference between excellent Swiss history and terrible Muslim history.

-- Edited by Abyss on Tuesday 8th of February 2011 06:42:44 AM

BigG · Guru

That is not a "logical fallacy".

That is "learning from experience".

The fallacy is committed by "intellectuals" who think they can sit around and make something up "out of their butts" (as the old folks say) which is better than decades and even centuries of observed function.

Let's abandon the traditions, observances, and institutions which have produced strong viable cultures in favor of Sharia Law which has produced misery and social dysfunction!

Oh boy. I can't wait. Burkas and kowtowing to the Iman.

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

Abyss wrote:

nbachris2788 wrote:
LOL, surely, you can do better than that. You're not even trying to argue for the merit of their actions.
I'm far more pragmatic than most liberals. The merit is almost irrelevant. They didn't kill anyone and they voted via plebicite. The Swiss have one of the highest per capita incomes, education rates, literacy rates, healthiest populations, etc. If they think something isn't going to work in their country - I see no reason to disagree.

Using your logic, if the ruling Swiss government was suddenly struck with extreme Islamic fundamentalism, you wouldn't question anything they do.

Classic logical fallacy: whatever was a pattern in the past must continue into the future.

BigG · Guru

Why aren't Tibet and Chile economic powers?

Abyss · Senior Member

Bogney wrote:

Britain was not invaded, just bombed to peaces. America put Germany, Britain, and Japan back together and they seem to be performing in similar ranges. Germany and Japan may not have been performing so well had we not learned our lesson from WWI and applied more punitive measures. Oops, sorry, I went back before your 50 year relevance period. By the way, Japan is another country that benefitted historically by being an Island. As I recall, Germany did not rise as a powerful nation, in fact did not become a nation, until France had played itself out after Napolean. Finally freed from a predatory neighbor, the German states consolidated under Prussian leadership and became a power. Its rise was delayed by geography and then aided by the geographical benefit of a formerly powerful neighbor weakened by centuries of war.

Just bombed to peaces, eh? The irony is a bit funny. Thanks for reciting the history books on the formation of Germany, I couldn't care less.

You are attributing "much" of the high Swiss per capita incomes to WWII. There isn't much else to argue about, I don't agree.

Looking at Google data explorer shows that Switzerland has been able to maintain a higher national growth rate than France/Germany despite having higher per capita incomes. That is highly irregular and not something that would be anticipated with normal capital flows (invest where people are cheap, etc).

Bogney · Senior Member

Britain was not invaded, just bombed to peaces. America put Germany, Britain, and Japan back together and they seem to be performing in similar ranges. Germany and Japan may not have been performing so well had we not learned our lesson from WWI and applied more punitive measures. Oops, sorry, I went back before your 50 year relevance period. By the way, Japan is another country that benefitted historically by being an Island. As I recall, Germany did not rise as a powerful nation, in fact did not become a nation, until France had played itself out after Napolean. Finally freed from a predatory neighbor, the German states consolidated under Prussian leadership and became a power. Its rise was delayed by geography and then aided by the geographical benefit of a formerly powerful neighbor weakened by centuries of war.

Abyss · Senior Member

Bogney wrote:

I guess if you consider a country as having started in the last year, you have a good point. I tend to think that there is more history involved in how countries develop and where countries end up.

You can't even acknowledge that your primary point is *wrong*. Britain - who wasn't invaded - now has a weaker economy than France/Germany.

WWII is old news. Period. Enough time has passed that the effects on modern day economies is extremely weak.

Bogney · Senior Member

I guess if you consider a country as having started in the last year, you have a good point. I tend to think that there is more history involved in how countries develop and where countries end up.

Abyss · Senior Member

Bogney wrote:

Are you serious? Not being devasted by two World Wars helped the Swiss significantly. Being a stable political environment enforced by neutrality allowed by mountains made it a natural place for international banking. Great Britain was helped immeasurably by being an island - a huge advantage over France. The Germans never made it across the channel. The only place bombed here was Pearl Harbor. Geography has played an enormous role in the success of Great Britain, the U.S. and Switzerland througout history. The second world war was not that long ago, and not being crushed in it and therefore being able to finance countries rebuilding from it was a signficant advantage. Could they have given away that advantage with poor policies? Sure, but their geography has contributed to their economic success, relative insularity and low population. Thery did not have great plains to populate.

Read the Federalist Papers.

You spin a good yarn, you just don't understand the data.

Britain doesn't outperform France/Germany in GDP/capita metrics. Yet Britain wasn't invaded (and their economy was relatively intact upon exiting the war). WWII was 65 years ago, the effects of that are very weak at this point (an obvious point considering the incredible strength of the economies of the modern day Germany/Japan).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita

Not bad, really. Of course on PPP metrics they don't look as good - merely top 10.

