A Black got killed, Burn Orientals!

[OftenWrong]

46 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Absolutely agree.  They can and do teach patriotism in the schools.

But the muddle is still there.  The OP has nothing to do with the Canadian situation and has just provided yet another place for people to post plaints about why they don't like immigrants.

Not necessarily all immigrants, and perhaps not even immigrants per se. but more that the rules of immigration need to be discussed, in a way done without judgement or implied racial bias. The world is ever changing, and changes have taken place in other countries that inevitably do affect us. For example, the uncontrolled open-door policy being permitted by our government now certainly deserves to be immediately challenged and discussed.

However, this thread is not about immigration it is about multiculturalism. Says so in the very first sentence. The US example given is between a black person and a Korean. The black might not be an immigrant. They don't accept multi-culti down there because it leads to isolated groups that don't interact, where nation-building requires a form of nationalism at the folk level. Multiculturalism can only function in a place where nationalism is looked down upon. No superpower can likely ever be "multi-culti".

 

Edited September 5, 2017 by OftenWrong

[Michael Hardner]

6 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

They don't accept multi-culti down there because it leads to isolated groups that don't interact with each other.

Even more confusing, then.  What happened ?  Were these LA people being multicultural and not interacting enough ?  Or is this the kind of interaction to be expected in non-multicultural society.  It doesn't matter.  Muddle.

[OftenWrong]

30 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Even more confusing, then.  What happened ?  Were these LA people being multicultural and not interacting enough ?  Or is this the kind of interaction to be expected in non-multicultural society.  It doesn't matter.  Muddle.

The real muddle is in the idea of multiculturalism and how it was implemented, how it defeated its own principles and cannot work in the real world. Multiculturalism is naive for the same reasons that Marxism is naive- it underestimates the ugliness of the human being.

[hot enough]

5 hours ago, taxme said:

Why do you keep avoiding trying to tell us all that it is not the American people that is the problem,

"... government of the people, by the people, for the people ... "

The American people are the problem. They are stunningly ignorant of their history, willfully so. 

Canadians too.

[hot enough]

42 minutes ago, OftenWrong said:

Multiculturalism is naive for the same reasons that Marxism is naive- it underestimates the ugliness of the human being.

That is precisely why multiculturalism is so vitally important, because we know how ugly these human beings are. It shows vividly in THEIR posts all the time. 

It's these ugly human beings who are against immigration when it is not the immigrants that they want. That is ugliness at its nadir. It can't get any more nadirish than that!

[betsy]

4 hours ago, taxme said:

But MH doesn't believe that a scum bag named Soros exists? That is all fantasy bull chit to him. As to whether MH will admit it now that Soros does exist and is the real chit disturber who is behind creating all the riots and violence at American patriotic national rallies as false news well that is up to him. When one wishes to remain ignorant to real and true facts that are shown to them, and still will deny what they saw and read, well there really is no hope for those people at all. They need help. Personally, I believe that MH is only here to try and distort the truth that one may post here with facts and figures and are able to back up those posts if needed. Just saying. 

 

Michael seems to like to......"poke."

Re-post that Soros article and tell him to refute it.  Sorry, I have to go.

Edited September 6, 2017 by betsy

[hot enough]

7 hours ago, taxme said:

But MH doesn't believe that a scum bag named Soros exists?

Nothing in any of your links describe anything at all that would indicate G Soros is anything but a wealthy but also a highly generous man. 

[betsy]

Yep.  George Soros is right up there, pulling the strings.

 

Quote

 

ORGANIZATIONS FUNDED BY GEORGE SOROS AND HIS OPEN SOCIETY FOUNDATIONS

 

Advancement Project: This organization works to organize "communities of color" into politically cohesive units while disseminating its leftist worldviews and values as broadly as possible by way of a sophisticated communications department.

 

America's Voice: This open-borders group seeks to promote “comprehensive” immigration reform that includes a robust agenda in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens.

 

American Bar Association Commission on Immigration Policy: This organization "opposes laws that require employers and persons providing education, health care, or other social services to verify citizenship or immigration status."

 

American Civil Liberties Union: This group opposes virtually all post-9/11 national security measures enacted by the U.S. government. It supports open borders, has rushed to the defense of suspected terrorists and their abettors, and appointed former New Left terrorist Bernardine Dohrn to its Advisory Board.

 

American Friends Service Committee: This group views the United States as the principal cause of human suffering around the world. As such, it favors America's unilateral disarmament, the dissolution of American borders, amnesty for illegal aliens, the abolition of the death penalty, and the repeal of the Patriot Act.

 

American Immigration Council: This non-profit organization is a prominent member of the open-borders lobby. It advocates expanded rights and amnesty for illegal aliens residing in the U.S.

