War of the Worlds U.N. Migration Compact

[turningrite]

On 12/27/2018 at 3:40 PM, Truth Detector said:

Perhaps what you see as xenophobia is somebody's actual concern with the undermining of Canadian values.   Equality of women, etc.

Our "progressives" are quick to admonish those who raise legitimate concerns about the views of those who hold views generally antithetical to Canadian norms. It's an oddly discomfiting example of hypocritical cultural relativism, which insists that antithetical views be examined only in the context of incoming cultures while our norms remain open to criticism from all sides. The progressives, as exemplified by their high priest, JT, have created a neat but unconvincing work-around for this, arguing that this society has become "post-national" and therefore anything is permissible where values are concerned - except for mainstream values, of course, which must bend to accommodate new entrants. But then, progressives have ditched the whole idea of "mainstream" as well. JT tells us there is no mainstream, which is, of course, sociologically absurd. It seems to me like the goalposts get moved to accommodate only one side in this debate.

[Argus]

1 hour ago, turningrite said:

Our "progressives" are quick to admonish those who raise legitimate concerns about the views of those who hold views generally antithetical to Canadian norms.

Jonathan Haidt suggests there are two kinds of people (roughly). Type A is eager to see and experience new things, feels quite at home around strangeness and wildly different people and languages, has little real respect for traditions or respect for institutions and the state. They live for the here and now, for the experience and love diversity and novelty.

Type B has a more stolid, grounded view of life, values traditions and respects the state and its institutions, family and familiarity. These are people who feel a sense of kinship and belonging to the place they grew up in and the people they grew up with. And by extension, with the people of the nation they grew up and live in. It's not a sense of family, exactly, but certainly a sense of tribal affiliation, perhaps, or patriotism.

The first kind of people are overwhelmingly urban, and not just urban but live in large cities with universities. The second kind tend to live all over, but in urban areas and smaller cities have a much, much higher prevalence simply because type A tends to move away from those areas looking for novelty and newness.

The problem is that our national media is completely focused on those large urban centres and draws almost their entire stable of reporters and staff from Type A. And by and large they have declared that Type A is the only righteous type to be, and the views of Type B are illegitimate and unCanadian. And since they largely live in bubbles centred on those large urban aras they rarely wind up meeting or dealing with Type B, so have little idea how numerous they are. This was best evidenced by the declaration of repugnance at the idea of values testing for immigrants, where several declared the idea 'UnCanadian". Yet polls showed 75% of Canadians actually liked the idea.

The Type A types who are in charge of the mainstream media and arts have few cares or concerns with however many migrants and immigrants come into Canada, and even fewer about what that might do to Canadian traditions and values since they don't really value either. Type B, of course, has far more concerns, and the longer they are ignored and sneered at the angrier some of them are going to get.

Edited December 29, 2018 by Argus

[turningrite]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

Jonathan Haidt suggests there are two kinds of people (roughly). Type A is eager to see and experience new things, feels quite at home around strangeness and wildly different people and languages, has little real respect for traditions or respect for institutions and the state. They live for the here and now, for the experience and love diversity and novelty.

Type B has a more stolid, grounded view of life, values traditions and respects the state and its institutions, family and familiarity. These are people who feel a sense of kinship and belonging to the place they grew up in and the people they grew up with. And by extension, with the people of the nation they grew up and live in. It's not a sense of family, exactly, but certainly a sense of tribal affiliation, perhaps, or patriotism.

The first kind of people are overwhelmingly urban, and not just urban but live in large cities with universities. The second kind tend to live all over, but in urban areas and smaller cities have a much, much higher prevalence simply because type A tends to move away from those areas looking for novelty and newness.

The problem is that our national media is completely focused on those large urban centres and draws almost their entire stable of reporters and staff from Type A. And by and large they have declared that Type A is the only righteous type to be, and the views of Type B are illegitimate and unCanadian. And since they largely live in bubbles centred on those large urban aras they rarely wind up meeting or dealing with Type B, so have little idea how numerous they are. This was best evidenced by the declaration of repugnance at the idea of values testing for immigrants, where several declared the idea 'UnCanadian". Yet polls showed 75% of Canadians actually liked the idea.

