This is a short promotional film seeking a budget to be made into a full film documentary.
I myself, as a person who believes strongly in tolerance and cultural exchange, have my own problems with Islam with regards it's treatment of women and it's extremist applications in parts of the world.
But this level of intolerance leaves me boggled, what happened to the separation of church and state? And why is there such a rabid hatred of liberal views in the US, having moved to PA, I have been told by people who never stopped to ask me my own views, that liberals 'should be rounded up and shot', that environmentalists 'are all backed by the communists and are enemies of the nation'.
The vast majority of the population of the US are descended from immigrants of the last 300 years, it is a mixing bowl of peoples from across the planet.
I said to my wife the other night, that the US is at it's most amazing and beautiful when it unites, when it uses that hybrid vigour to do great things and when it leads the rest of the world into doing great things and it is at it's nadir when it finds it's self so absolutely divided, much as I have seen recently over politics and faith.
I moved over here, rather than my American wife moving to the UK, partly because of the bright optimism I had encountered in the US, the people believed in their country and in doing 'the right thing' and in 'freedom for all'. It was a refreshing change to the jaded post-imperial cynical hangover that we have in the UK. But that brightness has dimmed a very great deal in the past couple of years and the country feels so deeply divided and at loggerheads.
I saw a pickup truck yesterday with a bumper sticker that read 'Don't Re Nig in 2012 Get him out!' and can't really believe that not only does some ignorant bastard manufacture that, but that some other ignorant bastard would proudly display it. At first I was my usual vitriolic self and angry, then, just saddened and tired by it. It made me want to go home to the riots and class divisions of the UK.
Whether from the right or left, you are so much better than this. Will we see a return to more agreeable politics and a less divided nation or should Mrs S and I start looking into moving to Canada?
This is a short promotional film seeking a budget to be made into a full film documentary.
I myself, as a person who believes strongly in tolerance and cultural exchange, have my own problems with Islam with regards it's treatment of women and it's extremist applications in parts of the world.
But this level of intolerance leaves me boggled, what happened to the separation of church and state? And why is there such a rabid hatred of liberal views in the US, having moved to PA, I have been told by people who never stopped to ask me my own views, that liberals 'should be rounded up and shot', that environmentalists 'are all backed by the communists and are enemies of the nation'.
The vast majority of the population of the US are descended from immigrants of the last 300 years, it is a mixing bowl of peoples from across the planet.
I said to my wife the other night, that the US is at it's most amazing and beautiful when it unites, when it uses that hybrid vigour to do great things and when it leads the rest of the world into doing great things and it is at it's nadir when it finds it's self so absolutely divided, much as I have seen recently over politics and faith.
I moved over here, rather than my American wife moving to the UK, partly because of the bright optimism I had encountered in the US, the people believed in their country and in doing 'the right thing' and in 'freedom for all'. It was a refreshing change to the jaded post-imperial cynical hangover that we have in the UK. But that brightness has dimmed a very great deal in the past couple of years and the country feels so deeply divided and at loggerheads.
I saw a pickup truck yesterday with a bumper sticker that read 'Don't Re Nig in 2012 Get him out!' and can't really believe that not only does some ignorant bastard manufacture that, but that some other ignorant bastard would proudly display it. At first I was my usual vitriolic self and angry, then, just saddened and tired by it. It made me want to go home to the riots and class divisions of the UK.
Whether from the right or left, you are so much better than this. Will we see a return to more agreeable politics and a less divided nation or should Mrs S and I start looking into moving to Canada?
For those who can't open it, what is it about?
EDIT: just from reading, you do know that PA is militia country right?
Whether from the right or left, you are so much better than this. Will we see a return to more agreeable politics and a less divided nation or should Mrs S and I start looking into moving to Canada?
It's aboot time, eh? But in all seriousness, Canada is a great place obviously there's still ignorant people (but what place doesn't) fortunately they seem to be few in number.
Frazzled wrote:
For those who can't open it, what is it about?
EDIT: just from reading, you do know that PA is militia country right?
It's a film that centres around the proposed building of a mosque in Mufreesboro TN and the outcry from elements of the population and the further questions this raised about the division of church and state and about the divisions of right and left wing political belief within the US.
And yes, central PA is all about shopping for a chainsaw whilst carrying a gun. I feel the odd one out because I don't wear a baseball cap nor drive a pickup. It is a great leap from inner city Bristol.
PA should certainly not be taken as representative of the US as a whole. Nor should a (rather vocal) minority group be considered as "what America believes". We have issues, every country does. We also have issues I would say are fairly unique to us with regards to immigration "control"; what other country sees as large an influx of foreign population as the US?
We also have a somewhat large divide within our own population; the North East and the West Coast are extremely different in both ideology and mindset than say, the mid-west. This owes to several factors including average education level, income, and religious influence (it's called the Bible Belt for a reason). Some states are considered "backwards", others are considered "progressive". Often times they are not very far from each other.
You're in PA. Take a day trip over to Maryland, one of your neighboring states. Maryland has rough areas near the PA border, but as you get to places like Annapolis or Columbia, I guarantee you'll see an entirely different mindset.
Tennessee makes good barbeque. I want to retire in the Smokies. I am sick to death of HOT.
Is this that giant mosque in Mufreesboro? There are like 20 people in Mufreesboro. How are they going to support a multimillion dollar mosque? I could see Memphis but Mufreesboro? Hopefully they took some surveys or something to see if its suffiicent population to support and its not a bust.
Going to agree with Frazzled on this one. I lived in Baltimore City, and now live in rural Howard County Maryland. My neighbors here would never dream of ordering pizza, then beating the pizza guy to a pulp and driving off in a stolen car. (Fortunately not the Pizza guy's.)
The sad reality in my opinion is that there is no real one wonderful place to live, it simply comes down to what you are aware of when you are out there. The US (as a horrible, aggregate statement) does push the bright optimism that you describe, but it is more out of believing that their way is the best way, and so any conflicting evidence tends to get pushed out by group cognitive dissonance and things become very us vs them in many facets of daily life with politics and religion being the two worst by far. The UK has the horrific 'look how bad things are' media that seems to exist to make people feel miserable. Japan has amazing dynamism and personal honour, but one of the most restrictive lifestyles you'll ever find. And so on...
Ultimately, there are wonderful people in all countries of the world, as well as plentiful morons, moaners, etc. It's just a case of making sure you are not isolated and fed information by the loudest, and ensure that you have plenty of reasonable people around to talk to. It's just a combination of compromises until you find where you are most comfortable, or at least less bothered by others. Ultimately though, it only takes a couple of bad neighbours or highly visible bumper stickers from one idiot among thousands to annoy those thousands and bring down the perception of pleasantness an area.
Ah, good old central PA. Known as one of the few growth areas for the KKK in recent years. I was once on a long bike ride in the country and spit on a confederate flag some redneck had outside his house. The hillbilly saw me and but for a passing state trooper we would have had a proper scrap. Good luck to you MeanGreanStompa.
True enough, unfortunately it's a proliferation of bumper stickers and attitudes in this part of the US as i've been finding out.
So, as per my thread in the DCM a little while back, we'll be moving to a coastline area. Also to escape the humid heat which is currently causing me some discomfort...
Also just noticed your new title Legoburner, very sexy... see me after class!
olympia wrote:Ah, good old central PA. Known as one of the few growth areas for the KKK in recent years. I was once on a long bike ride in the country and spit on a confederate flag some redneck had outside his house. The hillbilly saw me and but for a passing state trooper we would have had a proper scrap. Good luck to you MeanGreanStompa.
Spitting on someone's flag is likely to cause that sort of thing. Its not exactly neighborly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:True enough, unfortunately it's a proliferation of bumper stickers and attitudes in this part of the US as i've been finding out.
So, as per my thread in the DCM a little while back, we'll be moving to a coastline area. Also to escape the humid heat which is currently causing me some discomfort...
Also just noticed your new title Legoburner, very sexy... see me after class!
Dude its going to literally be 101 here tomorrow. Its not sane this year.
olympia wrote:Ah, good old central PA. Known as one of the few growth areas for the KKK in recent years. I was once on a long bike ride in the country and spit on a confederate flag some redneck had outside his house. The hillbilly saw me and but for a passing state trooper we would have had a proper scrap. Good luck to you MeanGreanStompa.
Spitting on someone's flag is likely to cause that sort of thing. Its not exactly neighborly.
I wouldn't have done it if I wasn't a)expecting something to happen b)happy to embrace the consequences of something happening. Hanging that goddamn flag in the neighborhood of the Pennsylvania 6th Regiment was just asking for trouble.
olympia wrote:Ah, good old central PA. Known as one of the few growth areas for the KKK in recent years. I was once on a long bike ride in the country and spit on a confederate flag some redneck had outside his house. The hillbilly saw me and but for a passing state trooper we would have had a proper scrap. Good luck to you MeanGreanStompa.
Spitting on someone's flag is likely to cause that sort of thing. Its not exactly neighborly.
I wouldn't have done it if I wasn't a)expecting something to happen b)happy to embrace the consequences of something happening. Hanging that goddamn flag in the neighborhood of the Pennsylvania 6th Regiment was just asking for trouble.
Ancient Budha say, uppity kid on bike should not messeth with redneck on his own property. Redneck may have shotgun and shovel.
Without watching the film, I can't really comment on it specifically. I can comment on the immigrant and anti-Islamic sentiment though.
The general issue some in this country have with certain immigrant populations is they don't want to assimilate. They want to create little pools of their own country and culture here. Specifically, Islamic immigrants in increasing numbers throughout the world are calling for Sharia law in their new host countries. This is not met well by their host countries.
As for the separation of church and state, the exact portion of the constitution you are referring to prohibits Congress from establishing a state religion and from stopping others from their choice of religion. That's it.
Speaking of rabid hatred, there's plenty to go around. I seem to remember seeing GW being burned in effigy, people talking about euthanizing conservatives, re-education camps, etc. etc. What you're witnessing is just polarization. It's on both sides. Personally I believe it's the mechanism that the political machine uses to keep both the Democrats and Republicans in power by playing the population off against each other in the hopes of keeping them from realizing that BOTH parties are robbing them blind.
Polonius wrote:Well, the US is a big place. You're in, to put it delicatley, a bit of a backwater.
I've lived in the US all my life, and the mannerisms of country folk scare me more than any urban ghetto.
I was never shot at by country folk.
clearly you were considered to small to make a proper trophy kill, and thus a waste to get stuffed...much better to buy more beer and ammo
A gang member may shoot you, but a hill billy might keep you!
OP Seriously MGS I feel for you. In rural areas I have experienced more racism than in cities. I lived in San Diego and was chased by Neo Nazis in my youth (amazing how fast I can run when 5 guys are chasing me) and out here near north Idaho is seems worse. There is a large neo nazi population in north Idaho(not a majority but they make themselves known) and racism/intolerance is very up front. As you can imagine Obama is not well liked here either as the area is staunchly republican / agriculture as well (not saying Republicans or farmers are racist, just that the area has other reasons not to agree with Obama). The issues of race seem to mean more out here in the sticks as people are not subjected to other cultures.
I am Native American and grew up on a rural reservation, even there racism is up front in your face at times. The larger the city I lived in the more open minded people seemed to be.
Polonius wrote:Well, the US is a big place. You're in, to put it delicatley, a bit of a backwater.
I've lived in the US all my life, and the mannerisms of country folk scare me more than any urban ghetto.
I was never shot at by country folk.
clearly you were considered to small to make a proper trophy kill, and thus a waste to get stuffed...much better to buy more beer and ammo
A gang member may shoot you, but a hill billy might keep you!