 

American Immigration Law Foundation: This group supports amnesty for illegal aliens, on whose behalf it litigates against the U.S. government.

 

more......

 

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1237

 

 

Edited September 6, 2017 by betsy

[Michael Hardner]

11 hours ago, OftenWrong said:

The real muddle is in the idea of multiculturalism and how it was implemented, how it defeated its own principles and cannot work in the real world

Ok, if you feel that way then how did the incident in the OP happen ?  The US doesn't have multiculturalism right ?

Do you see the muddle now ?   The OP actually provides a counter-example to its thesis, which is a bizarre way to start a thread. "Hey everybody I'm trying to prove point A, here's an anecdote that provides evidence against A" 

[betsy]

33 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Ok, if you feel that way then how did the incident in the OP happen ?  The US doesn't have multiculturalism right ?

Do you see the muddle now ?   The OP actually provides a counter-example to its thesis, which is a bizarre way to start a thread. "Hey everybody I'm trying to prove point A, here's an anecdote that provides evidence against A" 

Yes, the US does have it!

If there are several varying cultures in a country, that's multi-culturalism.  It doesn't matter whether the idea is to have a "melting pot," as in the case(s) of some ethnic groups - they tend to group together.  Thus you have China Town, Vietnamese, Somali, Muslim, Italian, black, latino communities, etc......

There are some people from these ethnic backgrounds who do assimilate by living among the general population.

 

Explain how the OP provides a counter-example.

 

You think just because the philosophical term "multi-culturalism" wasn't around then, therefore there was no multi-culturalism? 

The term multi-culturalism as we know it - used by progressives -  is simply the acknowledgement that people want to practice their cultures and preserve their identities as a people.  Multi-culturalism openly supports and encourages that.  It's an ideology.

 

Quote

 

Multiculturalism is a term used in both sociology and political philosophy and can be confused with one another. It is an ambiguous term: it can mean a cultural pluralism in which the various ethnic groups collaborate and dialog with one another without having to sacrifice their particular identities.

Multiculturalism as a political philosophy involves ideologies and policies which vary widely,^[1] ranging from the advocacy of equal respect to the various cultures in a society, to policies of promoting the maintenance of cultural diversity, to policies in which people of various ethnic and religious groups are addressed by the authorities as defined by the group to which they belong.^[2][3]

Multiculturalism that promotes maintaining the distinctiveness of multiple cultures is often contrasted to other settlement policies such as social integration, cultural assimilation and racial segregation. Multiculturalism has been described as a "salad bowl" and "cultural mosaic".^[4]

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism

 

 

Edited September 6, 2017 by betsy

[Michael Hardner]

19 minutes ago, betsy said:

If there are several varying cultures in a country, that's multi-culturalism.  It doesn't matter whether the idea is to have a "melting pot," as in the case(s) of some ethnic groups - they tend to group together.  Thus you have China Town, Vietnamese, Somali, Muslim, Italian, black, latino communities, etc......

I was about to post disagreement with this, but in my research on my post I went to the wiki page on multiculturalism and found this:

 

In sociology and everyday usage it is a synonym for pluralism with the two terms often used interchangeably and refers to either specific mixed ethnic community areas where multiple cultural traditions exist or a single country within which they do. Groups associated with an aboriginal ethnic group and foreigner ethnic groups are most often the focus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism

So I suppose if we're talking about the sociological aspect of this ambiguous definition then you are right.  Be warned, though, that it's not the same as political or 'official' multiculturalism.  

19 minutes ago, betsy said:

There are some people from these ethnic backgrounds who do assimilate by living among the general population.

Which ones ?

 

19 minutes ago, betsy said:

 

Explain how the OP provides a counter-example.

Now that I understand you're talking about 'pluralism', the muddle is solved for me.  But it seems that the OP is saying it's difficult (impossible ?) for races to live together.

 

19 minutes ago, betsy said:

 

You think just because the term "multi-culturalism" wasn't around then, therefore there was no multi-culturalism?

Then ?  When ?  Didn't this incident happen in recent times ?

 Even when clearing up the 'muddle' more questions are introduced.  I suppose if somebody knows your posting, and ignores the ambiguous language and says "I know what she means" then everything is honky dory.   

So it's hard to disagree that "multiculturalism is headed for a serious confrontation (to say the least), among people of various cultures and/or races."  My question is how you would quantify the degree of "seriousness" of such confrontations over time, over different cultures, and how you would isolate the impacts of different contributing factors.

 

[betsy]

1 hour ago, Michael Hardner said:

Which ones ?

