>> ^longde:
^It's all a matter of perspective. I am not surprised to hear a white person say that whites are the most humanitarian on the planet. I could find anyone of a respective group say the same.

Let me just say, that some of the most racist people I've ever run across have been blacks. And against fellow blacks at that, based on their skin color being too "dark". In Canada and the US no less. Where europeans have gotten the beat down for the last 40 years for 'colonialism', everyone else believes they get a free ride.

If you want an example of ethnocentrism take a trip to Japan sometime, where if you're not full blooded Japanese, it can be a highly interesting and enlightening experience. My ex is Filipino-Japanese, and needless to say it was not a pleasant experience for her, or me.

I sure won't say that whites are the most humanitarian, but some of the most racist are 'people of various colors'. This is because they know they can manipulate the system to protect their own interests regardless of what happens, and no matter how liberal a society is. See the whole multiculturalism, cultural pluralism, assimilation arguments.

>> ^geo321:
>>Pprt
"Two of these women are alien to western civilization and do not deserve the privilege of being permitted to live in one of the most enlightened societies in history."
Can you expand on why they don't deserve to live in Canada?


Their religious faith impedes participation in Canadian society and further widens the chasms in an increasingly fractured multicultural nation, while the values they hold do not complement the impetus of the European desire to create a free and open society.

These kinds of parables are nonsense, and people just tack on at the end their favorite causes... "and what happens with the monkeys is the same reason why liberals support multiculturalism."


A couple of years ago in a neurolinguistic programming (NLP) lecture that I sat in on, the lecturer told an absolutely retarded parable that she claimed was true.

She and her husband were at a zoo, and they saw some polar bears that were walking around in only half of their enclosure because there used to be a fence there. Once the fence was removed, the polar bears were so used to the fence being there, that they didn't realize they could walk farther now.

Her husband jumped into the enclosure and showed them that there was no fence there, but then jumped out in a hurry after they realized they could attack him... ha ha... get it? It's so inspirational.

I later learned this is just a story that a number of NLP lecturers tell as if it happened to them.

^

Do you really not get what he is saying? I am not sure Pprt was even alluding to race in the way you are.

I think what he means is that multiculturalism has failed in certain respects because culture is such an innate part of who an individual is that to try and meld cultures together is so radical that it almost denies the meaning of culture itself... I think.

I think you guys are completely off base, but I can't tell because you won't come right out and say what you mean. Race is a made-up social construct, so I am not sure what legitamate scientific data exists linking race and crime.

I think you guys want to say that some scientist discovered that black and latinos are inherent criminals, but is afraid to publish the data.

"Multiculturalism" is simply a rhetorical tool, until someone gives an explicit definition. So, to say "multiculturalism has failed" is to say nothing at all. What exactly has failed?

>> ^jerryku:
Interesting stuff but I gotta wonder what this guy really thinks about black and Latino crime in the States, and if he's holding back on the topic for fear of having his career destroyed.


You bet.

Racial, ethnic and cultural differences are the ultimate black sheep for social scientists and genetic researchers.

They have a lingering paranoia that it's unethical to even consider differences and instead tippy toe around any findings they produce. I think it was Gladwell or perhaps another popular statistician that stumbled upon data so shocking concerning races in America that he intentionally refused to publish the results or even discuss them on camera.

I disagree with Gladwell in that cultures are malleable. Cultures can transform themselves, but to expect a culture to change is ridiculous.

Will a jetliner pilot learn to speak English if he wants to keep his job? Of course.

Is it ethical or even worth consideration to "improve" a culture through injection of xenoethnic aptitudes? Absolutely not.

Cultures will evolve as they see fit. Social engineering is no-one's business, which is why multiculturalism is a failed policy.

Well fucking said! Can I buy you a pint?

In reply to this comment by gorillaman:
It's precisely because the voters today are the same mindless bigoted scum of 50 and 100 years ago that democracy is a terrible idea. That's why people who actually know how to think like human beings should be making the decisions.

