Is Diversity and Multiculturalism a Good or Bad Thing?

[Cedoria]

Funny how the bit I bolded is something the mono-nationalists are always happy to say about other people's lands, but then when asked to apply it to their own territories and societies, they go predictably ballistic.

Hence why I don't take these kinds of ethnic-nationalist rantings very seriously.

I said its centuries ago not current affairs

But minorities have lived in predominately 'White' countries for centuries too. By that logic then, you should have no problem with them remaining, yet clearly, you do.

That's the point I'm trying to make.

[Iyanden]

No body said that. Nobody has a problem with say the Sikhs or Hindus or the Tibetan refugees and they are laregely brown skinned its about culture.

Of course it is.

I for one would much prefer to remove our culture of bombing large foreign populations overseas and contributing to the wars they generally flee from. I'm sure many others dislike that part of my culture as well. I don't get barred from foreign travel because of it.

Once again, the 'standards' these mono-culturalists impose is always one-way, and thus hypocritical (even when they do define exactly what they mean by integration, which is virtually never.)

Either it applies to your own society and everybody else's, or you are making rules for different groups on the basis of ethnicity, which is racism, purely by definition.

I never talked about race or ethnicity. Islam is not a race. Didn't you read my points on the Sikhs, Buddhists and Hindus who are largely brown but they don't have the same problem as they integrated

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

You have to remember. A large many of the people preaching against Muslim immigration view the "brown threat" as a disease (or zombie horde, to keep with Z-Day) that if allowed in, will "corrupt" Europe. One brown person gets in? London is being invaded.

No body said that. Nobody has a problem with say the Sikhs or Hindus or the Tibetan refugees and they are laregely brown skinned its about culture.

Lololol. No one has a problem with Sikhs? In 2013, the British Sikh Report report showed that 73% of Sikhs in Britain had experienced racism. I can almost guarantee that a majority of Westerners couldn't tell you the difference between a Sikh and a Muslim. Ignorance is what leads to your kind of racism.

[Iyanden]

No body said that. Nobody has a problem with say the Sikhs or Hindus or the Tibetan refugees and they are laregely brown skinned its about culture.

Of course it is.

I for one would much prefer to remove our culture of bombing large foreign populations overseas and contributing to the wars they generally flee from. I'm sure many others dislike that part of my culture as well. I don't get barred from foreign travel because of it.

Once again, the 'standards' these mono-culturalists impose is always one-way, and thus hypocritical (even when they do define exactly what they mean by integration, which is virtually never.)

Either it applies to your own society and everybody else's, or you are making rules for different groups on the basis of ethnicity, which is racism, purely by definition.

The wars don't 99 percent of the population didn't decide to start isn't culture and its not ingrained in culture like warrior cultures of the past for example. I don't think that getting involved in bombing places in the middle east is a good idea either

[Iyanden]

No body said that. Nobody has a problem with say the Sikhs or Hindus or the Tibetan refugees and they are laregely brown skinned its about culture.

Lololol. No one has a problem with Sikhs? In 2013, the British Sikh Report report showed that 73% of Sikhs in Britain had experienced racism. I can almost guarantee that a majority of Westerners couldn't tell you the difference between a Sikh and a Muslim. Ignorance is what leads to your kind of racism.

My kind of "racism" what did I say that's racist. I want a quote. I don't believe any race is inferior or hate a race

[Cedoria]

Of course it is.

I for one would much prefer to remove our culture of bombing large foreign populations overseas and contributing to the wars they generally flee from. I'm sure many others dislike that part of my culture as well. I don't get barred from foreign travel because of it.

Once again, the 'standards' these mono-culturalists impose is always one-way, and thus hypocritical (even when they do define exactly what they mean by integration, which is virtually never.)

Either it applies to your own society and everybody else's, or you are making rules for different groups on the basis of ethnicity, which is racism, purely by definition.

I never talked about race or ethnicity. Islam is not a race. Didn't you read my points on the Sikhs, Buddhists and Hindus who are largely brown but they don't have the same problem as they integrated

But how many average people on the street can tell the difference between a Sikh and a Muslim, for example?

Not many, I'd wager, given how many perpatrators of hate crimes accidently target Sikhs instead of Muslims.

So despite this attempt at hand-waving, it IS about race, if only because many people tend to make judgements about what a person's religion likely is based on their race. That's not to say it actually matters, but people's perceptions about it do tend to skew that way.