Chinese, Blacks, etc..,

 

 

Quote

Now that I understand you're talking about 'pluralism', the muddle is solved for me.  But it seems that the OP is saying it's difficult (impossible ?) for races to live together.

It's not  races.  It's  cultures!  Like I've said, some people from various ethnic groups had assimilated into society.

If we'll apply the ideology of multi-culturalism - yes, it will only result in tribalism.....since it encourages enclaves, and practice of cultures.    Cultures that clashes cannot live together for long without having any conflicts.  That's just the logical reality!

 

 

Quote

Then ?  When ?  Didn't this incident happen in recent times ?

Chinese and blacks have been in the west since when?

 

 

Quote

So it's hard to disagree that "multiculturalism is headed for a serious confrontation (to say the least), among people of various cultures and/or races."  My question is how you would quantify the degree of "seriousness" of such confrontations over time, over different cultures, and how you would isolate the impacts of different contributing factors.

Perhaps we're just seeing a certain kind of "seriousness," now that we see nationalists, and migrants clashing (not necessarily physically - as exampled by the fight for the right to wear a burqua despite it clashing with laws that requires identification ).   The growing anti-immigrant sentiments - not only in this continent - is a testament to that.

 

Edited September 6, 2017 by betsy

[Michael Hardner]

1 minute ago, betsy said:

Chinese, Blacks, etc..,

Ok, I think I get it.  Koreans formed an enclave and didn't assimilate.

 

2 minutes ago, betsy said:

If we'll apply the ideology of multi-culturalism - yes, it will only result in tribalism.....since it encourages enclaves, and practice of cultures.    Cultures that clashes cannot live together for long without having any conflicts.  That's just the logical reality!

It's not 'logical' as you haven't attempted to qualify/quantify this.  Official Multiculturalism will not define interaction between groups, but may influence it.  Unless you can assess the impact somehow, you're just supposing.  

 

3 minutes ago, betsy said:

Perhaps we're just seeing a certain kind of "seriousness," now that we see nationalists, and migrants clashing.  

Again, you haven't quantified anything.

[betsy]

8 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

It's not 'logical' as you haven't attempted to qualify/quantify this.  Official Multiculturalism will not define interaction between groups, but may influence it.  Unless you can assess the impact somehow, you're just supposing. 

It's not a supposition, Michael.

We have the Yakuza, the Mexican drug cartel, the Latino gangs, etc.., - and they do impact greatly!    What about gender selection abortion?  Wouldn't that affect the ratio of females/males?

How about Sharia law?  You think if the Muslim population has grown large enough that they become the majority - that wouldn't affect our governments and laws?  You think leaders now aren't trying to appease them for their votes?

It's not the impact that involves violence alone (as seen in the OP), that we talk about here.  It's the impact on how it will shape the nation in the near future.

 

Edited September 6, 2017 by betsy

[Michael Hardner]

3 minutes ago, betsy said:

It's not a supposition, Michael.

We have the Yakuza, the Mexican drug cartel, the Latino gangs, etc.., - and they do impact greatly!    What about gender selection abortion?  Wouldn't that affect the ratio of females/males?

What about them ?  Is this applicable to Canada or the US ?  Just saying 'what about the Yakuza ?' is meaningless without context.  What about ISIS ?  What about the KGB ?  They exist but you have to show objective evidence to convince people.  

Here's a cite of a study:

http://www.newsweek.com/sex-selection-abortion-rife-us-447403

One major study that analyzed U.S. census data from 2000 found that third births in families of foreign-born Chinese, Indians and Koreans in the U.S. who already had two daughters displayed a ratio of 151 boys to 100 girls—an extreme male-biased ratio.

That's quantifiable, and although you can have an emotional/moral reaction the impact in terms of numbers is likely marginal.

3 minutes ago, betsy said:

How about Sharia law?  You think if the Muslim population has grown large enough that they become the majority - that wouldn't affect our governments and laws?  You think leaders now aren't trying to appease them for their votes?

If the Muslim population grew large enough, and if they didn't assimilate, and then if they occupied enough power in the legislature and courts then yes we would have the threat of religious legislation.  How much of a risk is that, assessed against the risk of other groups or the population in general moving to change Canada's democracy.  I think you would sooner see removal of all constitutional provisions for freedom of religion than this.

Are leaders trying to appease them ?  Appease is a loaded word.  Any demographic group has influence, but the mass of Canadians demands loyalty and acceptance of the Canadian way of life.  The democratic system works, have faith in it.

 

3 minutes ago, betsy said:

It's not the impact that involves violence alone (as seen in the OP), that we talk about here.  It's the impact on how it will shape the nation in the near future.

In the near future it will cause fights, and hopefully people like yourself will make themselves heard and in turn understand and engage with our systems and make them reflect the broader wishes of the people, ie. improve our engagement model.