OP Seriously MGS I feel for you. In rural areas I have experienced more racism than in cities. I lived in San Diego and was chased by Neo Nazis in my youth (amazing how fast I can run when 5 guys are chasing me) and out here near north Idaho is seems worse. There is a large neo nazi population in north Idaho(not a majority but they make themselves known) and racism/intolerance is very up front. As you can imagine Obama is not well liked here either as the area is staunchly republican / agriculture as well (not saying Republicans or farmers are racist, just that the area has other reasons not to agree with Obama). The issues of race seem to mean more out here in the sticks as people are not subjected to other cultures.
I am Native American and grew up on a rural reservation, even there racism is up front in your face at times. The larger the city I lived in the more open minded people seemed to be.
Yeah, well what do you expect....coming to...their...land...and, erm....taking their wimmins...and um.....no, hold on.....you did say Native American yes?
And that gentlemen, is a perfect example of the lunacy of White Supremacists. And remember folks, that Aryan look, you know, the genetically superior one....pretty much all recessive genes...yup, realy strong.
This reminds me of the documentary about southern Jews, though because it seems to be on the opposite end of the spectrum. It was a celebration of the culture and something of a reminder, that yes, Jews do live in the South. Have to dig around and see if I can find it.
I hate to break it to you MGS, but most places in the first world are pretty much the same, the US is pretty much the same as the UK, Canada is pretty much the same as both of the above, and Western Europe is pretty much the same as..
Basically, if your a grass is always greener type fella, your always going to be disappointed. I don't want to move from the UK because im a happy chappy, I might wind up in the US if our lass whinges alot in the future, and ill be a happy chappy there too. Its not the country, its your attitude, just do what I do and make peace with the fact that the world is full of feth heads and then.. your good to go.
I have a controversial theory about this.. I think that people that move alot are just lost man, they need to buck their ideas up and sort their gak out.
I mean, lets say you have a great job, a nice car, a nice house, a nice wife, loads of free time, 3 holidays a year. Why would you suddenly go "feth this, im off to Australia/USA/canada/New Zealand/Japan/some random gak hole that isnt on Mattys list of civilised places"
Basically, my theory is that if you find yourself moving alot, the problem is you. Not your country of choice. Sort your life out and make it good, and the country you settle in is secondary.
I work few hours, ive got plenty of cash, I spend loads of time painting, playing wow, going to the gym, getting leathered and shafting my attractive missus, why do I need to move? Why do I give a gak if the BNP are having a rally somewhere nowhere near me? Why do I care about mad muslims, immigrants or the pelthora of Daily Mail stories that invoke my fury? I mean, im an angry man, but im a happy man as well, if that makes any sense.
I dont know what the solution is, but moving wont fix it, because you will find all the same sorta gak no matter where you go. Bigots, idiots, lackwits and racists are everywhere, and moving around wont fix the issue mate, you just gotta accept them, ignore them, and enjoy your life by hanging out with people that please you.
J-Roc77 wrote:The larger the city I lived in the more open minded people seemed to be.
Partially because the larger the city, the more likely somebody is around that will beat your ass for talking out of line!
Wait...this is a good thing?
It's hyperbole, but in essence when you have a cosmopolitan population, there tends to be less actual intolerance, because you see that the folks aren't so bad. There's also less expressed intolerance, because most people are less comfortable spouting derogatory views towards a group when members of that group are all around.
When you live in Cornhole county and everybody is your cousin, you don't have as much fear of ranting about your narrow minded little views.
J-Roc77 wrote:The larger the city I lived in the more open minded people seemed to be.
Partially because the larger the city, the more likely somebody is around that will beat your ass for talking out of line!
Wait...this is a good thing?
It's hyperbole, but in essence when you have a cosmopolitan population, there tends to be less actual intolerance, because you see that the folks aren't so bad. There's also less expressed intolerance, because most people are less comfortable spouting derogatory views towards a group when members of that group are all around.
When you live in Cornhole county and everybody is your cousin, you don't have as much fear of ranting about your narrow minded little views.
Thats not supported by actual facts however and represents your opinion. Crime rates are substantially higher in metropolitan areas than rural areas.
Further, there's a hell of a lot less of a "gee if I break down in the wrong neighborhood I'm going to die" going on in the country than in the oh so tolerant big city.
Drop your ass in Compton and lets see how tolerant the locals are.
Inversely drop Compton homeboys in Beverly Hills and see how tolerant the metropolitan police are.
J-Roc77 wrote:The larger the city I lived in the more open minded people seemed to be.
Partially because the larger the city, the more likely somebody is around that will beat your ass for talking out of line!
Wait...this is a good thing?
It's hyperbole, but in essence when you have a cosmopolitan population, there tends to be less actual intolerance, because you see that the folks aren't so bad. There's also less expressed intolerance, because most people are less comfortable spouting derogatory views towards a group when members of that group are all around.
When you live in Cornhole county and everybody is your cousin, you don't have as much fear of ranting about your narrow minded little views.
I know thats how life and civilisation should work, but it just isnt the reality. I am a student at University in Leicester (which has the highest population of Hindus in the country, as well as having a high proportion of Oriental students as well), and theres more racism here (not from me i might add), than there is back home (in the Home Counties). You get feth heads everywhere, no matter what the situation, and they will always find a way of showing their views and spouting their hatred. EDIT: ninja'd by Fraz (kinda)
Well, there's always more friction when groups interact.
I guess what i'm trying to say is that the level of loudly expressed, completely ignorant opinions tend to go up the farther away from the subject matter you are.
A person from Minnesota who has "views" on illegal immigration is probably more driven by ignorance than a person from San Antonio.
There's also a subtle distinction between racially based comments, and racist comments. If you live in an inner ring suburb, you might be concerned about black families moving in because of increased crime and lower property values. That's a racially based viewpoint, but sadly supported by historical examples in many cities (like Detroit and Cleveland). Saying that "all black people are lazy and on welfare" is just racist.
Likewise, my family moved out of East Dearborn in the mid-90's when the Arab population really exploded. My parent's did so because by that point the schools were 90% Arabic and my brother was growing up a minority. It's a great culture, but it's not what my parents wanted. We didn't move because we though Islam was horrible or because Sharia law prevented my mom from driving, but because we were outsiders.
Polonius wrote:Well, there's always more friction when groups interact.
I guess what i'm trying to say is that the level of loudly expressed, completely ignorant opinions tend to go up the farther away from the subject matter you are.
Not here they don't i'm afraid. The views expressed are still ignorant, but it is almost as if seeing the object of their irrational hatred drives them to shout about it even louder.
Polonius wrote:Likewise, my family moved out of East Dearborn in the mid-90's when the Arab population really exploded. My parent's did so because by that point the schools were 90% Arabic and my brother was growing up a minority. It's a great culture, but it's not what my parents wanted. We didn't move because we though Islam was horrible or because Sharia law prevented my mom from driving, but because we were outsiders.
Thats almost exactly like it is here. I had an exam yesterday where the Invigilator had to make the comment of 'no talking, in ANY language' because nearly all (and im talking at least 90%) were either of Middle Eastern/Indian heritage, or Oriental (and yes i know Oriental just means 'foreign', i mean Chinese/ Japanese etc.) and were flagrantly ignoring the instructions not to talk.
Polonius wrote:Yeah, well, you guys are new to the whole "race relations" thing. Give it some time.
Well you're both leaning into the same pitch. Groups that are insulated from other groups are more free to air their views, but with daily friction comes daily conflict. So..you're both right.
I'd proffer the enclave argument is not limited to rural though and is a time honored urban and urban tradition.
Polonius wrote:Likewise, my family moved out of East Dearborn in the mid-90's when the Arab population really exploded. My parent's did so because by that point the schools were 90% Arabic and my brother was growing up a minority. It's a great culture, but it's not what my parents wanted. We didn't move because we though Islam was horrible or because Sharia law prevented my mom from driving, but because we were outsiders.
Thats almost exactly like it is here. I had an exam yesterday where the Invigilator had to make the comment of 'no talking, in ANY language' because nearly all (and im talking at least 90%) were either of Middle Eastern/Indian heritage, or Oriental (and yes i know Oriental just means 'foreign', i mean Chinese/ Japanese etc.) and were flagrantly ignoring the instructions not to talk.
that's tough. There's going to be resentment when a community completely becomes foreign. At that point you're options are either to counter-assimilate, or move.
Polonius wrote:Yeah, well, you guys are new to the whole "race relations" thing. Give it some time.
Well you're both leaning into the same pitch. Groups that are insulated from other groups are more free to air their views, but with daily friction comes daily conflict. So..you're both right. I'd proffer the enclave argument is not limited to rural though and is a time honored urban and urban tradition.
Haha, i suppose we are. But i am not sure what the enclave argument is.... (bet im gonna feel stupid when someone tells me :()
Polonius wrote:
Revenent Reiko wrote:
Polonius wrote:Likewise, my family moved out of East Dearborn in the mid-90's when the Arab population really exploded. My parent's did so because by that point the schools were 90% Arabic and my brother was growing up a minority. It's a great culture, but it's not what my parents wanted. We didn't move because we though Islam was horrible or because Sharia law prevented my mom from driving, but because we were outsiders.
Thats almost exactly like it is here. I had an exam yesterday where the Invigilator had to make the comment of 'no talking, in ANY language' because nearly all (and im talking at least 90%) were either of Middle Eastern/Indian heritage, or Oriental (and yes i know Oriental just means 'foreign', i mean Chinese/ Japanese etc.) and were flagrantly ignoring the instructions not to talk.
that's tough. There's going to be resentment when a community completely becomes foreign. At that point you're options are either to counter-assimilate, or move.
Tell me about it. I'm thankful i dont live here (not because i have a problem with 'foreigners', but because i am sick of being a minority all the time (being a young, white male), and all the hate that can brew). Although saying that, theres enough resentment back home as well, its just not community resentment (its for jobs and things - equality gone mad).
EDIT: i should probably explain the equality thing shouldnt i? Well basically, as young, white males, my friends and i often feel 'discriminated against' for not being of one minority or another (especially when looking for work). Its not that we have anything against minorities (we dont), but its a feeling we all get from time to time, that we are worse off because we arent a minority. Its probably just paranoia
Polonius wrote:Well, the US is a big place. You're in, to put it delicatley, a bit of a backwater.
I've lived in the US all my life, and the mannerisms of country folk scare me more than any urban ghetto.
I was never shot at by country folk.
clearly you were considered to small to make a proper trophy kill, and thus a waste to get stuffed...much better to buy more beer and ammo
A gang member may shoot you, but a hill billy might keep you!
OP Seriously MGS I feel for you. In rural areas I have experienced more racism than in cities. I lived in San Diego and was chased by Neo Nazis in my youth (amazing how fast I can run when 5 guys are chasing me) and out here near north Idaho is seems worse. There is a large neo nazi population in north Idaho(not a majority but they make themselves known) and racism/intolerance is very up front. As you can imagine Obama is not well liked here either as the area is staunchly republican / agriculture as well (not saying Republicans or farmers are racist, just that the area has other reasons not to agree with Obama). The issues of race seem to mean more out here in the sticks as people are not subjected to other cultures.
I am Native American and grew up on a rural reservation, even there racism is up front in your face at times. The larger the city I lived in the more open minded people seemed to be.
Yeah, well what do you expect....coming to...their...land...and, erm....taking their wimmins...and um.....no, hold on.....you did say Native American yes?
