@The_Riv Riv and @Nick Tamen it was my comment days (weeks?) ago on the perceived threat to conventional definitions of masculinity and femininity.
That can be considered a harm to some.
The question we asked is exactly how are those “some” actually harmed by perceived threats to conventional definitions of masculinity and femininity? Just because I consider something to be a harm doesn’t mean it actually is a harm.
Exactly how are they harmed by threats to conventional definitions? By harms to the social fabric.
Certainly the definition of harm depends on what you believe in, be it left or right or centre.
That's the point. It's variable.
You’re still not answering the question. Exactly how is the social fabric actually harmed? It’s simply not enough to say the social fabric is harmed; if there is real harm, then it shouldn’t be difficult to describe that real harm and its effects.
Or to put it another way, you’ve asserted that a boy wearing a dress to a prom harms the social fabric. What evidence can you offer that supports that assertion?
We're not allowed to talk about such things here.
@WhimsicalChristian You have been cut some slack because you are new here, but this kind of thing must stop. If you wish to discuss moderation policies on the Ship of Fools, craft an appropriate OP and post it in Styx. Do not post passive aggressive asides about it in Purgatory.
For clarity, we do not tolerate trolling, racism, sexism ableism, homophobia or transphobia - these are violations of our 1st commandment. We do not tolerate these on any of our forums, and patterns of posts that indicate this, even when dressed up as dog whistles or “just asking a question” will be called as c1 violations and may result in suspension of posting privileges or ultimately banning.
We also see and understand brinksmanship, wherein a poster constantly posts just to the side of where they think the line is, in order to gradually shift the social norm / ship policy - rather than making their case in Styx. We also consider this jerkish behaviour.
I don't think there's anything wrong with sending your child to private school while also working to improve the state sector. I don't see why that should be seen as strange or hypocritical. I don't personally think that private schools are inherently bad, I think the problem comes from privately educated people being disproportionately favoured by certain areas of society. The solution is to improve state schools to the same level, especially in access to the arts.
There's a difference between the position "state schools should be better" and the position "the way to improve state schools is to force the rich to send their children to them". If you hold the latter position, and still send your personal children to a public school, you are indeed a massive hypocrite.
I don't think there's anything wrong with sending your child to private school while also working to improve the state sector. I don't see why that should be seen as strange or hypocritical. I don't personally think that private schools are inherently bad, I think the problem comes from privately educated people being disproportionately favoured by certain areas of society. The solution is to improve state schools to the same level, especially in access to the arts.
There's a difference between the position "state schools should be better" and the position "the way to improve state schools is to force the rich to send their children to them". If you hold the latter position, and still send your personal children to a public school, you are indeed a massive hypocrite.
Can you provide some examples of that happening? I've never heard anyone suggest that rich people should be forced into sending their children to state school.
The left is allowed to be intolerant when their definitions of intolerance are activated. But the right is not allowed to be intolerant even if their definitions have not changed.
Not allowed by who? What happens if they do something they're "not allowed" to do, and who enforces that penalty? Most people who make claims like this are conflating free speech (you can say what you want without being penalized by the government) with consequence-free speech (you can say what you want and dictate how others react to it).
The left is allowed to be intolerant when their definitions of intolerance are activated. But the right is not allowed to be intolerant even if their definitions have not changed.
Not allowed by who? What happens if they do something they're "not allowed" to do, and who enforces that penalty? Most people who make claims like this are conflating free speech (you can say what you want without being penalized by the government) with consequence-free speech (you can say what you want and dictate how others react to it).
Tom Holland - aka Spider-Man - has said that he can't wait to have children so that he can be a stay-at-home dad. Obviously he has a lot more wealth than the average man, but I thought it was heartening to see a young man be so enthusiastic about doing his share of childcare.
The left is allowed to be intolerant when their definitions of intolerance are activated. But the right is not allowed to be intolerant even if their definitions have not changed.
Not allowed by who? What happens if they do something they're "not allowed" to do, and who enforces that penalty? Most people who make claims like this are conflating free speech (you can say what you want without being penalized by the government) with consequence-free speech (you can say what you want and dictate how others react to it).
But may I please just say my comment about "LOL, good luck with that" was taken completely the wrong way? I completely approve of men assisting with chores and childrearing. It's just that, at least in Australia, women still bear the majority brunt of it.
I will say no more.
Of course, all the blame there is on others taking the comment “completely the wrong way,” without any acknowledgment that the comment may have been poorly worded and susceptible to being taken the way it actually was taken.
I don't agree with my Australian uncle going out campaigning against the referendum on Aboriginal rights but then I don’t approve of him being called a 'c**t' outside the polling booth either.
He has an easy way to avoid the latter, though: stop being one. Aboriginal Australians don't have an easy way to avoid racism.
Indeed they don't and I've had robust discussions with my uncle on Brexit, racism and all sorts of other issues without calling him names.
I've told he's been talking bollocks at times but that's a comment on what he says not an ad hominem attack.
You'd be the first to complain if a right-winger used offensive language towards someone on the left but somehow it's alright for leftwingers to use it against people on the right.
Besides it was counterproductive. Calling him a 'c**t' only reinforced his view that the left he used to support has moved away from him. He used to be a very lefty shop-steward.
Racism on the left has a long history, him having previously been very left-wing does not absolve him of his racism.
I didn't say it did.
He doesn't think he's racist but then neither do a lot of racists.
'I'm not racist but ...'
And yes, he can act like a jersey at times. I've no idea why he was so against the Aboriginal Indigenous Voice thing that he felt constrained to go out campaigning against it rather than simply voting against it quietly as is his right and prerogative if he didn't agree with it.
He insisted that plenty of indigenous people were also against it, which may well have been the case, First Nation people are no more homogenous than anyone else.
From what I can gather there were a whole range of views on both sides.