Nick Griffin and everyone who voted for the BNP should be executed. You don't just get to vote however you like; if your party of choice holds corrupt policies you are guilty of their crimes, potential and realised.

Morality and reason are not subject to time. The correct positions of today were the correct positions of 1000 years ago, will be the correct positions of 1000 years from now.

It is impossible that the BNP will be proven right. Were your multicultural cataclysm to come to pass in all its improbability, the BNP voters would still have been what they are now, which is irrational, rabid animals deserving only to be put down.

The position of an idea within or without the orthodoxy does not determine its value.

It's precisely because the voters today are the same mindless bigoted scum of 50 and 100 years ago that democracy is a terrible idea. That's why people who actually know how to think like human beings should be making the decisions.

Nick Griffin and everyone who voted for the BNP should be executed. You don't just get to vote however you like; if your party of choice holds corrupt policies you are guilty of their crimes, potential and realised.

Morality and reason are not subject to time. The correct positions of today were the correct positions of 1000 years ago, will be the correct positions of 1000 years from now.

It is impossible that the BNP will be proven right. Were your multicultural cataclysm to come to pass in all its improbability, the BNP voters would still have been what they are now, which is irrational, rabid animals deserving only to be put down.

The position of an idea within or without the orthodoxy does not determine its value.

Then you're saying democracy isn't a good idea? Or is it only a good idea when a party you're complacent about wins?

Suddenly the media is averse to political parties receiving money for funding: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1191424/BNP-5million-cash-boost-party-celebrates-Euro-election-successes.html and apparently violence against a party chief has become normal in Britain: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQOfykEImeg

It is unfortunate but inevitable that it has come to this, but the "right wing" will become increasingly prominent until the parties who've enjoyed decade-long governances realize that it is the common man who is most affected by their social engineering attempts. I can assure you that chauffeured MP and MEPs do not often take the bus with rowdy Africans or witness first-hand the injustice of affirmative action.

To anyone who has violent objections (or any objections at all to these "right wing" parties' right to exist), please imagine you were alive 50 years ago when minorities were fighting for the right to vote or 100 years ago when women had few legal rights.

Would you have been against them? Most probably, because that was the orthodoxy at the time.

Those concepts were primitive in retrospect, but the majority thought like that. It was only by perseverance that women and minorities swayed the tides and established what are today commonly accepted principles of equality.

Imagine that in 100 years from now it turns out multiculturalism was indeed a catastrophic failure that not only destroyed once healthy societies but so diluted European culture that it ceased to exist, that dozens of countries who've contributed so much to humanity have become so ethnically identical that they've lost all discernible elements.

Suppose people like the BNP voters are correct, just as women were in the early 1900s. If most people could go back in time, I'm certain they'd at least provide the Suffragettes at least some respect and dignity.

I'd expect any civil person to exercise that same respect for ideas outside the current orthodoxy today.

If it were not for people who challenge the status quo, nothing in the history of the world would have ever changed.

I do not understand the point of this post. It seems like the real target is multiculturalism, and it's general defense of Islam. Because if it were simply directed at Islamism, it seems like an awful lot of bother over an ideology so obviously absurd to modern Western sensibilities. You'll have no argument from your peers as to the legitimacy of anything this fellow espouses, except for on the grounds of "tolerance".

So in the absence of anyone with whom to quarrel, you may as well begin bemoaning other, equally pathetic, social phenomenon, such as serial killers, rapists, pedophiles, etc. But what would be the point, right?

And so I suspect the actual target of your righteous indignation is not the Islamist himself, but the liberal social response. And that would at least make for a sensible discussion. On its face however, it merely seems like a masturbatory rant.

The strife and conflict multiculturalism has wrought is truly dreadful.

As far as digital goes, seeing as so many of you in the States use cable, then I would imagine the switch wouldn't mean as much.

Here in Australia, we still aren't up to the full switch over date, but I've been using digital set top boxes/pvrs for the past few years and am UTTERLY sold on digital transmission vs Analogue. Why?