And that gentlemen, is a perfect example of the lunacy of White Supremacists. And remember folks, that Aryan look, you know, the genetically superior one....pretty much all recessive genes...yup, realy strong.
God I hate racism. And homophobia etc.
My Mystery: I am not sure I get your point I put in bold. What is the perfect example you are referring to? The raping and pillaging? I am paraphrasing here.
And yes Native American, as in we were here before Europeans not "my family came over on the mayflower." I was trying to illustrate that small communities no matter what race can discriminate against outsiders for many reasons beyond the evident ones you pointed out. Racism can develop from a shared history was your point I think and spot on. On the reservation I grew up on small groups (not all) of natives have negative feelings towards and others not just the Europeans who immigrated here. I caught hell for being a different tribe than the one whose' rez I lived on even well after high school. I worked there for 10 years and was reminded often I was an outsider. My in-laws are half mexican/native and they caught hell as well from the same reservation.These instances do not stem from a shared history, but being a member of a different community. All cultures (cultures...not people) have an ethnocentric element, to what degree a person takes it to is what matters. There is a line that some people cross, it is nice to be prideful of your heritage, but not at the expense of denigrating other cultures.
If the huge multi-quote thing bugs someone let me know and I will edit it out.
No no no matey, the bit of the gimps chasing you down the road, for being in 'their' country is the perfect example.
I really don't get racism, in so far as 'hey, he's not the same colour as us, GETTIM!'. Now finding it hard to tolerate some cultures, that I kind of get, as long as you strive to keep any reservations you have to a person by person basis. Sadly prejudice is part of being human, like it or not.
Swordwind wrote:This is why I find it odd that Americans, descendants of immigrants, are so against immigrants.
It gets even more ironic when they complain about immigrants to native Americans.
I'm seriously glad I never met anyone like that while I lived in TX.
Using that logic, change can never occur in a population or group. Using your logic, for example, modern brits that are against imperialism are hypocrites and/or wrong.
Swordwind wrote:This is why I find it odd that Americans, descendants of immigrants, are so against immigrants.
It gets even more ironic when they complain about immigrants to native Americans.
I'm seriously glad I never met anyone like that while I lived in TX.
Using that logic, change can never occur in a population or group. Using your logic, for example, modern brits that are against imperialism are hypocrites and/or wrong.
Bromsy wrote:
Using that logic, change can never occur in a population or group. Using your logic, for example, modern brits that are against imperialism are hypocrites and/or wrong.
You don't see the delicious irony in complaining to a Native American about illegal immigrants in America?
This is why I find it odd that Americans, descendants of immigrants, are so against immigrants.
Well it isn't that odd if you stop and consider the subject. I'm not agreeing with it by any means but it really isn't that hard to understand. Many Americans have little to no context for being anything other than an American. Time will only increase this cognitive distance. In 500 years it is going to seem even more absurd to tell someone who's family has been living in here for 700 years they should still have the mindset of immigrants. It is like trying to tell Native Americans that they are immigrants to (land bridge theory) so they should embrace American immigrants and assimilate more. When you tell someone who has lived somewhere all their life and their family has lived their for generations that they should still think in terms of being an immigrant it may seem baffling, if not ridiculous.
The population and geography of the country has expanded quite bit as well. The US has gone from a backwater blip on the radar to the third most populated country in the world with global interest and force projection capability anywhere. Things have changed and unsurprisingly people have changed as well. Though not that much, if you've ever seen Gangs of New York you see that the idea of a 'Native' American has been with us for a while. The narrative may be fiction but the atmosphere and attitudes presented actually did exist and are based on historical records.
Then of course there is the issue of really understanding how immigration actually functions in the country. For those who see immigration as part of a zero sum game the situation will always be problematic.
And this is just a broad overview with getting into any cultural specifics of different groups within the country.
It may not be right but it isn't hard to understand.
You will never be shot at driving through an urban ghetto...you may be shot and then robbed, but never widly shot at without reason.
I have, on the other hand, been shot at for looking at a car with the "for sale" sign on it in Tennessee while I was down there for my grandfathers funeral. What, the door was open, I can't look inside?
Karon wrote:You will never be shot at driving through an urban ghetto...you may be shot and then robbed, but never widly shot at without reason.
Bull gak.
Color of skin is a reason.
Color of the shirt you're wearing is a reason.
You don't belong in this hood homey is a reason.
The fact you may have a dollar is a reason.
Karon wrote:You will never be shot at driving through an urban ghetto...you may be shot and then robbed, but never widly shot at without reason.
Bull gak.
Color of skin is a reason.
Color of the shirt you're wearing is a reason.
You don't belong in this hood homey is a reason.
The fact you may have a dollar is a reason.
His point appeared to be that you would be shot and killed for a valid reason (robbery) while in a Ghetto, but merely shot at for an invalid reason (preventing auto theft) in the country.
Karon wrote:You will never be shot at driving through an urban ghetto...you may be shot and then robbed, but never widly shot at without reason.
Bull gak.
Color of skin is a reason.
Color of the shirt you're wearing is a reason.
You don't belong in this hood homey is a reason.
The fact you may have a dollar is a reason.
His point appeared to be that you would be shot and killed for a valid reason (robbery) while in a Ghetto, but merely shot at for an invalid reason (preventing auto theft) in the country.
I'm not sure how that rationale makes any sense.
It doesn't...
There are idiots with their own "agendas" in both urban and rural areas that will react violently to anyone they see as an "outsider."
There's really not much differance in Klan violence towards "Non-whites" and Gang violence against those who "don't belong in their hood".
People who are like this currently probably can't be saved. But the only way to solve this is to meet people half way. Theres no other way really.
People who express racism are in the wrong...but at the same time its frustrating that minority groups largely do not integrate that well (well, at least in the UK). Expressing violence and wanting to toss people out of the country is wrong...but at the same time when as area becomes largely 90% immigrants, refugees etc, that is frustrating. Claiming your own culture to be the best and all is wrong...but so is doing the same with foreign cultures; and not giving enough attention to the home country's culture. (Melting Pot to the extreme)
For every white supremacist there is...theres also another immigrant/refugee who has no interest in getting involved with their new 'home' country.
Yes, one is illegal (in cases) the other is not. But at the same time; both groups need to meet half way.
Well, i for one would like to say "Sorry" for what you've experienced.
and as mentioned earlier, that's not the way we all are. i'd say it's part
of the 20-30% of the "far right". and i feel there's a 20-30% "far left".
these aren't hard facts. just my opinion.
and i loved how we heard the constant cry of Bush derangement syndrom
for 8 years, yet almost silence about the similar 'derangement'. i had relatives
(distant cousins) send me an email in '07 talking about how Preisent Obama
was going to appoint Bill Ayers as the head of the Dept. of Education if he
won the election. i wrote back someting i'd heard in the past about 'bearing
false witness' and 'judge not let ye lest ye be judged' and oddly enough they
don't write anymore. I guess these god fearing relatives don't like having what
they shovel thrown back at them.
To the OP:
Just a slightly different take on this whole thing, did you happen to spit on that flag on memorial day?
Have you considered that maybe it was out for a reason? Possibly to honor a relative who was in the war?
snurl wrote:To the OP:
Just a slightly different take on this whole thing, did you happen to spit on that flag on memorial day?
Have you considered that maybe it was out for a reason? Possibly to honor a relative who was in the war?
After rereading and rereading the OP I can safely say I have no idea what you are talking about.
Why in gods name would he spit on the flag and how would you know?
snurl wrote:To the OP:
Just a slightly different take on this whole thing, did you happen to spit on that flag on memorial day?
Have you considered that maybe it was out for a reason? Possibly to honor a relative who was in the war?
Re-read my post and also perhaps watch the short film this was about.
I think you've somehow blurred my post with the post by olympia?
olympia wrote:Ah, good old central PA. Known as one of the few growth areas for the KKK in recent years. I was once on a long bike ride in the country and spit on a confederate flag some redneck had outside his house. The hillbilly saw me and but for a passing state trooper we would have had a proper scrap. Good luck to you MeanGreanStompa.
I am sorry MGS, and I apologise. This is the post I was referring to earlier.
I don't understand this. Prosecuting people for racially motivated violence, especially a gang that has that goal in mind, is a good thing, no?
I think he's trying to point out city violence > than hillbillie violence. Which has kind of got the whole thread going in the wrong direction, imo.
That has no real relevence to how MGS feels, which was the OT. I'm personally ashamed of how people act around me, and i'm from here. It's
just sad.
Frazzled wrote:
Is this that giant mosque in Mufreesboro? There are like 20 people in Mufreesboro. How are they going to support a multimillion dollar mosque? I could see Memphis but Mufreesboro? Hopefully they took some surveys or something to see if its suffiicent population to support and its not a bust.
There's over 100,000 people living in Murfreeboro, and then there's the greater Nashville metropolitan area to consider.
Graveyman wrote:
People are against ILLEGAL immigrants. I've never known anyone that has had a problem with legal immigration.
Then you must not have met very many people, its a common position.
The Green Git wrote:
The general issue some in this country have with certain immigrant populations is they don't want to assimilate. They want to create little pools of their own country and culture here. Specifically, Islamic immigrants in increasing numbers throughout the world are calling for Sharia law in their new host countries. This is not met well by their host countries.
How terrible it must be to realize that other people have differing beliefs, and that those beliefs will cause them to want different things.
The Green Git wrote:
As for the separation of church and state, the exact portion of the constitution you are referring to prohibits Congress from establishing a state religion and from stopping others from their choice of religion. That's it.
Actually, no, that's incorrect. Congress cannot make a law "...respecting an establishment of religion..." interpreted broadly this can be taken to mean that Congress cannot give preference to one religion over another.
I don't understand this. Prosecuting people for racially motivated violence, especially a gang that has that goal in mind, is a good thing, no?
I think he's trying to point out city violence > than hillbillie violence. Which has kind of got the whole thread going in the wrong direction, imo.
That has no real relevence to how MGS feels, which was the OT. I'm personally ashamed of how people act around me, and i'm from here. It's
just sad.
Exactly. This is the Los Angeles that I remember, not the "dude lets go surfing" TV bs.
Then you must not have met very many people, its a common position.
He's right mate, Its common.
Many people think that legal immigration is fine, but I don't because I think this country is too slack with it.
I think if your not particularly well educated or have a trade in a skill we need, you shouldn't be allowed in, and if your stupid and utterly unskilled, I don't care if your here legally, I don't think you should be.
Many people think like that, and I don't class myself as particularly right wing either! I just, hate being in debt personally, I always clear my credit cards and I'm not in any, so I like to think I could run a country similarly, and as a result I think charity begins at home, and I don't really care about starving people as long as I'm not paying for it.
Im a bit of a heartless prick I know, but its not an uncommon attitude.
Thankfully. This country would have gone the way of Iceland if it wasn't for smart heartless people!
Emperors Faithful wrote:@matty: What about stupid and utterly unskilled people that were born in the country?
Well yeah! I hate those white trash mother fethers as well, and if it was down to me I would forcibly sterilise them and make them work in a mine. But hey ho...
Thats not a retort to my statement is it?!
We have utterly unskilled stupid bastards. Im aware of it, sadly, were stuck with them, and we do our best to educate them and drag them out the gutter with free houses and dole money and free university places but they stay there and drink and smoke and never work and breed like rats and their children copy them and their grandchildren etc etc etc.
Such is life. The point im making is, we are stuck with OUR stupid unskilled bastards, why the hell do we want to IMPORT more?!!?