My impression was that he was against it because he's 'that way out' as they say in Yorkshire and like many converts from one position to another can rail against anything and everything that comes from his former political affiliation.
To be fair to him, he does speak highly of individual Labor politicians over there in Australia.
He can act like a jerk at times and that was true when he was a lefty and not the curmudgeonly right-wing reactionary he's become.
No political persuasion is without its jerks.
@Basketactortale it wasn't a First Nations person who called him a 'c**t' but a white activist supporting the Indigenous Voice cause.
Yes, Australians can use language in a way that offends English speakers from elsewhere. I was shocked when I heard young Australiansvof Greek and Italian heritage referring to their own communities as 'w*gs', for instance a term originally applied to them no doubt by Australians of UK heritage when their parents and grandparents first arrived.
We had a discussion about the C-word on these boards a while back. Many US posters find the word highly offensive, some British and Irish Shipmates less so. I'm still one of those who doesn't think it's a mild expletive, and neither does my uncle in Australia.
Anyhow ...
Anyhow @Arethosemyfeet doesn't give a shit so that makes it alright then ...
Anyhow @Arethosemyfeet doesn't give a shit so that makes it alright then ...
I mean, your example of the 'toxic left' was someone yelling an insult at a racist - something you expressed in rather circuitous terms. And if you are going to compare the racism with the insult, I'm not going to take you particularly seriously.
I didn't say it was an example of the 'toxic left'. What I said was that it was counterproductive.
Calling someone a 'c**t' outside a polling station isn't an example of reasoned debate and all it did was reinforce my uncle's view that he held the moral high ground and those who opposed him didn't.
He responded very politely he said.
I'm not comparing the racism with the insult. A majority of Australians voted against the Indigenous Voice initiative including, according to my relatives, some First Nations people.
The onus is on them to say whether that was for racist reasons or otherwise.
I think Reform are intrinsically racist but I don't accost them in the street and call them 'c**ts' when they are out canvassing.
There was a big racist element in the Brexit vote but I didn't accost people outside the polling booth and call them 'c**ts' if they were going to vote Leave.
I did 'lose it' to some extent with a R*f*rm councillor on one occasion - I was no longer on the council at the time - and was accused of 'muttering insults' under my breath.
I did no such thing. I told them exactly to their face what I thought of them but without using 'strong language' and it was in response to what I took to be provocative behaviour on their part.
They went to town on it and played the victim card of course. I was right to be angry but wrong to respond the way I did as their supporters made hay with it.
I don't like my uncle's views but he is democratically entitled to go round handing leaflets out for whatever cause he wishes, however reprehensible we might consider them to be.
He wasn't chanting racist slogans or wearing a T-shirt with an offensive comment on it. He was handing out leaflets opposing the Indigenous Voice initiative in the same way that its supporters were doing.
Mind you, there was that stand-up comic - I forget his name - who quipped during the Brexit debate that it was wrong to think that only racists were going to vote Leave.
Tolerance is a social contract, not a moral principle. The default for the left is that it is offered to all. It's withdrawn when the offer is not reciprocated. The right starts with groups of people they will not tolerate. That's the difference.
Some of us (me!) consider it a moral principle, at least up to a certain point or with regard to various things. The whole “do as you would be done by” thing.
@WhimsicalChristian - So being open and consistent in one's intolerance is a virtue?
That's a new one on me.
FWIW I'm not sure any of this stuff maps neatly into a left/right divide or a party political one.
I've met very illiberal liberals as well as people who are highly conservative on some things but 'progressive' on others.
It does tend to separate along ideological lines but there are fuzzy boundaries on some issues too of course.
I don't think a binary 'the left are all hypocrites while the right are squeaky clean,' works any better than 'the left have halos whereas the right have horns sticking out of their heads.'
It's possible to take a position one way or the other without ad hominems.
But then I'll be accused of 'both-sides-ism.'
I don't agree with my Australian uncle going out campaigning against the referendum on Aboriginal rights but then I don’t approve of him being called a 'c**t' outside the polling booth either.
I completely agree. But the OP was quite clear on the black and white issue of pegs and holes and conservatives. That's what I'm objecting to.
It's a little early in your career here on the Ship to be sub-Hosting like this, and using it to dodge some of us. If any of the questions asked of you, or suggestions made that you haven't answered something adequately (which is true for at least a few of us here) were inappropriate, an actual Host would weigh-in.
You haven't specified anything at all about the harm you insist is ongoing. I'm just gonna say you're taking offense, meaning you're self-harming b/c of your mindset.
I have been reprimanded a large number of times already. I don't wish to be banned.
@The_Riv Riv and @Nick Tamen it was my comment days (weeks?) ago on the perceived threat to conventional definitions of masculinity and femininity.
That can be considered a harm to some.
The question we asked is exactly how are those “some” actually harmed by perceived threats to conventional definitions of masculinity and femininity? Just because I consider something to be a harm doesn’t mean it actually is a harm.
Exactly how are they harmed by threats to conventional definitions? By harms to the social fabric.
Certainly the definition of harm depends on what you believe in, be it left or right or centre.
That's the point. It's variable.
You’re still not answering the question. Exactly how is the social fabric actually harmed? It’s simply not enough to say the social fabric is harmed; if there is real harm, then it shouldn’t be difficult to describe that real harm and its effects.
Or to put it another way, you’ve asserted that a boy wearing a dress to a prom harms the social fabric. What evidence can you offer that supports that assertion?
We're not allowed to talk about such things here.
@WhimsicalChristian You have been cut some slack because you are new here, but this kind of thing must stop. If you wish to discuss moderation policies on the Ship of Fools, craft an appropriate OP and post it in Styx. Do not post passive aggressive asides about it in Purgatory.
