Austrian election outcome

Post Reply New Topic

How did you get from "don't like multiculturalism" to "deport foreigners without cause"?



The problem with multiculturalism is that some people like it, but aren't capable of having a reasonable discussion with those who don't, preferring to instead manufacture statistics in order to vilify or dismiss them.



Rare? They're innate. But let's not conflate the minimal differences in culture between, i.e. Man Utd season ticket holders and Man City season ticket holders with the differences between peoples from different continents, whilst also remembering that some people are willing to escalate such minimal differences to the point of inflicting violence against others. But this is something of a digression.



The problem with multiculturalism is that some people like it, but aren't capable of having a reasonable discussion with those who don't, preferring to instead manufacture statistics in order to vilify or dismiss them.



"Multiculturalism" gets "bashed" when people believe it's being used as a cudgel to promote the interests of people of one cultural identity over their own. Sure, sometimes such people find it difficult to articulate their position, but that's true of the vast majority of political views expressed by Joe Public. Beyond parroting catchphrases, most people aren't especially fluent in political speech.



Of course, the fundamental problem here is that you either ignored my earlier response, failed to understand it or (if I take a cue from yourself and abandon the principle of charity) are wilfully ignoring it to maintain the pretence that "opposition to multiculturalism = bigotry". I'll continue to assume it's either one or two, because if it's option three there's little point in further discourse.

There is frequent conflation between "multiculturalism" - the existence of diverse cultural or ethnic groups within a society and "multiculturalism" the political processes or policies which are designed to manipulate or manage said diversity. Obviously there is some overlap, but they remain two distinct concepts.

Opposition to the former isn't necessarily born of ignorance, intolerance or bigotry, though it often is. Opposition to how the latter typically manifests is necessary to uphold liberalism. As Kenan Malik put it in his Secularism 2014 talk:



Transcript can be found here.

It's also possible to be neutral on multiculturalism itself but be against oversaturation. IMHO oversaturation, like millions pouring in with their own language to be greater than double-digit percentages of a host country's populace, is insane and has little to do with whether multiple divergent races from across the world can coexist in a big city. It seems like they can if multiple generations go by and the parents are tolerant of the political and religious views of their neighbors, where the religious institutions in the area are working to aid that assimilation rather than walk it backward, and where the community is centered around enjoying and celebrating the artistic, literary, and culinary treasures of each culture in question. Everything is working out well in that scenario and very few people would consider that a bad thing save those who have an isolationist perspective based on religion or ethnicity.

The problem in Europe is equivalent to how many Westboro Baptists from across the Mediterranean can the country take in without significant harm to government, economy, and the human rights demanded by a secular humanist society that cherishes liberal values. To the extent that people try to blur the lines or smudge the quantity factor out of the conversation is alarming.

They were, and are, regularly. If you don't like multiculturalism then vote for a party who are against it. We are a liberal representative democracy. We don't, and shouldn't, just do things which are popular.



You asked me to put a number on it. Don't complain when I do.


2000 people were arrested at football matches in the 2015/16 season. Many of them were for alcohol-related crime, entering the field of play, or possession of pyrotechnics, but many more were for public disorder, violent disorder, or throwing missiles. Compare that to 379 people arrested in connection with terrorism in the year ending June 2017.

I don't think crime at football matches is a significant societal issue any more, and I certainly don't want to persecute football supporters Thatcher-style in order to eradicate it.




Of course, the fundamental problem here is that you either ignored my earlier response, failed to understand it or (if I take a cue from yourself and abandon the principle of charity) are wilfully ignoring it to maintain the pretence that "opposition to multiculturalism = bigotry".[/quote]
Well, no, the fundamental problem here is that at least prior to this post you had provided nothing to support your opposition to multiculturalism beyond "terrorism is bad". Feel free to do so, as it would rather undermine my comments about how most opponents of multiculturalism are unable to provide coherent critiques of it. I end this post with some potential starting points that could help us move towards a common understanding.


I read the whole transcript. It's potentially a valid point, but restricts itself almost entirely to hypotheticals (the one exception I can remember is the Muslim who is told by an atheist that he isn't a real Muslim if he isn't offended by certain cartoons). You have done the same. This makes it difficult to understand what you are specifically objecting to, or what you mean by "multiculturalism".

When I talk about multiculturalism, I am talking of the existence of multiple cultures within society. Again, I think nagar kitan are probably the finest example of this in practice. As stated, we should not pander to cultural practices which are immoral, like genital mutilation, but we should embrace and celebrate our cultural diversity.