I'd wager you find a pale-skinned person who has converted to Islam probably gets less harassment on the train than a woman wearing a hijab, even if they are members of the same faith.

[Iyanden]

I never talked about race or ethnicity. Islam is not a race. Didn't you read my points on the Sikhs, Buddhists and Hindus who are largely brown but they don't have the same problem as they integrated

But how many average people on the street can tell the difference between a Sikh and a Muslim, for example?

Not many, I'd wager, given how many perpatrators of hate crimes accidently target Sikhs instead of Muslims.

So despite this attempt at hand-waving, it IS about race, if only because many people tend to make judgements about what a person's religion likely is based on their race. That's not to say it actually matters, but people's perceptions about it do tend to skew that way.

I'd wager you find a pale-skinned person who has converted to Islam probably gets less harassment on the train than a woman wearing a hijab, even if they are members of the same faith.

I don't think its about race at least for me it isn't. I admire Tibetan culture and most of them are brownish skinned for example.

[Cedoria]

Of course it is.

I for one would much prefer to remove our culture of bombing large foreign populations overseas and contributing to the wars they generally flee from. I'm sure many others dislike that part of my culture as well. I don't get barred from foreign travel because of it.

Once again, the 'standards' these mono-culturalists impose is always one-way, and thus hypocritical (even when they do define exactly what they mean by integration, which is virtually never.)

Either it applies to your own society and everybody else's, or you are making rules for different groups on the basis of ethnicity, which is racism, purely by definition.

The wars don't 99 percent of the population didn't decide to start isn't culture and its not ingrained in culture like warrior cultures of the past for example. I don't think that getting involved in bombing places in the middle east is a good idea either

I never said or implied you did. What's more, it's reasonably likely a fairly high percentage of migrants don't think suicide bombings in the subway are smart either. My point is your application of different standards to different groups on arbitrary criteria. Thus your claim to be only concerned with culture is disingenuous, at best.

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

But how many average people on the street can tell the difference between a Sikh and a Muslim, for example?

Not many, I'd wager, given how many perpatrators of hate crimes accidently target Sikhs instead of Muslims.

So despite this attempt at hand-waving, it IS about race, if only because many people tend to make judgements about what a person's religion likely is based on their race. That's not to say it actually matters, but people's perceptions about it do tend to skew that way.

I'd wager you find a pale-skinned person who has converted to Islam probably gets less harassment on the train than a woman wearing a hijab, even if they are members of the same faith.

I don't think its about race at least for me it isn't. I admire Tibetan culture and most of them are brownish skinned for example.

I love you, mate. Yeah, Arabs are dark skinned. So are Native Americans. Doesn't make them the same race. Not all "brown skinned" people are one race.

[Iyanden]

The wars don't 99 percent of the population didn't decide to start isn't culture and its not ingrained in culture like warrior cultures of the past for example. I don't think that getting involved in bombing places in the middle east is a good idea either

I never said or implied you did. What's more, it's reasonably likely a fairly high percentage of migrants don't think suicide bombings in the subway are smart either. My point is your application of different standards to different groups on arbitrary criteria. Thus your claim to be only concerned with culture is disingenuous, at best.

what different standards

[Iyanden]

No body said that. Nobody has a problem with say the Sikhs or Hindus or the Tibetan refugees and they are laregely brown skinned its about culture.

Lololol. No one has a problem with Sikhs? In 2013, the British Sikh Report report showed that 73% of Sikhs in Britain had experienced racism. I can almost guarantee that a majority of Westerners couldn't tell you the difference between a Sikh and a Muslim. Ignorance is what leads to your kind of racism.

Also I cab tell apart the Sikhs and Muslims. Sikhs have turbans on top of their head as a part of their religion and usually have beards

[Cedoria]

But how many average people on the street can tell the difference between a Sikh and a Muslim, for example?

Not many, I'd wager, given how many perpatrators of hate crimes accidently target Sikhs instead of Muslims.

So despite this attempt at hand-waving, it IS about race, if only because many people tend to make judgements about what a person's religion likely is based on their race. That's not to say it actually matters, but people's perceptions about it do tend to skew that way.

I'd wager you find a pale-skinned person who has converted to Islam probably gets less harassment on the train than a woman wearing a hijab, even if they are members of the same faith.

I don't think its about race at least for me it isn't. I admire Tibetan culture and most of them are brownish skinned for example.