I had an entertaining (in hindsight) expieriance while I was going to college. I used to shave my head clean with a razor and I had a goatee. This has the side effect of making me look like a white supremacist (which I'm not). I would get people yelling at me from crowds and whatnot. I can only feel sorry for anyone who judges another person because of some half baked idea that they stick to the way a person looks. There are morons everywhere you go in my expieriance. The only good thing we can do is make the best of our situation and hopefully they can learn from it.
The Foot wrote:I had an entertaining (in hindsight) expieriance while I was going to college. I used to shave my head clean with a razor and I had a goatee. This has the side effect of making me look like a white supremacist (which I'm not). I would get people yelling at me from crowds and whatnot. I can only feel sorry for anyone who judges another person because of some half baked idea that they stick to the way a person looks. There are morons everywhere you go in my expieriance. The only good thing we can do is make the best of our situation and hopefully they can learn from it.
See thats the problem with today's youth, no proper learning in our great culteral heritage. Others see a skinhead, whereas I more correctly see one of the great spiritual leaders of our time.
The Foot wrote:I had an entertaining (in hindsight) expieriance while I was going to college. I used to shave my head clean with a razor and I had a goatee. This has the side effect of making me look like a white supremacist (which I'm not). I would get people yelling at me from crowds and whatnot. I can only feel sorry for anyone who judges another person because of some half baked idea that they stick to the way a person looks. There are morons everywhere you go in my expieriance. The only good thing we can do is make the best of our situation and hopefully they can learn from it.
See thats the problem with today's youth, no proper learning in our great culteral heritage. Others see a skinhead, whereas I more correctly see one of the great spiritual leaders of our time.
That's part of the beauty of America, we have so many different thoughts and opinions. Sure this guy was probably, well actually he was a bigot, but he's free to say so. Just like people who don't think that way can argue against him.
You have to take the good with the bad, just like anywhere else.
Robin Williams wrote:We Americans, we're a simple people . . . but piss us off, and we'll bomb your cities.
Everyone has thoughts and opinions, sometimes one is better than the other and sometimes both of them are horrible.
Opinions are emotional while thoughts are more robotic and dull, America has always been known as being emotional. Its why there are political cartoons from twentieth and nineteenth century England showing Americans having duels over passing the mustard.
Frazzled wrote:Dude its going to literally be 101 here tomorrow. Its not sane this year.
It's not sane for you? I think these last few days have been the only ones without Snow or Rain! Minot has flooded for the first time in Thirty-One years! Had to evacuate my brother from his house....
Automatically Appended Next Post: I think the timing is about right, though. I don't know if the book I had in History Class was Leftist or Rightest, or maybe even something else, but it said that the Founding Fathers said that the American Government would only last around 200 years as it currently was. Maybe they were right?
As for immigrants, I don't know so much about cultures or such, but as long as they can cook like the ones I've met, they are welcome in my country, anytime.
Seriously, my brother's girlfriend came over from Korea, their food is to die for. Also, you can die from the heat.
There's a couple of different issues with immigration though.
There's the, "I don't want illegal immigrants in our country."
Then the "I don't want immigrants in our country." folks.
Note that there is a stark contrast between the two. Were my ancestors in America before it was a country, yes. Did the other side of my family immigrate to america, yes but they were processed by the government.
Do I think immigrants should be allowed in the country, yes. Do I think illegal immigrants should be allowed in the country, no.
halonachos wrote:Do I think immigrants should be allowed in the country, yes. Do I think illegal immigrants should be allowed in the country, no.
This.
I'm all for letting people in the country, but I have no respect for people who pile twenty of themselves into an SUV to try to get across the border....
Also, has anyone ever noticed that a fair amount of Immigrants seem to think America is a bad place to live? I've run into several immigrants who go on and on about how terrible America is, but the moment you say something along the lines of "Hey, if America is so bad, why not go back to your own country?" and they shut up right quick.
Only person I haven't said this to is a lady I work with who really doesn't have a choice in being over here or not; her husbands military, she kinda has to go where he does.
Slarg232 wrote:I've run into several immigrants who go on and on about how terrible America is, but the moment you say something along the lines of "Hey, if America is so bad, why not go back to your own country?" and they shut up right quick.
Only person I haven't said this to is a lady I work with who really doesn't have a choice in being over here or not; her husbands military, she kinda has to go where he does.
Its actually quite common for relocating to another country to be, primarily, about a desire to do something else (take a job, attend a school, stay with family) and not actually about wanting to relocate to another country.
I hate where I currently live, but I'm stuck there because of school, and while I am working on escaping I'm still going to occasionally talk about how terrible it is.
halonachos wrote:Do I think immigrants should be allowed in the country, yes. Do I think illegal immigrants should be allowed in the country, no.
This.
I'm all for letting people in the country, but I have no respect for people who pile twenty of themselves into an SUV to try to get across the border....
And how else are these people going to get into a country? Legally they have absolutely no chance of immigrating, is it any wonder that they then turn to illegal means?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
halonachos wrote:That's part of the beauty of America, we have so many different thoughts and opinions.
And every other nation is ruled by a mono-dominant mindset?
If you read little bit more in my post... go on I'll give you a chance to.
Cool, you added in a quote from Robin Williams about bombing people.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I myself, as a person who believes strongly in tolerance and cultural exchange...
should Mrs S and I start looking into moving to Canada?
Edit: Let's avoid critical personal comments, please. Especially regarding people with whom one is not on good terms. -Mannahnin
If you're really of the assumption that Canada (or anywhere) has greener grass you might consider the fact that there will be at least one D-bag wherever you go. Mostly the same human condition everywhere, with people having both the capacity for good and bad.
I don't think your perception of how things are in the middle east or anywhere will change based on which North American Country you reside in.
@ Emperor's Faithful, I believe I said something about having to accept the bad with the good, just like everywhere else.
Also, in terms of immigration illegally coming over is worse than actually coming over legally.
They get shoved into metal containers and potentially die from heat exposure or dehydration, get screwed out of their money when the coyotes who they paid to run them across the border decide not to actually take them across, they get robbed on their way, and are overly exploited before they even reach the border.
Then once they reach the states they don't pay into the tax system that is already stressed and get gipped in terms of income. I mean a dollar an hour for work if that? They get exploited badly.
The thing is if a Brit or an aussy moved to the states these people probably wouldn't have an issue, it is purely because they are of a different religion and aren't white.
halonachos wrote:Do I think immigrants should be allowed in the country, yes. Do I think illegal immigrants should be allowed in the country, no.
This.
I'm all for letting people in the country, but I have no respect for people who pile twenty of themselves into an SUV to try to get across the border....
I don't think it's as simple as that.
Letting the legal system determine who's worthy of staying isn't always right. Only the rich(er) people in a country you'd want to leave, would be able to afford to cross legally. The poor ones, the ones at highest risk, can't do that. Often, it's highly likely that sending them back will get them killed, due to their race or religion. For example, in Iran being homosexual-something you don't even choose-is punished by death. I'm not saying you should just hang up a big sign saying, "Move to America! We have cookies!", just that it's too easy to not take in to account what could happen to them.
P.S. Sorry if I seem condescending, it's just my opinion.
It always amazes me that people ask 'why is there so much hatred of liberals' when there's so much hatred BY liberals. If you talk to someone who calls himself a liberal about politics, it's extremely unlikely that he will refrain from saying something insulting about conservatives, or anyone who holds a position contrary to his. To the self-identified liberal, all conservatives are redneck idiots or warmongering elitists who hate freedom and hates women and hates races and hates gays and want to oppress the common man and so on. When both 'sides' of the 'discussion' hurl insults at each other, being surprised that one but not the other does so is a little silly.
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Slarg232 wrote:I'm all for letting people in the country, but I have no respect for people who pile twenty of themselves into an SUV to try to get across the border....
And how else are these people going to get into a country? Legally they have absolutely no chance of immigrating, is it any wonder that they then turn to illegal means?
They're already in a country, otherwise they wouldn't be able to get into an SUV to drive across the border in the first place (to go across a border, you go from one side to the other, and there's no unclaimed land adjacent to the US). If they can't make it in legally, then they need to stay in their own country. It's not like Australia has open immigration, so why are you complaining about people in the US wanting to enforce laws that are similar to (but generally less restrictive than) the same laws in Australia, New Zealand, Japan, UK, and everywhere in Europe that I've ever looked at immigration information on?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TrollPie wrote:I don't think it's as simple as that.
Letting the legal system determine who's worthy of staying isn't always right. Only the rich(er) people in a country you'd want to leave, would be able to afford to cross legally. The poor ones, the ones at highest risk, can't do that. Often, it's highly likely that sending them back will get them killed, due to their race or religion. For example, in Iran being homosexual-something you don't even choose-is punished by death.
There are already laws about refugee and at-risk status immigrants, and even if there weren't then the right way to handle it would be to change the laws to reflect the desired result, not to just ignore the laws and condemn people who think that following the law is what governments are supposed to do. Plus the vast majority of illegal immigrants aren't in that category, so the whole topic is really a red herring.
I'm not saying you should just hang up a big sign saying, "Move to America! We have cookies!", just that it's too easy to not take in to account what could happen to them.
Well, I notice you have a UK flag by your name. Maybe we should hang up a big sign saying "Move to the UK, we condemn America's intolerance", then ship every illegal immigrant across the pond to your immigrant allowed paradise - oh wait, the UK wouldn't take them. It amazes me how many people in countries with really restrictive immigration laws will hang around and condemn the US for having any immigration laws.
corpsesarefun wrote:The thing is if a Brit or an aussy moved to the states these people probably wouldn't have an issue, it is purely because they are of a different religion and aren't white.
You know that 99.9% of mexicans are catholic right, its not like they sacrifice cattle to appease Cthulu. We have a lot of Catholics in the states, sure the government is mostly protestant and baptist, but there are a lot of Catholics(John F. Kennedy being the only Catholic president) who are citizens.
Their culture isn't too different from ours, they work hard for what they earn and I think that illegals should be made legal if they have good character so at least they can earn more. Not to get too much on the whole skin color thing, but yes there are people who hate them just because of skin color but those people will be in the minority soon.
The issue comes with people either being denied citizenship or people fearing that they will be denied citizenship so they look towards illegal ways of entering the country and screwed.
BearersOfSalvation wrote:It always amazes me that people ask 'why is there so much hatred of liberals' when there's so much hatred BY liberals. If you talk to someone who calls himself a liberal about politics, it's extremely unlikely that he will refrain from saying something insulting about conservatives, or anyone who holds a position contrary to his. To the self-identified liberal, all conservatives are redneck idiots or warmongering elitists who hate freedom and hates women and hates races and hates gays and want to oppress the common man and so on. When both 'sides' of the 'discussion' hurl insults at each other, being surprised that one but not the other does so is a little silly.
I agree that it's idiotic when people accuse others of hurling insults at them, and then promptly do the same back, but saying broad sweeping statements like that just damages your own cause and means you loose credibility. When either side of the arguement-liberal or conservative-says pretty much everyone who opposes them is an ignorant pig, you've just resorted to the lowest form of kick-in-the-shins bickering.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TrollPie wrote:I don't think it's as simple as that.
Letting the legal system determine who's worthy of staying isn't always right. Only the rich(er) people in a country you'd want to leave, would be able to afford to cross legally. The poor ones, the ones at highest risk, can't do that. Often, it's highly likely that sending them back will get them killed, due to their race or religion. For example, in Iran being homosexual-something you don't even choose-is punished by death.