What sort of things are you referring to when you speak of "the political processes or policies which are designed to manipulate or manage the existence of diverse cultural or ethnic groups within a society"? A lot of things which could fit that definition are obvious goods - not allowing people to graffiti swastikas on Synagogues, for example. I am sure you aren't referring to that, or at least not primarily that sort of thing. What about arts councils providing a proportional level of funding to Indian dance troupes? Or councils granting planning permission for Mosques? Or faith schools receiving public money? Or faith schools existing at all?

I don't think the Austrian People's Party is calling for deportations. No serious party in the UK is either. The conservative party claimed it would lower immigration and it didn't. The fact that 71% of people think immigration is too high and yet our political overlords choose to pander to people's concerns with empty words and continue to allow hundreds of thousands of people into the country each year just proves our democracy is a sham.

I was pointing out the hypocrisy of demanding evidence whilst supplying none of your own.



I guess you want to explore the digression. Cultural clashing doesn't need to result in violence in order for it to be undesirable or disruptive, but violence as a result of cultural incompatibility is obviously almost always going to be both. If we must explore violence as a result of such, then comparing "terrorism" to "football hooliganism" is hardly comparing apples to apples. A better example might be to compare the number of "hate crimes" in the UK (80,000+ according to the UK police in 2016/17) to the number of crimes committed between rival fans in a similarly tumultuous period in football hooliganism (the 1970's), but this would still be of incredibly limited value.

The point is, such incidents are an indication of how common violence as the result of cultural differences is and they are well-documented, common occurrences.



I made no mention of terrorism. Clearly you're confusing me with Daniel (who probably confused a few others with his broken quote tree).



That wasn't necessary. I included it primarily because I quoted it. However, it should give you some insight into the motivation behind opposition to multiculturalism that's being pushed by the state.



"the political processes or policies which are designed to manipulate or manage said diversity"

If you want a specific example, I can think of no better one than Angela Merkel's (ok, technically the German Green Party's) "multikulti" immigration policy - the one she herself described as an "utterly failed" attempt.



But when you're talking about people who criticise multiculturalism, you're also talking about people who are opposed to the ideology of diversity policies such as the BBC's new diversity hiring quota. There's a world of difference between advocating for mutual respect and legislating against the expression of disrespect, but that could take us on something of a tangent.

What form would you like a "cultural diversity celebration" to take?



This is something of an aside, but I'll run with it out of curiosity. Why would we need to specifically disallow drawing swastikas on Synagogues when to do so already constitutes criminal damage? Prosecutors can recommend the maximum sentence based on it being aggravated.

On point, I wouldn't consider such legislation a means of "manipulating or managing the existence of diverse groups" so much as managing the relationship between existing groups.



Correct.



Proportional to demand, proportional to taxation or proportional to population? If the latter, proportional to perceived identity, genetic heritage or with respect to regional cultural diversity within India itself? What would you consider the "correct" level of cultural representation in all cases?



Not seeing how this is relevant either. A governmental policy which required every village, town or city have a mosque would be a problem. Private individuals (or groups of such) using money to pay for a building would not.



I'd prefer "faith" be kept out of the classroom until the age of majority in any school which receives public funding.

Would it be fair to say that you'd be fine with a society where people have slightly different cultures and backgrounds, and elements of culture drawn from all over the world, as long as different sub-cultures intermingled and were integrated together and the resulting society was completely respectful of individual autonomy and met? Take it as read that the society meets your standards on issues not relating to multiculturalism, like political freedom, the economy, etc.

Those societies do exist Singapore and the US being good examples and they can function well. I think problems arise when the natives populations are seeing the countries change without their consent or when religions or foreign cultures are given special permission. The thing that angers me the most is when you have middle class ethnic minority people on TV calling white people privileged and calling all whites racist.

Oh, I'm sure I'd find something to be dissatisfied with.

Munroe Bergdorf springs immediately to mind.

Yes, the UK is another good example.

Well, they're right...

The very best you could say for them is that they're "misguided", yet generalisations based on race are racist however you cut it.

Yours included.

I thought this was salient, even more so if Computing Forever happens to be a white nationalist.

The UK is a terrible example, Immigrants tend to keep to themselves.

So if you think all white people are privileged, why are working class males perceived as the worst group in society? Why are White people less likely to go to university?

He's right of Marx and has white skin so he clearly has no choice but to be.