I'm sorry, but I truly don't believe you've reached that stage of cultural ecumenicism that you would welcome somebody like that into your society, unless you had reassured yourself that their 'funny accents and costumes' were no threat beforehand.

If you have, you are in a very small minority. That STILL doesn't change the fact that most of the people claiming to be concerned about Muslim integration aren't capable of distinguishing a Muslim from any vaguely dark-skinned person they see. It also doesn't change the fact that disliking a religion CAN also mean one is a racist. While it's possible to dislike Islam and not Muslims, it's also possible to dislike both, and therein lies the conundrum.

What YOU think may be more generous and reasoned than most, that doesn't change the problems that your position brings up.

[Iyanden]

I don't think its about race at least for me it isn't. I admire Tibetan culture and most of them are brownish skinned for example.

I love you, mate. Yeah, Arabs are dark skinned. So are Native Americans. Doesn't make them the same race. Not all "brown skinned" people are one race.

That was one of my points. You were saying stuff about people seeing brown people like a disease but that isn't true and brown people aren't a homogenous group.

[Iyanden]

I don't think its about race at least for me it isn't. I admire Tibetan culture and most of them are brownish skinned for example.

I'm sorry, but I truly don't believe you've reached that stage of cultural ecumenicism that you would welcome somebody like that into your society, unless you had reassured yourself that their 'funny accents and costumes' were no threat beforehand.


If you have, you are in a very small minority. That STILL doesn't change the fact that most of the people claiming to be concerned about Muslim integration aren't capable of distinguishing a Muslim from any vaguely dark-skinned person they see. It also doesn't change the fact that disliking a religion CAN also mean one is a racist. While it's possible to dislike Islam and not Muslims, it's also possible to dislike both, and therein lies the conundrum.

What YOU think may be more generous and reasoned than most, that doesn't change the problems that your position brings up.

Lot of your points seem to be based on what you think. For example your claim that "That STILL doesn't change the fact that most of the people claiming to be concerned about Muslim integration aren't capable of distinguishing a Muslim from any vaguely dark-skinned person they see" how do you know that is the case

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

I love you, mate. Yeah, Arabs are dark skinned. So are Native Americans. Doesn't make them the same race. Not all "brown skinned" people are one race.

That was one of my points. You were saying stuff about people seeing brown people like a disease but that isn't true and brown people aren't a homogenous group.

So, if I put a Muslim and a Sikh in front of you, you could tell me the differences that would lead you to know which was which? That's the problem. People can't tell the difference so they group them in as the "brown threat".

[Cedoria]

I never said or implied you did. What's more, it's reasonably likely a fairly high percentage of migrants don't think suicide bombings in the subway are smart either. My point is your application of different standards to different groups on arbitrary criteria. Thus your claim to be only concerned with culture is disingenuous, at best.

what different standards

You stated in responses to prior refutations of your claims about Britain being monocultural in the past that 'those who had been their for hundreds of years after conquering land now own the land' (or something to that effect, I'm paraphrasing you).

I have encountered this line of defense before among mono-culturalists. I was merely pointing that Muslims in Europe HAVE been around for centuries, and that inter-cultural mingling has also taken place. Thus, if you truly believed the statement you had made, you would have absolutely no disagreement with present migrants.

The fact that this is not the case means that the idea of someone being there for hundreds of years is reason enough to allow them to say they 'own' the place is something you apply to cultural groups you like (Anglo-Saxons for example). Thus meaning it IS about race, despite your protestations to the contrary.

I can't say I'm surprised, as I said, I've never met a monoculturalist who was fine applying to themselves and their societies the same standards they routinely demand others comply to. They can cover it up with words like 'culture' and 'tradition' all they like, nobody should be fooled.

[Cedoria]

I'm sorry, but I truly don't believe you've reached that stage of cultural ecumenicism that you would welcome somebody like that into your society, unless you had reassured yourself that their 'funny accents and costumes' were no threat beforehand.


If you have, you are in a very small minority. That STILL doesn't change the fact that most of the people claiming to be concerned about Muslim integration aren't capable of distinguishing a Muslim from any vaguely dark-skinned person they see. It also doesn't change the fact that disliking a religion CAN also mean one is a racist. While it's possible to dislike Islam and not Muslims, it's also possible to dislike both, and therein lies the conundrum.

What YOU think may be more generous and reasoned than most, that doesn't change the problems that your position brings up.