For clarity, we do not tolerate trolling, racism, sexism ableism, homophobia or transphobia - these are violations of our 1st commandment. We do not tolerate these on any of our forums, and patterns of posts that indicate this, even when dressed up as dog whistles or “just asking a question” will be called as c1 violations and may result in suspension of posting privileges or ultimately banning.
We also see and understand brinksmanship, wherein a poster constantly posts just to the side of where they think the line is, in order to gradually shift the social norm / ship policy - rather than making their case in Styx. We also consider this jerkish behaviour.
Doublethink, Admin
[/Admin]
I'm sorry. I post in order. I didn't see this. I will not say it again.
Can you advise what I should say? Because otherwise it seems I am ignoring people.
@WhimsicalChristian - I've been planked- or suspended rather - in the past and try to play by the rules these days.
FWIW it may help if you used the right boards for the right purposes as per Admin advice.
Also and this isn't a comment on rules and protocols but one of etiquette, if I may be permitted to make one. It may help if you didn't post several messages in succession. I have a tendency to 'double-post' and it's not a good habit to get into.
It can look as if you are trying to 'overwhelm' other posters with rapid fire contributions rather than allowing points to settle and sink in.
I hope I haven't strayed into 'junior hosting' there. I will stand corrected if I have done.
Calling someone a 'c**t' outside a polling station isn't an example of reasoned debate and all it did was reinforce my uncle's view that he held the moral high ground and those who opposed him didn't.
I'm not sure "reasoned debate" does any good against racism. It's not really possible to reason someone out of a position that they didn't arrive at via reason in the first place.
On the other hand, one of the primary conceits of racists is that everyone else (or at least everyone who counts) secretly agrees with them and is just too intimidated by "them" (however defined) to admit it. Public expressions of disapproval are often quite effective at showing them how wrong they are about this. Silence is often interpreted as tacit agreement.
I would agree with that @Crœsos and certainly in the case of my Australian relatives. That isn't to suggest that all Australians are the same.
But calling people names doesn't achieve anything either but simply reinforces the idea that they are in the right.
There's a difference between a tactical argument for what's effective and a moral argument that you shouldn't ever use insults no matter how much of a shitheel someone is being. I don't use the c-word, out of respect for innocent people who find it offensive, but at the same time find it impossible to get worked up about people being rude to racists. It might not stop them being racists but if enough people did it that might at least get us back to the point where racists STFU about it. Make Racists Afraid Again, as I have seen posted elsewhere.
But calling people names doesn't achieve anything either but simply reinforces the idea that they are in the right.
If your words and actions provoke a steady stream of insults, verbal abuse, and contempt from others and you consider this as proof that you're in the right, I'm not sure there's anything that would convince you otherwise. Humans are social animals and will typically react to social pressures.
I would agree with that @Crœsos and certainly in the case of my Australian relatives. That isn't to suggest that all Australians are the same.
But calling people names doesn't achieve anything either but simply reinforces the idea that they are in the right.
There's a difference between a tactical argument for what's effective and a moral argument that you shouldn't ever use insults no matter how much of a shitheel someone is being. I don't use the c-word, out of respect for innocent people who find it offensive, but at the same time find it impossible to get worked up about people being rude to racists. It might not stop them being racists but if enough people did it that might at least get us back to the point where racists STFU about it. Make Racists Afraid Again, as I have seen posted elsewhere.
I'm not saying that it's ever wrong to use insults.
Our Lord did it.
'Go tell that fox ...' (Luke 13;32)
Speaking truth to power.
I'm not 'worked up' about people being rude to my Australian uncle. I bit my lip most of the time I was there as they were putting me up - and putting up with me - and being very hospitable. I did tell him he was talking bollocks on two occasions but I didn't call him names.
Play the ball, not the man.
Besides, if we are going to take the Gospel seriously then as well as calling out racism in others - and rightly so, we should also weed out racist attitudes within ourselves. As I'm sure we are doing.
@Crœsos sure and I don't think my uncle will change his spots, and the incident was a one-off. He would deny his position was racist of course and would claim not to be racist at all despite a whopping big blindspot in terms of his comments and attitudes.
No amount of swearing at him is going to socialise him into behaving differently.
FWIW I was impressed by a liberal couple who are friends with my relatives. They listen politely and use reasoned arguments to counter his rants. They know darn well it's not going to change his mind but equally shouting and swearing at him isn't going to work.
Ok, I know that conversations over a long boozy lunch are different to a confrontation outside a polling booth but are you seriously suggesting that swearing and shouting at people is going to win them over to whatever position we might prefer them to adopt?
A Labour activist I know in a largely leafy historic town told me how they drummed it into their canvassers not to shout or get cross with people on the doors, partly because that's what many Conservatives would expect them to do and partly because that's what some of the young earnest canvassers were doing.
They urged everyone to be on their best behaviour when door-knocking in a particularly well-heeled and predominantly Tory part of town.
The canvassers did as they were told and responded politely despite hearing views they found unpalatable.
My friend knocked one door and after there was no answer posted the Labour Party leaflet through the letterbox.
As she and her companion walked away the door opened and a rather cross looking old lady called out after them, waving the leaflet above her head.
'Did you you post this? Did you post this?!'
My friend replied that they had and prepared to face a tirade.
'Good on you!' the old lady cried. 'It's about time someone stuck it to the Tories! Stuff the Tories! Bloody Conservatives ...' etc.
@WhimsicalChristian - I've been planked- or suspended rather - in the past and try to play by the rules these days.
FWIW it may help if you used the right boards for the right purposes as per Admin advice.
Also and this isn't a comment on rules and protocols but one of etiquette, if I may be permitted to make one. It may help if you didn't post several messages in succession. I have a tendency to 'double-post' and it's not a good habit to get into.