Bogney · Senior Member

Are you serious? Not being devasted by two World Wars helped the Swiss significantly. Being a stable political environment enforced by neutrality allowed by mountains made it a natural place for international banking. Great Britain was helped immeasurably by being an island - a huge advantage over France. The Germans never made it across the channel. The only place bombed here was Pearl Harbor. Geography has played an enormous role in the success of Great Britain, the U.S. and Switzerland througout history. The second world war was not that long ago, and not being crushed in it and therefore being able to finance countries rebuilding from it was a signficant advantage. Could they have given away that advantage with poor policies? Sure, but their geography has contributed to their economic success, relative insularity and relatively low population. Thery did not have great plains to populate.

Read the Federalist Papers.

-- Edited by Bogney on Monday 7th of February 2011 11:04:48 PM

Abyss · Senior Member

Bogney wrote:

Much of the Swiss success, like much of ours, is an accident of geography. Stability and progress resutling from geographic advantage is not proof of any sort of exceptionalism other geographic exceptionalism. Not everyone had the same advantages that the U.S. and the Swiss had against invasion. Their ideas do not necessarily merit greater consideration than anyone else's simply because of their various national successes.

You're right. Their high per capita income is due to living in resource scarce mountains.

Really, this is the argument you're going for? Lack of invasion doesn't mean you can create wealth! Britain/Ireland/Iceland are all similarly hard to invade. The Swiss easily outperform each of those economies.

Bogney · Senior Member

Much of the Swiss success, like much of ours, is an accident of geography. Stability and progress resutling from geographic advantage is not proof of any sort of exceptionalism other geographic exceptionalism. Not everyone had the same advantages that the U.S. and the Swiss had against invasion. Their ideas do not necessarily merit greater consideration than anyone else's simply because of their various national successes.

Abyss · Senior Member

nbachris2788 wrote:
LOL, surely, you can do better than that. You're not even trying to argue for the merit of their actions.

I'm far more pragmatic than most liberals. The merit is almost irrelevant. They didn't kill anyone and they voted via plebicite. The Swiss have one of the highest per capita incomes, education rates, literacy rates, healthiest populations, etc. If they think something isn't going to work in their country - I see no reason to disagree.

BigG · Guru

The historical success of Swiss culture and institutions is the best possible argument for preserving same.

They have a history of success; prosperous, peaceful, generally well regarded by other nations and peoples, strong enough militarily to deter aggression, the list goes on.

What do Muslims who do not want to assimilate have to offer Swiss society?

While the Swiss do not have a national religion, the relationships of the Swiss Reformed Church to the cantons is tantamount to "official". It is as if there were no US religion but; Alabama could choose to declare itself a Baptist state. Pennsylvania declared itself Quaker. North Dakota embraced the Roman Catholic Church. Oregon banned religion. Etc.

Interestingly enough, Muslim culture has had "successful" periods in its history. "Arabic numbers", military success, reasonable tolerance of other faiths, advanced medicine (for its day).

The historical lessons for us lie in how the advanced Muslim culture degenerated into what we see today in too many countries. Are we travelling down the same path?

-- Edited by BigG on Monday 7th of February 2011 08:45:52 AM

-- Edited by BigG on Monday 7th of February 2011 08:46:36 AM

-- Edited by BigG on Monday 7th of February 2011 08:47:15 AM

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

Abyss wrote:

nbachris2788 wrote:

SamuraiLandShark,

It's complete BS that the Swiss banned minarets to "preserve their culture". First of all, as a country of 3 official languages and a long history of neutrality, Switzerland has long prided itself on being a cosmopolitan nation. Secondly, there are so few minarets in Switzerland that to pretend that they were somehow a threat to overtake Swiss culture (whatever that is) is ludicrous.

Whatever they thought they were doing, there was no prospect at all of minaret proliferation. This was a case of hysterical overreaction.

Considering that Switzerland is probably the best run country in the entire world it's pretty hard to judge what they've done wrong.

LOL, surely, you can do better than that. You're not even trying to argue for the merit of their actions.

BigG · Guru

In Heaven; the English are the policemen.
                   the Germans are the mechanics.
                   the French are the chefs.
                   the Italians are the lovers.
                   the Swiss organize and coordinate everything.

In Hell;        the English are the chefs.
                   the Germans are the policemen.
                   the French are the mechanics.
                   the Italians organize and coordinate everything.
                   the Swiss are the lovers.

This is an old, old joke but one with a degree of truth.

Is a nation, a group with a defined culture and identity, obliged to allow a foreign culture/national identity to displace it? To what degree should "newcomers" assimilate and to what degree should they be allowed to change the host culture?

Remember, if things had been good in their place of origin, they would have stayed there.



-- Edited by BigG on Monday 7th of February 2011 05:26:39 AM

Abyss · Senior Member

nbachris2788 wrote:

SamuraiLandShark,

It's complete BS that the Swiss banned minarets to "preserve their culture". First of all, as a country of 3 official languages and a long history of neutrality, Switzerland has long prided itself on being a cosmopolitan nation. Secondly, there are so few minarets in Switzerland that to pretend that they were somehow a threat to overtake Swiss culture (whatever that is) is ludicrous.

Whatever they thought they were doing, there was no prospect at all of minaret proliferation. This was a case of hysterical overreaction.