Lot of your points seem to be based on what you think. For example your claim that "That STILL doesn't change the fact that most of the people claiming to be concerned about Muslim integration aren't capable of distinguishing a Muslim from any vaguely dark-skinned person they see" how do you know that is the case

I hear a lot of them talk.

Plus there's a lot of statistical data to back it up.

https://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/t ... e-victims/

http://www.latimes.com/local/california ... story.html

http://saalt.org/policy-change/post-9-11-backlash/


And a report from my home land to show the problem is widespread.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/pro ... ms/8584130


But go on, tell me how most people who have a problem with Muslim immigrants are capable of distinguishing them from any vaguely dark-skinned person they see. They have no idea about it, I can assure you. If you do, once again, you are in a very small minority.

[Iyanden]

what different standards

You stated in responses to prior refutations of your claims about Britain being monocultural in the past that 'those who had been their for hundreds of years after conquering land now own the land' (or something to that effect, I'm paraphrasing you).

I have encountered this line of defense before among mono-culturalists. I was merely pointing that Muslims in Europe HAVE been around for centuries, and that inter-cultural mingling has also taken place. Thus, if you truly believed the statement you had made, you would have absolutely no disagreement with present migrants.

The fact that this is not the case means that the idea of someone being there for hundreds of years is reason enough to allow them to say they 'own' the place is something you apply to cultural groups you like (Anglo-Saxons for example). Thus meaning it IS about race, despite your protestations to the contrary.

I can't say I'm surprised, as I said, I've never met a monoculturalist who was fine applying to themselves and their societies the same standards they routinely demand others comply to. They can cover it up with words like 'culture' and 'tradition' all they like, nobody should be fooled.

The Turks took over Anatolia and Istanbul(Constantinople back then) and I think they have as much right to it for owning it for centuries as to the English do in England. The Muslims never ruled England. Also its not racist to claim that a group of people that built a country on land they owned for centuries have a right to it

[Cedoria]

That was one of my points. You were saying stuff about people seeing brown people like a disease but that isn't true and brown people aren't a homogenous group.

So, if I put a Muslim and a Sikh in front of you, you could tell me the differences that would lead you to know which was which? That's the problem. People can't tell the difference so they group them in as the "brown threat".

Of course they can't tell the difference. As I said, the hate crimes statistics assert to that.

[Iyanden]

That was one of my points. You were saying stuff about people seeing brown people like a disease but that isn't true and brown people aren't a homogenous group.

So, if I put a Muslim and a Sikh in front of you, you could tell me the differences that would lead you to know which was which? That's the problem. People can't tell the difference so they group them in as the "brown threat".

I would and I wouldn't harass the Muslim either. I have nothing against individuals unless they do something bad I am just a critic of the ideology.

[Cedoria]

So, if I put a Muslim and a Sikh in front of you, you could tell me the differences that would lead you to know which was which? That's the problem. People can't tell the difference so they group them in as the "brown threat".

I would and I wouldn't harass the Muslim either. I have nothing against individuals unless they do something bad I am just a critique of the ideology.

What ideology?

[Iyanden]

I would and I wouldn't harass the Muslim either. I have nothing against individuals unless they do something bad I am just a critique of the ideology.

What ideology?

Islam or rather most of Islam you have some sects that are wiling to follow secular laws although they are the minority.

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

So, if I put a Muslim and a Sikh in front of you, you could tell me the differences that would lead you to know which was which? That's the problem. People can't tell the difference so they group them in as the "brown threat".

I would and I wouldn't harass the Muslim either. I have nothing against individuals unless they do something bad I am just a critique of the ideology.

Alright. I'm sure you're totally being honest. I'd ask you to tell me the differences between a Sikh and a Muslim, but you're obviously going to just look it up and then read back whatever Wikipedia says.

[Iyanden]

I would and I wouldn't harass the Muslim either. I have nothing against individuals unless they do something bad I am just a critique of the ideology.

Alright. I'm sure you're totally being honest. I'd ask you to tell me the differences between a Sikh and a Muslim, but you're obviously going to just look it up and then read back whatever Wikipedia says.

Sikhs have their distinctive appearance with the special turban they wear

[Washington Resistance Army]

I would and I wouldn't harass the Muslim either. I have nothing against individuals unless they do something bad I am just a critique of the ideology.

Alright. I'm sure you're totally being honest. I'd ask you to tell me the differences between a Sikh and a Muslim, but you're obviously going to just look it up and then read back whatever Wikipedia says.

Sikhs have way cool turbans. Also their religion is from India.