The Type A types who are in charge of the mainstream media and arts have few cares or concerns with however many migrants and immigrants come into Canada, and even fewer about what that might do to Canadian traditions and values since they don't really value either. Type B, of course, has far more concerns, and the longer they are ignored and sneered at the angrier some of them are going to get.

I think there may be some cross-over between these two "types," however the analysis may well hold value as a general classification system. What is truly breathtaking, however, is the ability of our Type A media, political and activist types to embrace the values and interests of newcomers who clearly fit the Type B classification, particularly where social and religious issues are concerned. Is it not the ultimate form of hypocrisy for the Type A's to scream about xenophobia, or worse, when mainstream (if one is permitted to use that term these days) Canadians get irritated by some of the social customs and values newcomers bring with them and persist on maintaining? What's not to like about the promotion of gender inequality, homophobia, religious chauvinism or cultural exclusivity, provided one advocates for these things from a "diversity" perspective, right? Personally, I believe that much of the "accommodation" narrative amounts to pandering. As my mother, herself an immigrant, used to say when she was alive regarding the expectation that local norms be observed and respected: 'When in Rome...'

Edited December 29, 2018 by turningrite

[Argus]

4 hours ago, turningrite said:

I think there may be some cross-over between these two "types," however the analysis may well hold value as a general classification system. What is truly breathtaking, however, is the ability of our Type A media, political and activist types to embrace the values and interests of newcomers who clearly fit the Type B classification, particularly where social and religious issues are concerned. Is it not the ultimate form of hypocrisy for the Type A's to scream about xenophobia, or worse, when mainstream (if one is permitted to use that term these days) Canadians get irritated by some of the social customs and values newcomers bring with them and persist on maintaining? What's not to like about the promotion of gender inequality, homophobia, religious chauvinism or cultural exclusivity, provided one advocates for these things from a "diversity" perspective, right? Personally, I believe that much of the "accommodation" narrative amounts to pandering. As my mother, herself an immigrant, used to say when she was alive regarding the expectation that local norms be observed and respected: 'When in Rome...'

Well, yes, of course. But the mentality of embracing diversity includes making excuses for the 'culturally different' behaviour of newcomers, even though no such excuses are made for those who grow up here. You don't expect people from another nation, another culture, to behave like us, right, and it would be chauvinistic and arrogant, to this way of thinking, to condemn them for their cultural beliefs.  I think it's just the soft bigotry of liberal expectations at work.

Edited December 30, 2018 by Argus

[turningrite]

On 12/29/2018 at 8:54 PM, Argus said:

Well, yes, of course. But the mentality of embracing diversity includes making excuses for the 'culturally different' behaviour of newcomers, even though no such excuses are made for those who grow up here. You don't expect people from another nation, another culture, to behave like us, right, and it would be chauvinistic and arrogant, to this way of thinking, to condemn them for their cultural beliefs.  I think it's just the soft bigotry of liberal expectations at work.

What I find particularly problematic about the "progressive" diversity mindset is that it's grounded in an assumption that Canadian society is somehow intractably intolerant. Self-styled progressives seem to want to have it every which way. We're meant to be open and welcoming on the one hand, while at the same time being cast as parochial and xenophobic. A 2015 study declared Canada to be the most tolerant country on earth (link to article below) and I believe that another international study found Canada to be the 4th most tolerant country and yet we're told by progressives that this country is a hopeless cesspool of racism and intolerance that can only be cured by social engineering schemes in combination with curtailing free speech. (Interestingly, some of the countries from which Canada now receives most of its immigrants are considered to be among the most intolerant - but that's another issue.) I doubt that any reasonable person would argue that there's no racism or intolerance in Canada. And yet any little incident, even if it turns out to be a hoax like last year's supposed hijab attack against a schoolgirl in Toronto, is presented as an example of a society with a dark underbelly. Personally, I think we've all been had on a lot of this moralizing nonsense.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/canada-named-most-tolerant-country-in-the-world-1.2640276

Edited January 2, 2019 by turningrite