There are already laws about refugee and at-risk status immigrants, and even if there weren't then the right way to handle it would be to change the laws to reflect the desired result, not to just ignore the laws and condemn people who think that following the law is what governments are supposed to do. Plus the vast majority of illegal immigrants aren't in that category, so the whole topic is really a red herring.
I was responding to the statement that if you're illiegal you should invariably go back to wherever you came from.
I'm not saying you should just hang up a big sign saying, "Move to America! We have cookies!", just that it's too easy to not take in to account what could happen to them.
Well, I notice you have a UK flag by your name. Maybe we should hang up a big sign saying "Move to the UK, we condemn America's intolerance", then ship every illegal immigrant across the pond to your immigrant allowed paradise - oh wait, the UK wouldn't take them. It amazes me how many people in countries with really restrictive immigration laws will hang around and condemn the US for having any immigration laws.
When did I say America was intolerant? I used America as an example because the person I was quoting was from America. I'm completely aware it's a similair situation here in the UK.
BearersOfSalvation wrote:It always amazes me that people ask 'why is there so much hatred of liberals' when there's so much hatred BY liberals. If you talk to someone who calls himself a liberal about politics, it's extremely unlikely that he will refrain from saying something insulting about conservatives, or anyone who holds a position contrary to his. To the self-identified liberal, all conservatives are redneck idiots or warmongering elitists who hate freedom and hates women and hates races and hates gays and want to oppress the common man and so on. When both 'sides' of the 'discussion' hurl insults at each other, being surprised that one but not the other does so is a little silly.
Conservativism, by definition, is the maintenance of the status quo and the protection of traditional values and institutions. A lot of those traditions and values are about oppressing women, minorities, gays, and the non-wealthy.
Look, I know that on the internet every conservative has black friends and is pro-choice and "considers himself more of a libertarian, really," but calling it simply an insult to suggest that there is racism, homophobia, or a desire to help the upp 10% at the expense of the masses within the conservative movement is to detach from debate.
BearersOfSalvation wrote:It always amazes me that people ask 'why is there so much hatred of liberals' when there's so much hatred BY liberals. If you talk to someone who calls himself a liberal about politics, it's extremely unlikely that he will refrain from saying something insulting about conservatives, or anyone who holds a position contrary to his.
i find the complete opposite. if i mention i'm liberal, i get lambasted and called lots of colorful names.
I'm actually a conservative with black friends and I'm also pro-choice, but I thought that was always just me... Thanks for making me feel unspecial Polonius.
corpsesarefun wrote:The thing is if a Brit or an aussy moved to the states these people probably wouldn't have an issue, it is purely because they are of a different religion and aren't white.
You know that 99.9% of mexicans are catholic right, its not like they sacrifice cattle to appease Cthulu. We have a lot of Catholics in the states, sure the government is mostly protestant and baptist, but there are a lot of Catholics(John F. Kennedy being the only Catholic president) who are citizens.
Their culture isn't too different from ours, they work hard for what they earn and I think that illegals should be made legal if they have good character so at least they can earn more. Not to get too much on the whole skin color thing, but yes there are people who hate them just because of skin color but those people will be in the minority soon.
The issue comes with people either being denied citizenship or people fearing that they will be denied citizenship so they look towards illegal ways of entering the country and screwed.
Oh, thought you were referring to the country as a whole. Either way, that's my opinion of things but instead of being directed towards you, they're directed to nobody in particular.
halonachos wrote:I'm actually a conservative with black friends and I'm also pro-choice, but I thought that was always just me... Thanks for making me feel unspecial Polonius.
you know alot of "conserative" folks around here would call you a closet liberal for being pro choice. just sayin'....
A lot of Catholics would also want me excommunicated from the church, but I understand that there are times when it is necessary and although I am personally against it, I know that I'm not everybody.
I'm more of a 'I don't want the government in my bedroom' kind of conservative, could you imagine waking up to see Obama in your bed telling you that you did something wrong? Or worse, you wake up with Dick Cheney next to you.
halonachos wrote:I'm actually a conservative with black friends and I'm also pro-choice, but I thought that was always just me... Thanks for making me feel unspecial Polonius.
I'm sure you're a beautiful and unique snowflake.
Seriously though, it's not like opposition to abortion rights come out of thin air.
Conservativism is a pretty appealing ideology though. As long as you're in a position where you have something you're afraid to lose, why not support efforts to protect that?
A lot of liberals wonder why so many blue collar, working class people are conservative, and the answer is actually pretty simple: They know that as little as they have, at least some comes because of some form of privilige. Any system that levels the playing field would strip them of that privilige. It's part of the reason so many union members are conservative, if democrats.
It's also part of the reason intellectuals tend to run more liberal: they know that no matter what the game is, they've got skills and abilities that will allow them to compete.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Even the concepts of "liberal" and "conservative" are diffuse.
Social conservatives might have no problem with high taxes, while old money economic conservatices could give a crap who marries who.
Polonius wrote:It's also part of the reason intellectuals tend to run more liberal: they know that no matter what the game is, they've got skills and abilities that will allow them to compete.
Or believe they do. There are certainly "intellectuals" who are more ivory-tower and whose skills and knowledge are too specialized and limited to have broad application. But I agree with your point. As long as they think they're capable and smart (whether they are or aren't), they're more likely to be egalitarian in their views.
Polonius wrote:
It's also part of the reason intellectuals tend to run more liberal: they know that no matter what the game is, they've got skills and abilities that will allow them to compete.
Yep.
Though, there are also a lot of people like me who are sufficiently insulated to be comfortable no matter what happens (short of an armed revolt, though that's why you make friends in other countries), and therefore only view politics as a wonderful game.
Polonius wrote:
It's also part of the reason intellectuals tend to run more liberal: they know that no matter what the game is, they've got skills and abilities that will allow them to compete.
Yep.
Though, there are also a lot of people like me who are sufficiently insulated to be comfortable no matter what happens (short of an armed revolt, though that's why you make friends in other countries), and therefore only view politics as a wonderful game.
I hear that. I'm a professional class straight white guy. I'm going to be ok, personally, with whoever is in charge.
Polonius wrote:It's also part of the reason intellectuals tend to run more liberal: they know that no matter what the game is, they've got skills and abilities that will allow them to compete.
Or believe they do. There are certainly "intellectuals" who are more ivory-tower and whose skills and knowledge are too specialized and limited to have broad application. But I agree with your point. As long as they think they're capable and smart (whether they are or aren't), they're more likely to be egalitarian in their views.
Ayn Rand?
Intellectuals can be both conservative and liberal, hell even though Einstein said that ignorance is what causes racism even though some intellectuals can be racist. I know that you said that intellectuals tend to be liberal so that means you believe that intellectuals can also be conservative. With modern politics though there are so many different kinds of liberals and conservatives that its hard to be just a conservative or just a liberal.
halonachos wrote: Or worse, you wake up with Dick Cheney next to you.
I think alot of conseratives dream of waking up next to Cheney.
you don't want to wake up with them in your bed, but i don't want them telling people who to go to bed with.
getting the government out of peoples lives also means who they marry and what they do with their bodies is between them
and their own. no one else.
Polonius wrote:It's also part of the reason intellectuals tend to run more liberal: they know that no matter what the game is, they've got skills and abilities that will allow them to compete.
Or believe they do. There are certainly "intellectuals" who are more ivory-tower and whose skills and knowledge are too specialized and limited to have broad application. But I agree with your point. As long as they think they're capable and smart (whether they are or aren't), they're more likely to be egalitarian in their views.
Ayn Rand?
Intellectuals can be both conservative and liberal, hell even though Einstein said that ignorance is what causes racism even though some intellectuals can be racist. I know that you said that intellectuals tend to be liberal so that means you believe that intellectuals can also be conservative. With modern politics though there are so many different kinds of liberals and conservatives that its hard to be just a conservative or just a liberal.
[Insert "I was talking about intellectuals, not Ayn Rand" joke here]
I said tend, I also was suggesting that liberalism is caused by a lack of worry about one's station, not that intellectualism and liberalism share any causality.
Rand is an interesting case because her ideology was a sharp reaction to her upbringing and the nature of politics in the 30's, 40's, and early 50's. But Rand's work, and most of the libertarians one meets, sort of proves my point. The people that want to eliminate safety nets and allow "the best and brightest to lead" are, not coincidentally, peopel that consider themselves the best or brightest. Rant's work, and the objectivist/libertarian movement at it's extremes, isn't really conservatism: it's sharply reactionary. It envisions a society only marginally more realisitc than that envisioned by marxists.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:Ayn Rand was libertarian, the libertarian really.
Well, Objectivist, but most people ignore the weird quasi-religious thing.
It's tough to call a woman that wrote a novel describing the collapse of world civilization in positive ways a conservative.
I said that you said 'tend' Polonius, I was agreeing with you.
I also said Ayn Rand because I know that a lot of people like to make fun of her. Kind of alledging that Rand was one of those in the 'ivory towers' that thought they were capable.
It doesn't require an ivory tower even. If a person says to me "I didn't need government aid to get ahead. I got a scholarship to college, worked hard, and now I'm a successful entrepeneur," I'm impressed. But i also feel like what they're saying is "we don't need government aid, because some people are talented enough to advance on their own merits."
Most people are, if not worthless, of very little value to society as a whole. They might be wonderful parents and great drinking buddies or have really nice breasts even after three kids, but they enjoy the nice fat bulge in the bell curve that is human potential.
Polonius wrote:
Most people are, if not worthless, of very little value to society as a whole. They might be wonderful parents and great drinking buddies or have really nice breasts even after three kids, but they enjoy the nice fat bulge in the bell curve that is human potential.
As a professor of mine used to say "Average people are average, and average isn't especially good."
My grandma used to say "I would rather buy someone for what they're worth and sell them for what they think they're worth.". Same basic premise I guess.
I agree with Polonius, simply looking at the religious views of most scientists and philosophers, and then looking at what political view people of that religious view usually have. Roughly two-thirds of philosophers and 80% of scientists are atheists, and atheism is often associated with leftist views. I'm not saying liberals are better, I'm saying that a leftist mindset will tend towards different fields to that of a conservative mindset.
Know what, the more I study evolution, anatomy, and microbiology I find it hard not to believe in a higher being. The number of possible accidents that could cause genes to go astray and yet most of the time humans manage to reproduce just fine(both sexually and asexually,the reproduction of skin cells for example) furthers my belief that something made it so that it would happen that way.
I just can't fathom that even in millions of years a cell would be able to get reproduction down to a science if it was 100% chaos.
I don't think it's about what a person believes that indicated the shift between conservaitism and liberalism, but how deeply they believe it.
When you know things for sure, it's more comforting to stick with what you know. When you feel like you don't really know anything anyway, change isn't as scary.
I'm a little late to this thread. MGS, sorry about your central PA experience. Keep in mind one of the smartest things ever said about the state was James Carville (political consultant) calling it "two big cities with Alabama in between." Heck, in some areas like southern York county, they think they ARE southerners...run around with Confederate flags,etc.
Anyway, should you ever move to one of our big cities or their immediate suburbs, you'll find things to be different.
BearersOfSalvation wrote:It always amazes me that people ask 'why is there so much hatred of liberals' when there's so much hatred BY liberals. If you talk to someone who calls himself a liberal about politics, it's extremely unlikely that he will refrain from saying something insulting about conservatives, or anyone who holds a position contrary to his.
i find the complete opposite. if i mention i'm liberal, i get lambasted and called lots of colorful names.
I don't doubt it, it's all a big bunch of back and forth insults - I certainly don't think that no conservatives say bad things about liberals, I was simply responding to the question early on.