It can look as if you are trying to 'overwhelm' other posters with rapid fire contributions rather than allowing points to settle and sink in.
I hope I haven't strayed into 'junior hosting' there. I will stand corrected if I have done.
Alas, I have other responsibilities during the day. I have only limited time on the ship so I try respond when I can. Can't help it if it's all in one go.
Professor Pickett and Professor Wilkinson's research, synthesised in The Spirit Level (Penguin, 2009) and The Inner Level (Penguin, 2018), shows that income inequality - the gap between rich and poor - strongly influences people's health and wellbeing as well as human capital formation and social cohesion.
Their research found that inequality causes a wide range of health and social problems, from reduced life expectancy and higher infant mortality to poor educational attainment, lower social mobility and increased levels of violence and mental illness.
Differences between more and less equal societies are large, and everyone is affected by them. Inequality affects our intimate, personal lives; it psychologically divides us from the status, support and solidarity that keep us well.
Which seems to be accepted by many members here. Marvin the Martian bought up the issue of social cohesion a week ago:
Social Cohesion is a thing, and its absence frequently leads to harm at both the macro and micro levels. Economic threats to social cohesion are frequently highlighted on these boards. Cultural or social threats less so. If a reduction in social cohesion is harmful in one case then is it not harmful in the other as well?
In contrast to economic inequality, the perception of "cultural or social threats" is rather more directly related to people's attitudes. Treating our attitudes as an externality over which we have little control seems to be the fundamental problem with putting the question this way. (Which is similar to the point that Crœsus made.) For me, the question is the way in which harmful attitudes reduce social cohesion.
In 2008, The Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a report on Immigration and social cohesion in the UK. One of the things I take from this report (at least, the executive summary) is that one factor in social cohesion is people's willingness to accept differences.
This research suggests that social cohesion exists where all people are able to live in close proximity, accept differences, and mix with those with whom they wish, and have local agreed and effective means for resolving disagreements and problems.
I don't think immigration inherently reduces social cohesion, it's intolerance of immigration and immigrants that reduces social cohesion (for example by encouraging scapegoating).
And, coming back to inequality, the overall finding was as follows:
Our overall finding is that to ensure the cohesion of the social fabric of society it is necessary to address both relational and structural issues. We need to consider how people relate to each other as well as addressing fundamental issues of deprivation, disadvantage and discrimination. Discussing how people get on together without dealing with inequalities will not work. We concluded that the focus on shared norms and values that characterises current policies of social cohesion should complement, rather than substitute the established multicultural valuing of cultural diversity. It is important to enable and support both expressions of unity and difference for the social cohesion of local communities.
I don't think immigration inherently reduces social cohesion, it's intolerance of immigration and immigrants that reduces social cohesion (for example by encouraging scapegoating).
The statement works both ways. Immigrants need to be tolerant of their migrant country and want to integrate with the values of the country.
For example, Islamic extremist groups that want to establish a global caliphate should not be allowed to emigrate into countries that do not share those values.
I don't think immigration inherently reduces social cohesion, it's intolerance of immigration and immigrants that reduces social cohesion (for example by encouraging scapegoating).
The statement works both ways. Immigrants need to be tolerant of their migrant country and want to integrate with the values of the country.
For example, Islamic extremist groups that want to establish a global caliphate should not be allowed to emigrate into countries that do not share those values.
Generally, if someone is known to be a member of an extremist group they wouldn't be granted a visa. The difficulty is primarily when citizens of a country are radicalised, and that is an issue whether they're Salafists or white nationalists. Currently I'm way more worried about the latter.
We should be concerned about both as well as young lads who acquire extreme misogynist views online and who don't have any particular religion or ideology but feel aggrieved for perceived grievances and then go and carry out acts of violence.
There have been a number of lethal incidents like that which have nothing to do with immigration.
For whatever reason, and I suspect it's a web of complex factors, they feel marginalised and aggrieved and want to take it out on everyone else or upon women and girls in particular.
That brings us back to radicalisation by algorithmic social media and the normalisation of what were once fringe far right views on some broadcast media.
And it's not poor or endangered people coming to live and work here who own and run those companies.
We've just had an example in Edinburgh of a stabbing incident where apparently Elon Musk and the Reform leader in Scotland among others weighed in. The police had to ask that the misinformation stop. It all caused a nasty racist demonstration.
Non fatal stabbings aren't that unusual in Edinburgh in assaults but it's only on the rare occasions when racists think they can play their favourite tune that they get more than a brief mention in the local papers. Elon and co won't get out of bed for the many stabbings among white Scots, one presumes because it doesn't fit their narrative.
Now to me that's undermining social cohesion deliberately. Musk did similar with the riots in England if I recall correctly.
But you usually never hear a dicky bird about that from the 'social cohesionists' ...
What's hard is that any individual Salafist like, say, the killers of Lee Rigby might be incredibly dangerous, but they are small in number and their attacks, while devastating for those involved, don't come with a penumbra of people who mostly agree with them and vote accordingly. The far right probably has fewer individuals who represent an extreme danger to life, but a much much larger penumbra of people who'll gladly be part of a braying mob trying to burn down a hotel and creating a broader social hostility to minorities. People who wouldn't be part of a plot to blow up a Mosque but wouldn't much care if someone else was, and will happily vote for parties that will make life harder for ordinary decent people who happen to have darker skin or a different religion.
Originally posted by Whimsical Christian: The statement works both ways. Immigrants need to be tolerant of their migrant country and want to integrate with the values of the country.
As a Scot, I grew up with stories in our newspapers in January, November etc, of the Scottish diaspora worldwide celebrating Burns Night, St Andrews Day etc. There are Caledonian societies in every continent. There are Highland Games in America. On the 11 April there will be a Tartan Day parade in New York. I could go on.
Immigrants retaining their cultural celebrations etc seem to me to be behaving exactly like Scottish people who have immigrated elsewhere.