Upsides
* Reception: Much better reception. With the same signal strength that would provide fuzzy, ghosting images in analogue, the digital signal is crystal clear. A friend's moved into a house and was getting only a couple of channels, and those poorly. When I went over I discovered that there was no aerial cable, just the cord going into the wall which would end in an open termination. I gave her an old set top box... voila, all stations in great quality... using NO AERIAL, just the aerial cable connected to nothing!

* Clarity: Over and above the better reception, the image, whether SD or HD, is just clearer and more vibrant... very nice to watch.

* EPG: The channels transmit up to a week's worth of program information, so you can bring that up, find the shows you want and set them to tape automatically on your....

* PVR: Having a digital signal means it's far easier to record to a digital media... hence PVRs, hence no more tapes, hence having a nicely catalogued set of recordings... hence, we pretty much never watch anything 'live' on TV anymore... record everything and watch it when we have free time.

* More channels: Sort of... here in Australia we only have 5 main stations (ABC (government run), SBS (multicultural etc.), 7,9,10 (commercial stations)). Now, the ABC has ABC2 with extra shows, many great, and the other stations sometimes actually show different things on their HD channels vs their SD channels (although things are about to change). The much heralded ability to have multiple views of sports etc. has never eventuated... could have been used to GREAT effect during the Beijing Olympics, but noooo, one channel, forced to watch what they want you to... so this plus point is only minor. (Although ABC2 is great)

Downsides?
* Rather than having a slow degradation of image quality if you don't have signal strength, you instead get digital breakup, which is far worse.

I love digital tv, and only wish the stations would use it better than they do.

>> ^NetRunner:
>> ^rottenseed:
I think that it was stupid to bring race into this. Proof that we're not over seeing people for the color of their skin. This is just a petty a cheap way to get a blow in there and perpetuate something that is merely in the mind.
sorry for the downvote, NetRunner, nothing against you. I think you're awesome.

I can see your point -- to truly end racism, race shouldn't matter.
But I don't think that's really the goal. We should see race, see the differences between our backgrounds, and understand how our differing backgrounds color both our viewpoint and the views of others.
We just shouldn't treat people as if their race makes them scary, deficient, or predictable. We can learn not to fear the unknown, and instead find that there is a pleasant discovery to be made in exploring both the similarity and the differences between us.
We should be happy to see the red man get ahead man.

Great, celebrate differences. Go to a multicultural fair at your local community park. The fact remains that in order to fulfill a job requirement, you must maintain the culture of the company you work for, no matter what you're doing at home. In this case the the employee is Obama, and the "company" is the United States of America. I don't care if he's praying facing the East every morning or praying at his bedside every night. It's really none of my business. What is my business, is if he can run this country.

stupid fucks. reminds me of this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcCFJAfLTJE
in which Radovan Karadzic and russian pro-serbian writer/poet Limonov look down on a dying Sarajevo in the midst of the long, sad siege of this once beatiful and vibrant multicultural capital, Karadzic explaining some bullshit reasons for the war they started, Limonov eating it up like a child and at the end even firing down on the city from a heavy caliber machine gun. wartime propaganda at its worst

>> ^Irishman:
>> ^Pprt:
Take a look at the faces: 0:18, 0:32, 0:50, 1:47, 1:53, 2:15 etc
There was even a Hezbollah flag there (the yellow one) and a poster of Ahmadinejad.

Jingoist.
Fear comes from ignorance. You should visit London some time.


I think you may want to crack open your OED before throwing around buzzwords.

By the way, multiculturalism isn't very special or even unique to London. Eventually (and it's already the case in some places), the demographics will be so similarly heterogeneous in most Western-European and North-American cities that traveling will become pointless, asides from seeing landmarks. Although the look of the land may be similar,the feel of the land will have melted away. It isn't a badge of honour to say the most important city in the UK is less and less British every year.

How would one explain the Hezbollah flag, I am curious? Does your typical John Chesterfield have some concern for a rebellious Lebanese political party? I think the answer rather lies in the fact that Mohamed is the 2nd most common given name in the UK.