Polonius wrote:Conservativism, by definition, is the maintenance of the status quo and the protection of traditional values and institutions. A lot of those traditions and values are about oppressing women, minorities, gays, and the non-wealthy.
Look, I know that on the internet every conservative has black friends and is pro-choice and "considers himself more of a libertarian, really," but calling it simply an insult to suggest that there is racism, homophobia, or a desire to help the upp 10% at the expense of the masses within the conservative movement is to detach from debate.
This is a good example of what I mean; Polonius uses an archaic definition of the word that isn't actually relevant anymore to justify his insult, then goes on to hurl the insults just the same. He apparently doesn't even believe that he's being insulting when he does, which is always amusing. There is racism and 'helping the top 10%' from both conservatives and liberals, but saying that 'oh those other guys are all [bad thing] is just hurling insults, and really only serves to turn people away from your side.
halonachos wrote:Know what, the more I study evolution, anatomy, and microbiology I find it hard not to believe in a higher being. The number of possible accidents that could cause genes to go astray and yet most of the time humans manage to reproduce just fine(both sexually and asexually,the reproduction of skin cells for example) furthers my belief that something made it so that it would happen that way.
I just can't fathom that even in millions of years a cell would be able to get reproduction down to a science if it was 100% chaos.
Or as a famous man with fuzzy hair once said "god does not play dice."
Polonius wrote:Conservativism, by definition, is the maintenance of the status quo and the protection of traditional values and institutions. A lot of those traditions and values are about oppressing women, minorities, gays, and the non-wealthy.
Look, I know that on the internet every conservative has black friends and is pro-choice and "considers himself more of a libertarian, really," but calling it simply an insult to suggest that there is racism, homophobia, or a desire to help the upp 10% at the expense of the masses within the conservative movement is to detach from debate.
This is a good example of what I mean; Polonius uses an archaic definition of the word that isn't actually relevant anymore to justify his insult, then goes on to hurl the insults just the same.
How would you define conservitism?
I mean, I'd struggle to come up with a definition that doesn't, at some point, either directly or indirectly speak of maintaining the status quo.
What did I say that was insulting?
He apparently doesn't even believe that he's being insulting when he does, which is always amusing. There is racism and 'helping the top 10%' from both conservatives and liberals, but saying that 'oh those other guys are all [bad thing] is just hurling insults, and really only serves to turn people away from your side.
It's not insulting to point out that some conservatives are racist. It's insulting to say that all are racist. It's not even insluting to point out that many conservative leaders take advantage of the racism of their base.
It's not insutling to point out facts about conservatives, any more than it would be insulting to point out that liberals will never really accomplish education reform as long as the Democrats are in the pockets of the teachers unions.
I mean, the point of ecnomic conservatism is to have a smaller government that has fewer regulations and restrictiosn on commerce, and also lower taxes. There is... let's be generous and say "some"... evidence that this will help everybody. There is plenty of evidence that it will help the wealthy.
My point, which you supported quite well, is that rather than discuss facts, it can be easier to simply shout "you're being insulting" and short circuit debate.
Now, you might be insulted, but if you're insulted because I pointed out something unpleasant about your team... well, I'm sorry, but them's the breaks.
halonachos wrote:
Wait what, what exactly is the 'anything not Athens" and what does it have to do with Polonius's quote?
Socrates was given the choice between exile from Athens, and death. He chose death because he "knew" (believed) anything not Athens was terrible, but didn't know anything about death.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BearersOfSalvation wrote:
...Polonius uses an archaic definition of the word that isn't actually relevant anymore to justify his insult...
What? Conservatives conserve things, that's what they do, and its why they're called Conservatives. Maybe that's not what people who you call Conservatives want, but then you're wrong to call them Conservatives, and need to spend a good deal of time revisiting your notions of politics.
BearersOfSalvation wrote:
...then goes on to hurl the insults just the same. He apparently doesn't even believe that he's being insulting when he does, which is always amusing.
Nothing he said was insulting unless you simply don't like having certain sides of the argument described.
It isn't hard to insult Conservatives, and a lot of the insults that are easy to use are extremely insulting. By feigning indignation you make yourself look...whiny, which is probably not your goal.
halonachos wrote:Then once they reach the states they don't pay into the tax system that is already stressed and get gipped in terms of income. I mean a dollar an hour for work if that? They get exploited badly.
And they still keep coming. To them, it must be worth the risk.
BearersOfSalvation wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
Slarg232 wrote:I'm all for letting people in the country, but I have no respect for people who pile twenty of themselves into an SUV to try to get across the border....
And how else are these people going to get into a country? Legally they have absolutely no chance of immigrating, is it any wonder that they then turn to illegal means?
They're already in a country, otherwise they wouldn't be able to get into an SUV to drive across the border in the first place (to go across a border, you go from one side to the other, and there's no unclaimed land adjacent to the US). If they can't make it in legally, then they need to stay in their own country.
Why? If their country is basically a gak-hole, is it morally wrong for people of that country to want better things, like living in a better country, and try to achieve that by immigrating to another country?
Is it morally wrong if the only way of achieving that is through illegal means?
It's not like Australia has open immigration, so why are you complaining about people in the US wanting to enforce laws that are similar to (but generally less restrictive than) the same laws in Australia, New Zealand, Japan, UK, and everywhere in Europe that I've ever looked at immigration information on?
You make the mistake of assuming that, becuase I live here, I support every policy my country's government has. Should I make the same assumptions about Americans?
I certainly don't support the idea of picking up refugees out of the ocean, after they have travelled thousands of kilometres, and then chucking them in what's basically a prison camp while the government waits for the public to forget about them.
halonachos wrote:Wait what, what exactly is the 'anything not Athens" and what does it have to do with Polonius's quote?
Socrates chose death by poison over banishment from Athens.
He's also the guy who's credited with saying stuff like this: "The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing."
I thought that he was given a choice between death or never teaching again and said something like "An unexamined life is not worth living.".
In fact I see some places that say that Socrates was given the chance to propose his own penalty, the first he proposed was free meals(which was a joke) before he proposed the actual punishment of a fee of one silver piece(because he was poor). Another accuser proposed the death penalty and because Socrates had been a smart aleck they voted to give him the death penalty.
gorgon wrote:I'm a little late to this thread. MGS, sorry about your central PA experience. Keep in mind one of the smartest things ever said about the state was James Carville (political consultant) calling it "two big cities with Alabama in between." Heck, in some areas like southern York county, they think they ARE southerners...run around with Confederate flags,etc.
Anyway, should you ever move to one of our big cities or their immediate suburbs, you'll find things to be different.
This. I live in Montgomery County, and I'm pretty happy here. Got everything, and yes, there are D-bags here, but when they act up everyone else smacks them back down.
gorgon wrote:I'm a little late to this thread. MGS, sorry about your central PA experience. Keep in mind one of the smartest things ever said about the state was James Carville (political consultant) calling it "two big cities with Alabama in between." Heck, in some areas like southern York county, they think they ARE southerners...run around with Confederate flags,etc.
Anyway, should you ever move to one of our big cities or their immediate suburbs, you'll find things to be different.
This. I live in Montgomery County, and I'm pretty happy here. Got everything, and yes, there are D-bags here, but when they act up everyone else smacks them back down.
The good folks of Cumberland County (central PA) welcomed as liberating heroes the Confederate army when it passed through en route to getting pwned at Gettysburg.
America is a different culture, it is ignorant in the extreme to believe they should just conform to your own ideals. You aren't helping things by making such flawed moany arguments. America welcomed you, dont bite the hand that feeds. You want to make a difference? Volunteer at the homeless shelter/youth club, join a union. Join up as a canvasser for Obama for goodness sake!
This is a short promotional film seeking a budget to be made into a full film documentary.
I myself, as a person who believes strongly in tolerance and cultural exchange, have my own problems with Islam with regards it's treatment of women and it's extremist applications in parts of the world. It is not ISLAM's treatment of women, it is Arabic culture's treatment of women, look it up. Some 'open minded' people can often be very ignorant of the charitable and peaceful teachings of the Koran
But this level of intolerance leaves me boggled, what happened to the separation of church and state? And why is there such a rabid hatred of liberal views in the US, having moved to PA, I have been told by people who never stopped to ask me my own views, that liberals 'should be rounded up and shot', that environmentalists 'are all backed by the communists and are enemies of the nation'. America is a christian democracy, Christianity is a far bigger part of their culture, Homer Simpson Goes to church every week, live with it. I mean come on, is Barack Obama an Athiest?! As for the hatred of liberals, As long as people from the Maccarthy/cold war era survive their is always going to be a kernel of that sentiment. Only time will heal some wounds
The vast majority of the population of the US are descended from immigrants of the last 300 years, it is a mixing bowl of peoples from across the planet. You have made the common mistake of thinking this should make them more open minded, if anything their brutal colonisation and proto ethnic cleansing should make them infintely more intolerant than they are
I said to my wife the other night, that the US is at it's most amazing and beautiful when it unites, when it uses that hybrid vigour to do great things and when it leads the rest of the world into doing great things and it is at it's nadir when it finds it's self so absolutely divided, much as I have seen recently over politics and faith. How very drole, plus since last time i checked their has been no civil wars
I moved over here, rather than my American wife moving to the UK, partly because of the bright optimism I had encountered in the US, the people believed in their country and in doing 'the right thing' and in 'freedom for all'. It was a refreshing change to the jaded post-imperial cynical hangover that we have in the UK. But that brightness has dimmed a very great deal in the past couple of years and the country feels so deeply divided and at loggerheads. Perhaps do some research next time you move
I saw a pickup truck yesterday with a bumper sticker that read 'Don't Re Nig in 2012 Get him out!' and can't really believe that not only does some ignorant bastard manufacture that, but that some other ignorant bastard would proudly display it. At first I was my usual vitriolic self and angry, then, just saddened and tired by it. It made me want to go home to the riots and class divisions of the UK. Admittedly the use of an offensive word is not necessary but there are numerous reasons why even the wooliest liberal would not want to see a fairly toothless president re elected
Whether from the right or left, you are so much better than this. Will we see a return to more agreeable politics and a less divided nation or should Mrs S and I start looking into moving to Canada?
As a final point i see absolutely NO mention of the drug, unemployment and crime epidemics as well as the overpopulated prisons. Clearly you aren't as worried about the vulnerable and impoverished as you imply. More about 'Mrs S and I's' relative safety and comfort as middle class liberals
The good folks of Cumberland County (central PA) welcomed as liberating heroes the Confederate army when it passed through en route to getting pwned at Gettysburg.
What bearing would that have on today (assuming it's true idk)? I've been in Cumberland for awhile now and we had a huge reenactment event over at Carlisle at the Army Heritage and Education Center. It's surprising how few Confederate reenactors were present compared to Union try maybe 1-25? It's the complete opposite at most reenactments in US. For some reason Reenactors love the Confederates as the underdogs
And the Buffalo Soldier guys (there were only five of them) were one of the most popular groups present.
Also a surprisingly high number of Airborne, Lufftwafe, and Zuave reenactors... I was even surprised to find some Brits in our mists over by the golf course with some 82nd reenactors.
halonachos wrote:Do I think immigrants should be allowed in the country, yes. Do I think illegal immigrants should be allowed in the country, no.
This.
I'm all for letting people in the country, but I have no respect for people who pile twenty of themselves into an SUV to try to get across the border....
And how else are these people going to get into a country? Legally they have absolutely no chance of immigrating, is it any wonder that they then turn to illegal means?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
halonachos wrote:
Emperors Faithful wrote:
halonachos wrote:That's part of the beauty of America, we have so many different thoughts and opinions.