Personally, I have distant relatives in Canada, Australia, America and New Zealand, who are proud of their Scottish roots. I think Canada, Australia, America and New Zealand are lucky to have them! And I think Scotland is lucky to have those who have chosen to immigrate here. Integration is good, but enriching our culture with other cultures is very good, too!
I don't think immigration inherently reduces social cohesion, it's intolerance of immigration and immigrants that reduces social cohesion (for example by encouraging scapegoating).
The statement works both ways. Immigrants need to be tolerant of their migrant country and want to integrate with the values of the country.
I see that to make the "both ways" argument work, you had to change the argument from intolerance of a group of people to intolerance of a country (whatever that means) and failure to integrate with the values of a country.
For example, Islamic extremist groups that want to establish a global caliphate should not be allowed to emigrate into countries that do not share those values.
We are finally realising they should never have been allowed in in the first place.
This statement however does work both ways - if extremists who don't share the values of a country shouldn't be allowed in a country, then I presume you'd also recommend that citizens who hold extremist views should be exiled. (Unless you think that extremism is a value our countries uphold.)
And thanks for illustrating how scapegoating works.
So, can we start deporting the guys who participated in January 6th over here in the USA instead of pardoning them?
[/SARCASM]
If we're not doing anything about the log of virulent extremism among Christian US citizens, I see no reason to get so worked up about the splinter of virulent extremism among Islamic immigrants, because I'm not a white supremacist, nor am I a christo-fascist.
From where I see these comments by WhimsicalChristian sound racist, YMMV. he statement works both ways. Immigrants need to be tolerant of their migrant country and want to integrate with the values of the country.
For example, Islamic extremist groups that want to establish a global caliphate should not be allowed to emigrate into countries that do not share those values.
Originally posted by Whimsical Christian: The statement works both ways. Immigrants need to be tolerant of their migrant country and want to integrate with the values of the country.
As a Scot, I grew up with stories in our newspapers in January, November etc, of the Scottish diaspora worldwide celebrating Burns Night, St Andrews Day etc. There are Caledonian societies in every continent. There are Highland Games in America. On the 11 April there will be a Tartan Day parade in New York. I could go on.
Immigrants retaining their cultural celebrations etc seem to me to be behaving exactly like Scottish people who have immigrated elsewhere.
Personally, I have distant relatives in Canada, Australia, America and New Zealand, who are proud of their Scottish roots. I think Canada, Australia, America and New Zealand are lucky to have them! And I think Scotland is lucky to have those who have chosen to immigrate here. Integration is good, but enriching our culture with other cultures is very good, too!
I grew up being told I was scots-irish on one side of the family. Later on learned that there's a shop in Clarksburg, WV (RD Wilson & Sons) that apparently was opened by a great X-times grandfather of mine who came over in the mid-19th century from Scotland. Solidarity!
And I'd be damned hypocrite to tell crazy people from other countries they couldn't do what my crazy ancestors did.
While there is antidotal evidence to the contrary, over-all immigrants are not a threat to western culture. They assimilate over time, often they contribute to cultural renewal, and they are incubators for small business development.
While there is antidotal evidence to the contrary, over-all immigrants are not a threat to western culture. They assimilate over time, often they contribute to cultural renewal, and they are incubators for small business development.
I have a truly terrifying collection of anecdotes that American white people suck. And I am one.
Originally posted by Whimsical Christian: The statement works both ways. Immigrants need to be tolerant of their migrant country and want to integrate with the values of the country.
As a Scot, I grew up with stories in our newspapers in January, November etc, of the Scottish diaspora worldwide celebrating Burns Night, St Andrews Day etc. There are Caledonian societies in every continent. There are Highland Games in America. On the 11 April there will be a Tartan Day parade in New York. I could go on.
Immigrants retaining their cultural celebrations etc seem to me to be behaving exactly like Scottish people who have immigrated elsewhere.
Personally, I have distant relatives in Canada, Australia, America and New Zealand, who are proud of their Scottish roots. I think Canada, Australia, America and New Zealand are lucky to have them! And I think Scotland is lucky to have those who have chosen to immigrate here. Integration is good, but enriching our culture with other cultures is very good, too!
Amen!! ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
Speaking of such matters, St. Patrick’s Day is coming up, though (in the US) it’s focused more on drinking and the color green than on more Irish cultural stuff. (Or on Saint Patrick himself!) Though some of us do other things than just that, too. (I’m not aware of having any Irish blood in me myself, but it’s a nice holiday.)
St Patrick's day is a very important day that symbolizes how immigrant traditions become American traditions. Actually, many of the most iconic St. Patrick Day customs did not originate in Ireland, they were created in the US. Large parades. Green dyed rivers, Greem beer, green food, green clothing--all American. First recorded St Patty's day in America was 1601. Other ethnic holidays in US include Chinese New Year; Cinco de Mayo, Ramadan/Eid al Fitr; Diwali; Oktoberfest; Jewish Holy Days; Indigenous People's Day. Goes to show just how amalgamated the US really is. Canada too has many ethnic festivals.
Originally posted by Whimsical Christian: The statement works both ways. Immigrants need to be tolerant of their migrant country and want to integrate with the values of the country.
As a Scot, I grew up with stories in our newspapers in January, November etc, of the Scottish diaspora worldwide celebrating Burns Night, St Andrews Day etc. There are Caledonian societies in every continent. There are Highland Games in America. On the 11 April there will be a Tartan Day parade in New York. I could go on.
Immigrants retaining their cultural celebrations etc seem to me to be behaving exactly like Scottish people who have immigrated elsewhere.
Personally, I have distant relatives in Canada, Australia, America and New Zealand, who are proud of their Scottish roots. I think Canada, Australia, America and New Zealand are lucky to have them! And I think Scotland is lucky to have those who have chosen to immigrate here. Integration is good, but enriching our culture with other cultures is very good, too!