Considering that Switzerland is probably the best run country in the entire world it's pretty hard to judge what they've done wrong.

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

BigG wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12371994

One can only be tolerant of those who are themselves tolerant.

All cultural, philosophical, and religious values are not equivalent.

I would agree with you there.

The problem comes when the multi-cultural issue becomes not about basic human rights issues but about completely subjective cultural ones. I don't have a problem with, say, Germany requiring immigrants to become fluent German speakers as well as respect the secular nature of German society.

But there are some in the anti-multicutural crowd that think that in order to assimilate, immigrants must become European right-wingers. That is, become uncritical apologists for European imperialist history and renounce any affinity with their ancestral homeland, even though they will never be truly treated as first-class citizens.

nbachris2788 · Senior Member

SamuraiLandShark,

It's complete BS that the Swiss banned minarets to "preserve their culture". First of all, as a country of 3 official languages and a long history of neutrality, Switzerland has long prided itself on being a cosmopolitan nation. Secondly, there are so few minarets in Switzerland that to pretend that they were somehow a threat to overtake Swiss culture (whatever that is) is ludicrous.

Whatever they thought they were doing, there was no prospect at all of minaret proliferation. This was a case of hysterical overreaction.

Abyss · Senior Member

Bogney wrote:

In times like these, the Constitution and lawyers to interpret and enforce it are critical to support the foundations of society - perhaps even more so than engineers and scientists who cannot perform their function of building or advancing society if we descend into a state of lawlessness. The basic notion that we are a nation of laws is becoming more important by the day. The Constitution mandates a certain level of tolerance, and we should not fail to heed it because we are fearful.

I can't wait til we have even more lawyers per capita. I'm sure that increase will help our economy grow to even higher heights. We'll have so much tolerance and respect for the constitution that consumers will have no choice but to buy our products.

-- Edited by Abyss on Sunday 6th of February 2011 12:47:33 PM

Bogney · Senior Member

Europe has a horrific history of racial and religious intolerance, so it is not surprising that xenophobia re-emerges when the going gets tough. Pograms and persecution were the order of the day with the rise of nationalism in the late 1800s and early to mid-1900s. Hearing that Germany has moved even glacially in the direction of intolerance sends chills down the spine.

While a country certainly has a right and obligation to defend itself from invaders bent on its destruction, animosity toward legal but poor immigrants without a political agenda other than bettering their lives is unjust. Evidence of disloyality, not prejudice should be required for any private or state action against minorities. Throughout history, ideological, racial, and religous intolerance has been a much more destructive force than tolerance.

What about a national identity based on tolerance - which is what I thought was the national identity of the U.S.? We are the land of the free where individual rights are not merely tolerated, but protected by law. What we cannot tolerate is action that undermines the Constitution or national security - Sharia law is not our law and therefore should not be countenanced in any way that infringes on our law. Religious freedom stops where it turns into action counter to our law.

In times like these, the Constitution and lawyers to interpret and enforce it are critical to support the foundations of society - perhaps even more so than engineers and scientists who cannot perform their function of building or advancing society if we descend into a state of lawlessness. The basic notion that we are a nation of laws is becoming more important by the day. The Constitution mandates a certain level of tolerance, and we should not fail to heed it because we are fearful.

BigG · Guru

If they don't learn the language they are NOT immigrants, they are visitors or invaders!

SamuraiLandshark · Guru

Interesting that Germany and England have leaders that have both said in recent days or months that Multiculturalism has failed their countries.

Merkel said it back in October 2010:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-1155945

The outgoing Prime Minister of Belgium has said that Multiculturalism has failed Belgium.

Several countries in Western Europe have banned the burka, including France, Belgium and Switzerland.

The Swiss have banned construction of minarets to help preserve their culture.

How far can you take the idea of tolerance before you lose the national identity that holds together a country?

Should every immigrant learn and use a common language, in order to assimilate into their new culture?

Bogney · Senior Member

If multiculturalism fails, then the U.S. is doomed. Tolerance must win the day, but an intelligent tolerance rather than a muscular tolerance which might end up making "V for Vendetta" look prophetic. The Fourth Amendment allows reasonable searches. It is not unreasonable to limited searches based upon travel patterns, country of origin, and suspicious conduct or speech. It is not unreasonable to target for surveillance those who whom the government suspects might affiliated in some way with terrorists.

One thing that I suspect will be giving way in modern society is a "right to privacy." Fear will trump freedom nearly every time. There is no express "right to privacy" in the Constitution, and we have a Supreme Court willing to overturn prior precedent that established it as illegitimate exercises of judicial legislation.

There does need to be a war of ideas - secular liberalism against religous extremism. The liberal / conservative bickering in the U.S. involve relatively petty differences fanned by politicians who want control of the U.S. We actually need to show the world that tolerance does work, and that a free society is the most desirable.

BigG · Guru

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-12371994

One can only be tolerant of those who are themselves tolerant.

All cultural, philosophical, and religious values are not equivalent.