And every other nation is ruled by a mono-dominant mindset?
If you read little bit more in my post... go on I'll give you a chance to.
Cool, you added in a quote from Robin Williams about bombing people.
... So your argument is that if you can't get something done conveniently, screw the law and get it done however you can? Man, my boss just won't retire, and I want that promotion, so strychnine in the coffee. You can't move to a place and think that you, personally, get to decide which laws are important enough to follow.
MeanGreenStompa wrote:But this level of intolerance leaves me boggled, what happened to the separation of church and state? And why is there such a rabid hatred of liberal views in the US, having moved to PA, I have been told by people who never stopped to ask me my own views, that liberals 'should be rounded up and shot', that environmentalists 'are all backed by the communists and are enemies of the nation'.
America is a christian democracy,
Not, we're really not. If you had written "democracy largely made up of Christians", you'd have been right. The majority of us are Christians of one stripe or another, but the system of government was deliberately designed not to favor any religion over another.
Perkustin wrote:[Christianity is a far bigger part of their culture, Homer Simpson Goes to church every week, live with it. I mean come on, is Barack Obama an Athiest?! As for the hatred of liberals, As long as people from the Maccarthy/cold war era survive their is always going to be a kernel of that sentiment. Only time will heal some wounds.
Yeah i realised that was a innacurate way of putting it after i looked into it a bit more. More a poor choice of words than something i truly believed though.
I am not going to pretend i know that much about american politics, that would be foolish
Bromsy wrote:
... So your argument is that if you can't get something done conveniently, screw the law and get it done however you can? Man, my boss just won't retire, and I want that promotion, so strychnine in the coffee. You can't move to a place and think that you, personally, get to decide which laws are important enough to follow.
It depends if the law is immoral. Murdering your boss is immoral, hence I would follow the law in that case. There are plenty of unjust laws out there.
If morality somehow doesn't play into it, then one would weigh up the risks of capture and punishment with that of successfully committing the illegal act.
I don't think I need to explain the Strain theory in full to you right now. Basically, if people desire something badly enough, but have no legal means to achieve that desire, they will inevitably be swayed to achieve it via illegal means. This is especially true if the law can be widely seen as unjust, or discriminating. And Immigration laws are almost always discriminating against the unskilled or uneducated, even if ethnicity doesn't play into it.
Perkustin wrote:It is not ISLAM's treatment of women, it is Arabic culture's treatment of women, look it up. Some 'open minded' people can often be very ignorant of the charitable and peaceful teachings of the Koran
To attempt to divorce Arabic culture from Islam is foolish. It is even more foolish to attempt to point to one particularly enlightened or 'charitable' teaching and imply that because that section exists, the other sections must be of equal merit. Especially in light of the many misogynistic and violent verses that can be found in the Qu'ran, that are taught widely across the Middle East.
Perkustin wrote:it is ignorant in the extreme to believe they should just conform to your own ideals.
Why? You're demanding he adhere to your doctrine that he should not expect others to conform to his doctrine. By your own words then, you've just damned yourself as ignorant.
Perkustin wrote:Perhaps do some research next time you move
Implying he did not? That he just casually switched countries on a whim? Considering in the time I've been on this board, I've followed MGS, his thoughts on America, and the process of his move, I think such a comment is more indicative of your general lack of knowledge with regards to his circumstance than anything. Unless of course, you were trying to be witty, and boost your own E-peen by slapping him down. I'll be charitable, presume the best of human nature, and assume the former.
Perkustin, I'm going to indulge you one response to your personal attack, then I think you and I are done talking as your words have cast you in a very poor light.
America is a different culture, it is ignorant in the extreme to believe they should just conform to your own ideals. You aren't helping things by making such flawed moany arguments. America welcomed you, dont bite the hand that feeds. You want to make a difference? Volunteer at the homeless shelter/youth club, join a union. Join up as a canvasser for Obama for goodness sake!
What individual believes that their ideals are not worth others abiding by? I find it either humorous or moronic than you should then proceed to tell me how to live and conduct myself, presumably in order to meet your expectations...
I'm also curious as to what you know of my life and how I conduct it that you would know that I do none of these things already.
Perkustin wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
This is a short promotional film seeking a budget to be made into a full film documentary.
I myself, as a person who believes strongly in tolerance and cultural exchange, have my own problems with Islam with regards it's treatment of women and it's extremist applications in parts of the world.
It is not ISLAM's treatment of women, it is Arabic culture's treatment of women, look it up. Some 'open minded' people can often be very ignorant of the charitable and peaceful teachings of the Koran
I have debated the treatment of women and their place within the Islamic religion for a great many pages on this forum, the Qu'ran clearly states the secondary placement of women and their treatment as second class citizens can be witnessed across the Islamic world. You see I have 'looked it up' and infact known a good many muslims in my life. Some of them were women escaping violent domestic situations who came from several parts of the world, I tutored them and was told their histories, including how the muslim community around them endorsed their treatment. I will not start a further discussion down that line but the old debate is here if you search for it.
Perkustin wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
But this level of intolerance leaves me boggled, what happened to the separation of church and state? And why is there such a rabid hatred of liberal views in the US, having moved to PA, I have been told by people who never stopped to ask me my own views, that liberals 'should be rounded up and shot', that environmentalists 'are all backed by the communists and are enemies of the nation'.
America is a christian democracy, Christianity is a far bigger part of their culture, Homer Simpson Goes to church every week, live with it. I mean come on, is Barack Obama an Athiest?! As for the hatred of liberals, As long as people from the Maccarthy/cold war era survive their is always going to be a kernel of that sentiment. Only time will heal some wounds
I would suggest you read the constitution or at least wiki it to possess some grasp of the deep set foundation established to keep the United States from becoming a religiously controlled nation. I also suggest you consider the words of the founding fathers on the nature of religion and it's involvement with mortal power.
Perkustin wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
The vast majority of the population of the US are descended from immigrants of the last 300 years, it is a mixing bowl of peoples from across the planet.
You have made the common mistake of thinking this should make them more open minded, if anything their brutal colonisation and proto ethnic cleansing should make them infintely more intolerant than they are
So I'm making a 'common mistake' but you then go on to make a fairly radicalised and bizarre equation to the opposite. I can show you that in comparison to the rest of the world, the US has a very open and tolerant law and administration.
Perkustin wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I said to my wife the other night, that the US is at it's most amazing and beautiful when it unites, when it uses that hybrid vigour to do great things and when it leads the rest of the world into doing great things and it is at it's nadir when it finds it's self so absolutely divided, much as I have seen recently over politics and faith.
How very drole, plus since last time i checked their has been no civil wars
I don't really get what you mean, but if you are suggesting that it's ok as noone is shooting anyone yet, I can only say that it's been a distinct and unpleasant thing to watch the division in communities here along lines of political belief.
Perkustin wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I moved over here, rather than my American wife moving to the UK, partly because of the bright optimism I had encountered in the US, the people believed in their country and in doing 'the right thing' and in 'freedom for all'. It was a refreshing change to the jaded post-imperial cynical hangover that we have in the UK. But that brightness has dimmed a very great deal in the past couple of years and the country feels so deeply divided and at loggerheads.
Perhaps do some research next time you move
This is just trite and pointless sniping. I waited for almost year after we were married to be here with my wife as my permanent residency visa was approved, we were 3 years before that in a long distance relationship consisting of transatlantic travelling and the wonder of skype. We discussed which way we would move for all that time. That you dare to presume I moved here on a whim, that I gave up my family, friends, career and country without 'looking into it' is crass and moronic. You win no points from this.
Perkustin wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
I saw a pickup truck yesterday with a bumper sticker that read 'Don't Re Nig in 2012 Get him out!' and can't really believe that not only does some ignorant bastard manufacture that, but that some other ignorant bastard would proudly display it. At first I was my usual vitriolic self and angry, then, just saddened and tired by it. It made me want to go home to the riots and class divisions of the UK.
Admittedly the use of an offensive word is not necessary but there are numerous reasons why even the wooliest liberal would not want to see a fairly toothless president re elected
So your defending the sticker and it's use as understandable, because, in your opinion, Obama is 'toothless'. So, it's ok to be racist towards someone on the premise that they aren't sharp enough for you.
Pathetic.
Perkustin wrote:
MeanGreenStompa wrote:
Whether from the right or left, you are so much better than this. Will we see a return to more agreeable politics and a less divided nation or should Mrs S and I start looking into moving to Canada?
As a final point i see absolutely NO mention of the drug, unemployment and crime epidemics as well as the overpopulated prisons. Clearly you aren't as worried about the vulnerable and impoverished as you imply. More about 'Mrs S and I's' relative safety and comfort as middle class liberals
When was this thread, the short film I linked or any of the points anyone else raised about drugs or crime? I didn't raise the issue of the American Condor's plight either, should I be chastised for that?
You know absolutely nothing about my life yet are willing to make these sweeping generalised insults.
As a final note, there is nothing middle class or liberal about the 'relative safety' of my wife. I would die for her and most certainly kill for her. That isn't class or political angle, that is fact.
Perkustin wrote:It is not ISLAM's treatment of women, it is Arabic culture's treatment of women, look it up. Some 'open minded' people can often be very ignorant of the charitable and peaceful teachings of the Koran
To attempt to divorce Arabic culture from Islam is foolish.
The largest population of Muslims is in Asia.
Just saying you're incorrect on that one. I'm not going to touch the comparitive violent and misognystic teachings between the Old Books with a ten-foot pole.
You know that 99.9% of mexicans are catholic right, its not like they sacrifice cattle to appease Cthulu. We have a lot of Catholics in the states, sure the government is mostly protestant and baptist, but there are a lot of Catholics(John F. Kennedy being the only Catholic president) who are citizens.
Their culture isn't too different from ours, they work hard for what they earn and I think that illegals should be made legal if they have good character so at least they can earn more. Not to get too much on the whole skin color thing, but yes there are people who hate them just because of skin color but those people will be in the minority soon.
Its not too different, this IS Texas culture.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Polonius wrote:
dogma wrote:
Polonius wrote:
It's also part of the reason intellectuals tend to run more liberal: they know that no matter what the game is, they've got skills and abilities that will allow them to compete.
Yep.
Though, there are also a lot of people like me who are sufficiently insulated to be comfortable no matter what happens (short of an armed revolt, though that's why you make friends in other countries), and therefore only view politics as a wonderful game.
I hear that. I'm a professional class straight white guy. I'm going to be ok, personally, with whoever is in charge.
Unless its an American Pol Pot or Robespierre of course.
Perkustin wrote:It is not ISLAM's treatment of women, it is Arabic culture's treatment of women, look it up. Some 'open minded' people can often be very ignorant of the charitable and peaceful teachings of the Koran
To attempt to divorce Arabic culture from Islam is foolish.
The largest population of Muslims is in Asia.
Just saying you're incorrect on that one. I'm not going to touch the comparitive violent and misognystic teachings between the Old Books with a ten-foot pole.
Polonius wrote:Judging all of Islam by how it's practiced in the Arab world would be like judging all of Christianity by how it's practiced in Russia.
I'm not 'judging' Islam at all. Neither is it relevant where the largest populations of Muslims in the world are.
My point was that attempting to separate Islam and arabic culture into two distinct separate entities is at best impossible, and at worst, stupid. Arabic culture is thoroughly interlinked with and influenced by Islam, and has been for a damn long time. You cannot place all the misogynistic aspects into a box called 'Arabic Culture' and claim that Islam has nothing to do with it.