I don't think immigration inherently reduces social cohesion, it's intolerance of immigration and immigrants that reduces social cohesion (for example by encouraging scapegoating).
The statement works both ways. Immigrants need to be tolerant of their migrant country and want to integrate with the values of the country.
I see that to make the "both ways" argument work, you had to change the argument from intolerance of a group of people to intolerance of a country (whatever that means) and failure to integrate with the values of a country.
For example, Islamic extremist groups that want to establish a global caliphate should not be allowed to emigrate into countries that do not share those values.
We are finally realising they should never have been allowed in in the first place.
This statement however does work both ways - if extremists who don't share the values of a country shouldn't be allowed in a country, then I presume you'd also recommend that citizens who hold extremist views should be exiled. (Unless you think that extremism is a value our countries uphold.)
And thanks for illustrating how scapegoating works.
The country referred to in the first part was the country the people were emigrating to.
Islamic extremist views not native to the receiving country? Absolutely they should be exiled.
As for the passive aggressive scapegoating quote? I have no idea what you're talking about.
While there is antidotal evidence to the contrary, over-all immigrants are not a threat to western culture. They assimilate over time, often they contribute to cultural renewal, and they are incubators for small business development.
I have a truly terrifying collection of anecdotes that American white people suck. And I am one.
@WhimsicalChristian Bullfrog is a white American, commenting on white Americans. An accusation of racism against Bullfrog is offensive. Please reread the Ten Commandments, taking particular cognisance of Commandment 1 - Don't be a jerk
I don't think immigration inherently reduces social cohesion, it's intolerance of immigration and immigrants that reduces social cohesion (for example by encouraging scapegoating).
The statement works both ways. Immigrants need to be tolerant of their migrant country and want to integrate with the values of the country.
I see that to make the "both ways" argument work, you had to change the argument from intolerance of a group of people to intolerance of a country (whatever that means) and failure to integrate with the values of a country.
For example, Islamic extremist groups that want to establish a global caliphate should not be allowed to emigrate into countries that do not share those values.
We are finally realising they should never have been allowed in in the first place.
This statement however does work both ways - if extremists who don't share the values of a country shouldn't be allowed in a country, then I presume you'd also recommend that citizens who hold extremist views should be exiled. (Unless you think that extremism is a value our countries uphold.)
And thanks for illustrating how scapegoating works.
The country referred to in the first part was the country the people were emigrating to.
Islamic extremist views not native to the receiving country? Absolutely they should be exiled.
As for the passive aggressive scapegoating quote? I have no idea what you're talking about.
You appear to be under the misapprehension that extremist views are "not native" and that full citizens of the country cannot possibly hold those views.
Ever heard of Richard Reid? None of your assertions hold water.
Comments
@WhimsicalChristian You have been cut some slack because you are new here, but this kind of thing must stop. If you wish to discuss moderation policies on the Ship of Fools, craft an appropriate OP and post it in Styx. Do not post passive aggressive asides about it in Purgatory.
For clarity, we do not tolerate trolling, racism, sexism ableism, homophobia or transphobia - these are violations of our 1st commandment. We do not tolerate these on any of our forums, and patterns of posts that indicate this, even when dressed up as dog whistles or “just asking a question” will be called as c1 violations and may result in suspension of posting privileges or ultimately banning.
We also see and understand brinksmanship, wherein a poster constantly posts just to the side of where they think the line is, in order to gradually shift the social norm / ship policy - rather than making their case in Styx. We also consider this jerkish behaviour.
Doublethink, Admin
[/Admin]
There's a difference between the position "state schools should be better" and the position "the way to improve state schools is to force the rich to send their children to them". If you hold the latter position, and still send your personal children to a public school, you are indeed a massive hypocrite.
Can you provide some examples of that happening? I've never heard anyone suggest that rich people should be forced into sending their children to state school.
Not allowed by who? What happens if they do something they're "not allowed" to do, and who enforces that penalty? Most people who make claims like this are conflating free speech (you can say what you want without being penalized by the government) with consequence-free speech (you can say what you want and dictate how others react to it).
For example, you're allowed to openly laugh at the idea of fathers putting in more time doing child care or domestic chores or say that such defiance of traditional gender roles is actually harmful to others, but you don't get to dictate how other people react to your claims. Other folks are "allowed" to express their disagreement with you, even in highly unflattering terms.
Wait a sec....WC went after stay at home dads?
How intriguing.
Of course, all the blame there is on others taking the comment “completely the wrong way,” without any acknowledgment that the comment may have been poorly worded and susceptible to being taken the way it actually was taken.
I didn't say it did.
He doesn't think he's racist but then neither do a lot of racists.
'I'm not racist but ...'
And yes, he can act like a jersey at times. I've no idea why he was so against the Aboriginal Indigenous Voice thing that he felt constrained to go out campaigning against it rather than simply voting against it quietly as is his right and prerogative if he didn't agree with it.
He insisted that plenty of indigenous people were also against it, which may well have been the case, First Nation people are no more homogenous than anyone else.
From what I can gather there were a whole range of views on both sides.
My impression was that he was against it because he's 'that way out' as they say in Yorkshire and like many converts from one position to another can rail against anything and everything that comes from his former political affiliation.
To be fair to him, he does speak highly of individual Labor politicians over there in Australia.
He can act like a jerk at times and that was true when he was a lefty and not the curmudgeonly right-wing reactionary he's become.
No political persuasion is without its jerks.
@Basketactortale it wasn't a First Nations person who called him a 'c**t' but a white activist supporting the Indigenous Voice cause.