[betsy]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

If the Muslim population grew large enough, and if they didn't assimilate, and then if they occupied enough power in the legislature and courts then yes we would have the threat of religious legislation.  How much of a risk is that, assessed against the risk of other groups or the population in general moving to change Canada's democracy.  I think you would sooner see removal of all constitutional provisions for freedom of religion than this.

 

Well, Muslims was just the example that came up.  It doesn't have to be Muslims!  It's any group that grows up to have the clout!

[betsy]

2 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

In the near future it will cause fights

 

That's what I've been saying. 

 

 

Quote

and hopefully people like yourself will make themselves heard

How?  If rights and freedom have already been so eroded, and scrapped? 

Besides, why wait until it comes?  What happened to "prevention?"

 

 

Quote

and in turn understand and engage with our systems and make them reflect the broader wishes of the people, ie. improve our engagement model.

Assuming it's still our system that's in placed.  But what if it's another kind of system?

"Make them reflect on the broader wishes of the people."    Oh, boy.

  Like  when peddlers of democracy - or human rights - try to engage with the Talibans?   Or, Communist China?

 

 

 

Edited September 6, 2017 by betsy

[Michael Hardner]

20 minutes ago, betsy said:

Well, Muslims was just the example that came up.  It doesn't have to be Muslims!  It's any group that grows up to have the clout!

Any group... means white nationalists, which would have a leg up on any group of newer Canadians in that they would understand the institutions and legal processes that they would need to exploit.

[betsy]

1 minute ago, Michael Hardner said:

Any group... means white nationalists, which would have a leg up on any group of newer Canadians in that they would understand the institutions and legal processes that they would need to exploit.

Nationalists....are the people from the host country?  Like in USA/Canada, that would be the European whitey folks?

Edited September 6, 2017 by betsy

[Michael Hardner]

13 minutes ago, betsy said:

Quote

 

How?  If rights and freedom have already been so eroded, and scrapped? 

Besides, why wait until it comes?  What happened to "prevention?"

Yes, I'm talking about prevention.  The fact is that people are worried about things that are decades, or a century away.  The bright side, is that they're learning how the system works and hopefully engaging... in a positive way.

14 minutes ago, betsy said:

Assuming it's still our system that's in placed.  But what if it's another kind of system?

 

There's no "too late".  People are acting now... "too early".

[Michael Hardner]

Just now, betsy said:

Nationalists....are the people from the host country?  Like in USA/Canada, that would be the European whitey folks?

No, a subset of them.

[betsy]

7 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Yes, I'm talking about prevention.  The fact is that people are worried about things that are decades, or a century away.  The bright side, is that they're learning how the system works and hopefully engaging... in a positive way.

 

You can't say it's the "bright side,"  if you don't know whether they're learning the system in a positive way!

 

Besides......positive for who?

 

From what we see.....looks like they're learning the system in a NEGATIVE way (for us), so they can take advantage of it and use it against us! 

Thus you see our courts tied up in litigations.......and we end up awarding millions of dollars to terrorists fighting alongside our enemies, who are killing our own soldiers!

Edited September 6, 2017 by betsy

[betsy]

6 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

No, a subset of them.

They are them!

[Michael Hardner]

5 minutes ago, betsy said:

You can't say it's the "bright side,"  if you don't know whether they're learning the system in a positive way!

I suppose so, but I can only assume that people are not planning to subvert the system and undermine it.  If such people are such patriots, then it doesn't make sense that they would do that.

5 minutes ago, betsy said:

Besides......positive for who?

It's positive for everyone if the system better reflects the will of the electors.

5 minutes ago, betsy said:

 

1. From what we see.....looks like they're learning the system in a NEGATIVE way (for us), so they can take advantage of it and use it against us! 

2. Thus you see our courts tied up in litigations.......and we end up awarding millions of dollars to terrorists fighting alongside our enemies, who are killing our own soldiers!

1. No, you're not getting it.  "They" are people like you - who believe the system needs to change to reflect their views on immigration, etc.  Scroll up and read it again, I think you got lost.

2. That's a different question entirely.  Don't muddle up the discussion now, we're getting somewhere.

 

3 minutes ago, betsy said:

3. They are them!

3.  No.  Again, the question was about who was using the system - long established Canadians, white nationalists was the example - and how.  These are different groups.  I'm a long established Canadian but not a white nationalist.

[betsy]

4 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

I suppose so,

but I can only assume

 

There, that's the problem, Michael.  I'm glad you finally admit it.

Nothing wrong with making assumptions...... however, you can't really use it as an argument in the face of evidence that supports the contrary.

 

 

Edited September 6, 2017 by betsy