Polonius wrote:Judging all of Islam by how it's practiced in the Arab world would be like judging all of Christianity by how it's practiced in Russia.
I'm not 'judging' Islam at all. Neither is it relevant where the largest populations of Muslims in the world are.
My point was that attempting to separate Islam and arabic culture into two distinct separate entities is at best impossible, and at worst, stupid. Arabic culture is thoroughly interlinked with and influenced by Islam, and has been for a damn long time. You cannot place all the misogynistic aspects into a box called 'Arabic Culture' and claim that Islam has nothing to do with it.
If by "arabic culture" you mean the arabic culture of the 8th-10th centuries, i'd agree. But by this point, the muslim populations of southeast asia in particular aren't exactly taking their cue from modern arabic culture.
Judaism was influenced by ancient israeli culture, but Jews in Brooklyn aren't patterning their life of of current israeli culture.
Hence my comment. Christianity has outgrown it's initial culture to a greater extent (plus has had seven more centuries, and spread quicker once it romanized), but Islam is also different now than when practiced by medieval arabs.
Actually there are some Jews that do pattern their life around ancient traditions. There's a line that they wanted to set up in Jersey that allows them to do things on the sabbath that they usually don't do or something along those lines. It was on the Colbert Report or Daily Show last month I believe.
Islam itself is practiced differently by some people, there are still honor killings and stonings that happen but those for the most part aren't really the majority, or at least I hope are no longer the majority. There are also countries that practice Sharia Law and are more theocracies than anything else.
The Phillipines has a muslim population with some good and some bad, the bad do the terrorist style attacks their middle eastern brethren carry out.
As far as muslims living in Asia... the Middle East is a part of Asia.
I thought this thread was on immigration in general, not Islamic beliefs. But this topic was bound to be brought up, so here's my view:
Judging a religion by the books it follows and the views of some of its followers is completely pointless. The books, because every religious text will contradict itself on numerous occasions, and will be followed in many different ways. There are muslims who read every hateful, controversial statement in the Qu'ran, and ones who ignore those and focus on ones that appeal to them. Religions rarely influence people's views, only give excuses to acting on their existing ones. For example, the Qu'ran can be interpreted as saying to kill all non-believers. People who hate the West will use this to justify things such as suicide bombing. But the suicide bombers then forget the verse which says not to kill, and the verse which says not to commit suicide. These are followed by other people who believe that these fundementalists are wrong.
Anyway, this is why I believe judging Islam based on the actions of a select few is like judging the Christians by what Hitler did: you are saying they're automatically the same as someone who most likely has nothing to do with them. Instead, judge them as individuals. Then the less extreme ones won't get firebombed, and the extremists will still be hated.
Oh, and just because I know I'm probably spewing crap, half the Qu'ran is pretty much copy/paste from the Bible, which is copy/paste from the Torah. They all have pretty much the same views as eachother.
Don't forget the Hindu and Buddhist teachings that have parallels in the Bible/Torah/Qu'ran.
Speaking of muslims, I had a woman come into the store wearing a full body dress and a hijab. Outside of the fact that the dress was an ugly gray and the hijab a bright red I had no problems with it. I mean if you're going to follow your religious doctrine at least have some kind of fashion sense.
Polonius wrote:Judging all of Islam by how it's practiced in the Arab world would be like judging all of Christianity by how it's practiced in Russia.
I'm not 'judging' Islam at all. Neither is it relevant where the largest populations of Muslims in the world are.
My point was that attempting to separate Islam and arabic culture into two distinct separate entities is at best impossible, and at worst, stupid. Arabic culture is thoroughly interlinked with and influenced by Islam, and has been for a damn long time. You cannot place all the misogynistic aspects into a box called 'Arabic Culture' and claim that Islam has nothing to do with it.
If by "arabic culture" you mean the arabic culture of the 8th-10th centuries, i'd agree. But by this point, the muslim populations of southeast asia in particular aren't exactly taking their cue from modern arabic culture.
Judaism was influenced by ancient israeli culture, but Jews in Brooklyn aren't patterning their life of of current israeli culture.
Hence my comment. Christianity has outgrown it's initial culture to a greater extent (plus has had seven more centuries, and spread quicker once it romanized), but Islam is also different now than when practiced by medieval arabs.
Sure.
Still doesn't alter the fact though, that trying to disassociate modern arabic culture and Islam is nigh on impossible.
Polonius wrote:Sigh. When talking about Arab Muslims, sure.
I'm not sure what the connection between modern Saudi Arabia and, say, Malaysia is.
I have no idea either. And I'm really not too sure what you're arguing with here.
Considering the statement that was being debated with blamed 'Arabic culture', for misogynism in the middle-east, and said that was was the culprit instead of Islam, I'm really not certain what Malaysia necessarily has to do with me raising an eyebrow over the attempted disassociation of those two things,.
Somebody had said that you can't seperate arabic culture from islam. I was merely saying that was true really in, well, arab cultures, but not in non-arab cultures.
Polonius wrote:Somebody had said that you can't seperate arabic culture from islam. I was merely saying that was true really in, well, arab cultures, but not in non-arab cultures.
In that case, yes that was me.
And no, I don't disagree with your statement. Islam isn't necessarily as key or crucial in the development of many cultures across the world as in Arabic culture.
However, in the case of Arabic culture specifically, the two cannot be disassociated in the way Perkustin seemed to be attempting.
Polonius wrote:Somebody had said that you can't seperate arabic culture from islam. I was merely saying that was true really in, well, arab cultures, but not in non-arab cultures.
Anatolian Turks and Persians don't count? Com oon
Of course these days the distinction between Anatolian Turks, Arabs, and Persians is kind of hard to see from the outside.
Really what should be said is that Middle Eastern culture is inseparable from Islam.
Polonius wrote:Somebody had said that you can't seperate arabic culture from islam. I was merely saying that was true really in, well, arab cultures, but not in non-arab cultures.
Anatolian Turks and Persians don't count? Com oon
Of course these days the distinction between Anatolian Turks, Arabs, and Persians is kind of hard to see from the outside.
.
They are "racially" different people, speak different languages, live under different political systems, have different dress codes, different cuisine. The main thing that is similar about the three groups is Islam, split into Sufi, Sunni and Shia sects (and some others). The proportion of each sect differs between countries.
halonachos wrote:I thought that he was given a choice between death or never teaching again and said something like "An unexamined life is not worth living."
I dunno. I always understood that he could do whatever he wanted once outside of Athens. Not like they could do much anyway if he set up shop in a different locale, especially if it was a powerful state.
To clarify, my point was that all those groups have cultures heavily influenced by Islam and long standing tribal traditions. It's not just the Arabs who are in that boat.
Polonius wrote:Somebody had said that you can't seperate arabic culture from islam. I was merely saying that was true really in, well, arab cultures, but not in non-arab cultures.
In that case, yes that was me.
And no, I don't disagree with your statement. Islam isn't necessarily as key or crucial in the development of many cultures across the world as in Arabic culture.
However, in the case of Arabic culture specifically, the two cannot be disassociated in the way Perkustin seemed to be attempting.
So yes.....
You can, in fact, seperate Arabic culture and Islam, one often heavily features in the other as a matter of fact, but the relationship is by no means exclusive. Take the Arabic populations that are heavily Orthodox Christian, for example.
Polonius wrote:Somebody had said that you can't seperate arabic culture from islam. I was merely saying that was true really in, well, arab cultures, but not in non-arab cultures.
In that case, yes that was me.
And no, I don't disagree with your statement. Islam isn't necessarily as key or crucial in the development of many cultures across the world as in Arabic culture.
However, in the case of Arabic culture specifically, the two cannot be disassociated in the way Perkustin seemed to be attempting.
So yes.....
You can, in fact, seperate Arabic culture and Islam, one often heavily features in the other as a matter of fact, but the relationship is by no means exclusive. Take the Arabic populations that are heavily Orthodox Christian, for example.
That would be another debate in itself. However, happily, its one that we need not have here, due to you missing a key part of my statement. Namely, 'the two cannot be disassociated in the way Perkustin seemed to be attempting', the original statement of which was, 'It is not ISLAM's treatment of women, it is Arabic culture's treatment of women'.
In this particular case, I would argue it utterly implausible to underline all misogynistic aspects of society in the Middle-East, and put them in a box marked, 'Arabic Culture', and have those misogynistic aspects, and how they relate to 'Arabic Culture' be completely unrelated to Islam. It is impossible.
It is possible certainly, to look at a piece of artwork produced in Tehran and not need to associate it with Islam in any way. In such a way could you disassociate Arabic culture from Islam (although it would be possible to argue that Islamic influences may have left an imprint on the artist that influenced his creation).
It is not possible however, to look at the social aspects of Arabic culture in this regard, and disassociate them in the same way.
Ketara wrote:
In this particular case, I would argue it utterly implausible to underline all misogynistic aspects of society in the Middle-East, and put them in a box marked, 'Arabic Culture', and have those misogynistic aspects, and how they relate to 'Arabic Culture' be completely unrelated to Islam. It is impossible.
That depends on how you're using "Islam" . If you're referring to the religion, then its not only possible, its pretty easy. If you're referring to the people that practice the religion, Muslims in other words, its much more difficult.
Its not that hard to look at the Arab world and pick out a set of things that are misogynistic and then look at whether or not they are necessarily the result of Islamic influence; ie. required by Islam, rather than Muslims.
Not to the extent that Perkutsin is claiming, no. But you could only claim that the misognystic aspects if they were a part of Islam itself. For example, the full veil, and only allowing women outside if they are escorted by a male, could be put down to a particular Arabic culture.
On the other hand, stoning the wife for adultery could be accurately described as a part of Christian doctrine, even if it is not widely practiced in cultures that are heavily Christian.
Maybe I'm digressing. My point is that 'Islamic Culture' can only be accurately reduced to it's actual teachings. Anything else that grows around it should be considered as part of that particular culture, even if that culture embraces the tenents of Islam to the point that it can also be considered a part of their culture.
Polonius wrote:Somebody had said that you can't seperate arabic culture from islam. I was merely saying that was true really in, well, arab cultures, but not in non-arab cultures.
In that case, yes that was me.
And no, I don't disagree with your statement. Islam isn't necessarily as key or crucial in the development of many cultures across the world as in Arabic culture.
However, in the case of Arabic culture specifically, the two cannot be disassociated in the way Perkustin seemed to be attempting.
So yes.....
You can, in fact, seperate Arabic culture and Islam, one often heavily features in the other as a matter of fact, but the relationship is by no means exclusive. Take the Arabic populations that are heavily Orthodox Christian, for example.
But do it quickly. They are getting killed off as we speak.
Polonius wrote:Somebody had said that you can't seperate arabic culture from islam. I was merely saying that was true really in, well, arab cultures, but not in non-arab cultures.
In that case, yes that was me.
And no, I don't disagree with your statement. Islam isn't necessarily as key or crucial in the development of many cultures across the world as in Arabic culture.
However, in the case of Arabic culture specifically, the two cannot be disassociated in the way Perkustin seemed to be attempting.
So yes.....
You can, in fact, seperate Arabic culture and Islam, one often heavily features in the other as a matter of fact, but the relationship is by no means exclusive. Take the Arabic populations that are heavily Orthodox Christian, for example.
But do it quickly. They are getting killed off as we speak.
Who, the Orthodox Christians? No they're not, though they are emmigrating out of the Middle East. A fair amount of Lebanese Christians have moved to Australia over the years, for example.
(bet im gonna feel stupid when someone tells me :()