Yes, Australians can use language in a way that offends English speakers from elsewhere. I was shocked when I heard young Australiansvof Greek and Italian heritage referring to their own communities as 'w*gs', for instance a term originally applied to them no doubt by Australians of UK heritage when their parents and grandparents first arrived.
We had a discussion about the C-word on these boards a while back. Many US posters find the word highly offensive, some British and Irish Shipmates less so. I'm still one of those who doesn't think it's a mild expletive, and neither does my uncle in Australia.
Anyhow ...
Anyhow @Arethosemyfeet doesn't give a shit so that makes it alright then ...
I meant 'jerk' of course.
Perhaps 'jersey' can enter the lexicon of potentially offensive words.
I mean, your example of the 'toxic left' was someone yelling an insult at a racist - something you expressed in rather circuitous terms. And if you are going to compare the racism with the insult, I'm not going to take you particularly seriously.
Calling someone a 'c**t' outside a polling station isn't an example of reasoned debate and all it did was reinforce my uncle's view that he held the moral high ground and those who opposed him didn't.
He responded very politely he said.
I'm not comparing the racism with the insult. A majority of Australians voted against the Indigenous Voice initiative including, according to my relatives, some First Nations people.
The onus is on them to say whether that was for racist reasons or otherwise.
I think Reform are intrinsically racist but I don't accost them in the street and call them 'c**ts' when they are out canvassing.
There was a big racist element in the Brexit vote but I didn't accost people outside the polling booth and call them 'c**ts' if they were going to vote Leave.
I did 'lose it' to some extent with a R*f*rm councillor on one occasion - I was no longer on the council at the time - and was accused of 'muttering insults' under my breath.
I did no such thing. I told them exactly to their face what I thought of them but without using 'strong language' and it was in response to what I took to be provocative behaviour on their part.
They went to town on it and played the victim card of course. I was right to be angry but wrong to respond the way I did as their supporters made hay with it.
I don't like my uncle's views but he is democratically entitled to go round handing leaflets out for whatever cause he wishes, however reprehensible we might consider them to be.
He wasn't chanting racist slogans or wearing a T-shirt with an offensive comment on it. He was handing out leaflets opposing the Indigenous Voice initiative in the same way that its supporters were doing.
That's not a crime.
'C**ts are also supporting it.'
Some of us (me!) consider it a moral principle, at least up to a certain point or with regard to various things. The whole “do as you would be done by” thing.
I completely agree. But the OP was quite clear on the black and white issue of pegs and holes and conservatives. That's what I'm objecting to.
I have been reprimanded a large number of times already. I don't wish to be banned.
I'm sorry. I post in order. I didn't see this. I will not say it again.
Can you advise what I should say? Because otherwise it seems I am ignoring people.
Doublethink, Admin
FWIW it may help if you used the right boards for the right purposes as per Admin advice.
Also and this isn't a comment on rules and protocols but one of etiquette, if I may be permitted to make one. It may help if you didn't post several messages in succession. I have a tendency to 'double-post' and it's not a good habit to get into.
It can look as if you are trying to 'overwhelm' other posters with rapid fire contributions rather than allowing points to settle and sink in.
I hope I haven't strayed into 'junior hosting' there. I will stand corrected if I have done.
I'm not sure "reasoned debate" does any good against racism. It's not really possible to reason someone out of a position that they didn't arrive at via reason in the first place.
On the other hand, one of the primary conceits of racists is that everyone else (or at least everyone who counts) secretly agrees with them and is just too intimidated by "them" (however defined) to admit it. Public expressions of disapproval are often quite effective at showing them how wrong they are about this. Silence is often interpreted as tacit agreement.
But calling people names doesn't achieve anything either but simply reinforces the idea that they are in the right.
There's a difference between a tactical argument for what's effective and a moral argument that you shouldn't ever use insults no matter how much of a shitheel someone is being. I don't use the c-word, out of respect for innocent people who find it offensive, but at the same time find it impossible to get worked up about people being rude to racists. It might not stop them being racists but if enough people did it that might at least get us back to the point where racists STFU about it. Make Racists Afraid Again, as I have seen posted elsewhere.
If your words and actions provoke a steady stream of insults, verbal abuse, and contempt from others and you consider this as proof that you're in the right, I'm not sure there's anything that would convince you otherwise. Humans are social animals and will typically react to social pressures.
I'm not saying that it's ever wrong to use insults.
Our Lord did it.
'Go tell that fox ...' (Luke 13;32)
Speaking truth to power.
I'm not 'worked up' about people being rude to my Australian uncle. I bit my lip most of the time I was there as they were putting me up - and putting up with me - and being very hospitable. I did tell him he was talking bollocks on two occasions but I didn't call him names.
Play the ball, not the man.
Besides, if we are going to take the Gospel seriously then as well as calling out racism in others - and rightly so, we should also weed out racist attitudes within ourselves. As I'm sure we are doing.
@Crœsos sure and I don't think my uncle will change his spots, and the incident was a one-off. He would deny his position was racist of course and would claim not to be racist at all despite a whopping big blindspot in terms of his comments and attitudes.
No amount of swearing at him is going to socialise him into behaving differently.
FWIW I was impressed by a liberal couple who are friends with my relatives. They listen politely and use reasoned arguments to counter his rants. They know darn well it's not going to change his mind but equally shouting and swearing at him isn't going to work.
Ok, I know that conversations over a long boozy lunch are different to a confrontation outside a polling booth but are you seriously suggesting that swearing and shouting at people is going to win them over to whatever position we might prefer them to adopt?
A Labour activist I know in a largely leafy historic town told me how they drummed it into their canvassers not to shout or get cross with people on the doors, partly because that's what many Conservatives would expect them to do and partly because that's what some of the young earnest canvassers were doing.
They urged everyone to be on their best behaviour when door-knocking in a particularly well-heeled and predominantly Tory part of town.
The canvassers did as they were told and responded politely despite hearing views they found unpalatable.
My friend knocked one door and after there was no answer posted the Labour Party leaflet through the letterbox.
As she and her companion walked away the door opened and a rather cross looking old lady called out after them, waving the leaflet above her head.
'Did you you post this? Did you post this?!'
My friend replied that they had and prepared to face a tirade.
'Good on you!' the old lady cried. 'It's about time someone stuck it to the Tories! Stuff the Tories! Bloody Conservatives ...' etc.
Well, it amused me anyway...
In England, for a long, long time, the basic social contract has been this: the property and assets you have, you and your children can keep.
Alas, I have other responsibilities during the day. I have only limited time on the ship so I try respond when I can. Can't help it if it's all in one go.
I tend to post from my phone in between doing other things. I find though that the most hasty I am the more mistakes I make.
That seems pretty basic, yes, though how to balance that with helping people who are struggling is the question…
In 2008, The Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a report on
Immigration and social cohesion in the UK. One of the things I take from this report (at least, the executive summary) is that one factor in social cohesion is people's willingness to accept differences. I don't think immigration inherently reduces social cohesion, it's intolerance of immigration and immigrants that reduces social cohesion (for example by encouraging scapegoating).
And, coming back to inequality, the overall finding was as follows:
The statement works both ways. Immigrants need to be tolerant of their migrant country and want to integrate with the values of the country.
For example, Islamic extremist groups that want to establish a global caliphate should not be allowed to emigrate into countries that do not share those values.
Hizb ut-Tahrir is an example in Australia.
We are finally realising they should never have been allowed in in the first place.
Generally, if someone is known to be a member of an extremist group they wouldn't be granted a visa. The difficulty is primarily when citizens of a country are radicalised, and that is an issue whether they're Salafists or white nationalists. Currently I'm way more worried about the latter.
There have been a number of lethal incidents like that which have nothing to do with immigration.
For whatever reason, and I suspect it's a web of complex factors, they feel marginalised and aggrieved and want to take it out on everyone else or upon women and girls in particular.
And it's not poor or endangered people coming to live and work here who own and run those companies.
We've just had an example in Edinburgh of a stabbing incident where apparently Elon Musk and the Reform leader in Scotland among others weighed in. The police had to ask that the misinformation stop. It all caused a nasty racist demonstration.
Non fatal stabbings aren't that unusual in Edinburgh in assaults but it's only on the rare occasions when racists think they can play their favourite tune that they get more than a brief mention in the local papers. Elon and co won't get out of bed for the many stabbings among white Scots, one presumes because it doesn't fit their narrative.
Now to me that's undermining social cohesion deliberately. Musk did similar with the riots in England if I recall correctly.
But you usually never hear a dicky bird about that from the 'social cohesionists' ...
The statement works both ways. Immigrants need to be tolerant of their migrant country and want to integrate with the values of the country.
As a Scot, I grew up with stories in our newspapers in January, November etc, of the Scottish diaspora worldwide celebrating Burns Night, St Andrews Day etc. There are Caledonian societies in every continent. There are Highland Games in America. On the 11 April there will be a Tartan Day parade in New York. I could go on.
Immigrants retaining their cultural celebrations etc seem to me to be behaving exactly like Scottish people who have immigrated elsewhere.
Personally, I have distant relatives in Canada, Australia, America and New Zealand, who are proud of their Scottish roots. I think Canada, Australia, America and New Zealand are lucky to have them! And I think Scotland is lucky to have those who have chosen to immigrate here. Integration is good, but enriching our culture with other cultures is very good, too!
This statement however does work both ways - if extremists who don't share the values of a country shouldn't be allowed in a country, then I presume you'd also recommend that citizens who hold extremist views should be exiled. (Unless you think that extremism is a value our countries uphold.)
And thanks for illustrating how scapegoating works.
So, can we start deporting the guys who participated in January 6th over here in the USA instead of pardoning them?
[/SARCASM]
If we're not doing anything about the log of virulent extremism among Christian US citizens, I see no reason to get so worked up about the splinter of virulent extremism among Islamic immigrants, because I'm not a white supremacist, nor am I a christo-fascist.
For example, Islamic extremist groups that want to establish a global caliphate should not be allowed to emigrate into countries that do not share those values.
I grew up being told I was scots-irish on one side of the family. Later on learned that there's a shop in Clarksburg, WV (RD Wilson & Sons) that apparently was opened by a great X-times grandfather of mine who came over in the mid-19th century from Scotland. Solidarity!
And I'd be damned hypocrite to tell crazy people from other countries they couldn't do what my crazy ancestors did.
I have a truly terrifying collection of anecdotes that American white people suck. And I am one.
Amen!! ❤️❤️❤️❤️❤️
Speaking of such matters, St. Patrick’s Day is coming up, though (in the US) it’s focused more on drinking and the color green than on more Irish cultural stuff. (Or on Saint Patrick himself!) Though some of us do other things than just that, too. (I’m not aware of having any Irish blood in me myself, but it’s a nice holiday.)
Indeed. That is my experience.
Agreed.
The country referred to in the first part was the country the people were emigrating to.
Islamic extremist views not native to the receiving country? Absolutely they should be exiled.
As for the passive aggressive scapegoating quote? I have no idea what you're talking about.
Surely that's racist.
Or does racism not apply to white people?
@WhimsicalChristian Bullfrog is a white American, commenting on white Americans. An accusation of racism against Bullfrog is offensive. Please reread the Ten Commandments, taking particular cognisance of Commandment 1 - Don't be a jerk
North East Quine, Purgatory host
Hostly hat off
You appear to be under the misapprehension that extremist views are "not native" and that full citizens of the country cannot possibly hold those views.
Ever heard of Richard Reid? None of your assertions hold water.