Culture War

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 14 of 18 < 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 >

kuge Peckham 23 Sep 21 11.24pm
Originally posted by Stirlingsays Your first port of call is to relate tensions that come from multiculturalism to tensions from religions. At first glance this is a good comparison though obviously not exact. You appear to miss the very obvious response to the inevitability of racism being homogeneous societies. The only reason that Catholics and Protestants stopped killing each other in the UK was because the Protestants won and the Catholics were kept in their place all the way uptil atheism took over as the dominant position in Europe....I'd say sometime post 60s. That's the only way societies can truly be harmonious, when one culture is the mainstream.....unfiltered multiculturalism has been an utter failure. You seem to be suggesting that the solution to multiculturalism is indoctrination of groups against tribal self interest?.....Is this your idea of how they should relate to each other? Like I said to you, there has never been a time or place in history where this has worked. I asked you to counter that and you ignored it....I think that is telling. I put it that indoctrination into a 'CRT' like system can only lead to increasing polarisation and balkanization.....indeed, if you look at demographical maps that's the practical outcome of increasing multiculturalism....different birds not flocking together as Ali meant all those years ago....everyone likes flowery words without actually looking at the results on the ground. Relating group preference to crime or disease is just unworkable.....should we do that with class? Because that's far more common and actually has far more inpact on how well someone does? Is inequality a disease as well? It all sounds as realistic as communism was. No, what is natural to the human being isn't a disease or a crime. I put it to you that those with these ideas are far more harmful to society that ten million Alf Garnetts ever could be. All these ideas do is worsen social cohesion, turn people into liars and demonise people for natural behaviour. These ideas encourage the very stuff they explicitly say they oppose.....indeed, they have created an industry to look for any infringements to their ideology. Indeed, they don't even impose their ideas evenly creating 'protected groups' and ignoring tribal self interest from them and hunting for it only in Europeans. No one was asked or given a choice. People in Japan are happy living their lives without radicals calling them racists because your ideas don't have power there. They get to live without an industry and activists looking to destroy their lives for natural behaviours. Those polls showed how little they know about what would be waiting for them. But in Europe the working classes have been forced to live out the fantasies of elites and globalists...and any that object are demonised. Edited by Stirlingsays (23 Sep 2021 10.12pm) Nations that have managed to maintain a peaceful balance whilst being multicultural are not unknown. I think, however, that as I write this you will say that the two or more cultures are too similar, I will mention a couple anyway. Switzerland, renowned for being peaceful, has at least four or five main cultural groups. The Swiss speak four different languages, (French, Swiss-German, Italian and Romansh), two main religious groups (Catholics and Swiss Reform). Perhaps you will say that the wealth in Switzerland enables it to support diversity but Switzerland was not always the rich country it is today and throughout most of the 18th and 19th centuries, it was prime to poverty and famine. I will also argue that the UK has always been a multicultural society. Should you seek to suggest to a Scotsman, an Irishman or a Welshman that their culture is just the same as English culture you would of course get short shrift. Minorities in this country are justly proud of our culture, I am myself Welsh and very proud of that, however, I do not place my own culture above the culture of others. I would agree that the secularisation of society has in general made us much more tolerant. The church was always what stood in the way of addressing many of the inequalities in society. I have seen the statement, we were never asked or given a choice, before. This type of revisionist thinking is not true. When the Empire Windrush, arrived in 1948 the passengers were confined to the ship for a few days as there was disquiet in government and attempts were made to stop some of the passengers from landing. This was of course impossible because at that time their passports gave them the right of residence in the UK. In the twenty General Elections that have taken place since then, there have always been candidates wishing to restrict or completely stop emigration from the former colonies. In none of those elections did those candidates gain sufficient votes or seats to bring such policies into law. I would agree that class is as insidious in the distortion of societies as any other factor. Particularly this is true in the UK where as soon as you speak it will likely be clear to what social class you belong to or aspire to belong to. This is almost unique to our culture and we suffer greatly from it. In France, if you come from Provance your accent will reflect that whether you are a Duke or a docker. That is not to say that one is likely to have a very different vocabulary to the other. Likewise in Japan the regional dialects that make many Japanese, people from Tohoku for instance, incomprehensible to other Japanese. Returning to class one of the factors that makes Jappan such a harmonious country is the relatively small gap between the wealthiest and the poorest and that despite there being elites as there are in all counties they are relatively permeable. I notice that you have suggested a few times that Japan is a homogeneous nation without minorities. This is just not true. The Ainu people of Hokkaido have been in Japan for many thousands of years, long before the people that now form the majority of the Japanese population. They have always suffered from persecution and racism which continues today. Likewise, Burakumin are discriminated against despite being genetically identical to other Japanese.
Alert a moderator to this post

kuge

Peckham 23 Sep 21 11.24pm

Originally posted by Stirlingsays

Your first port of call is to relate tensions that come from multiculturalism to tensions from religions. At first glance this is a good comparison though obviously not exact.

You appear to miss the very obvious response to the inevitability of racism being homogeneous societies. The only reason that Catholics and Protestants stopped killing each other in the UK was because the Protestants won and the Catholics were kept in their place all the way uptil atheism took over as the dominant position in Europe....I'd say sometime post 60s.

That's the only way societies can truly be harmonious, when one culture is the mainstream.....unfiltered multiculturalism has been an utter failure.

You seem to be suggesting that the solution to multiculturalism is indoctrination of groups against tribal self interest?.....Is this your idea of how they should relate to each other? Like I said to you, there has never been a time or place in history where this has worked. I asked you to counter that and you ignored it....I think that is telling.

I put it that indoctrination into a 'CRT' like system can only lead to increasing polarisation and balkanization.....indeed, if you look at demographical maps that's the practical outcome of increasing multiculturalism....different birds not flocking together as Ali meant all those years ago....everyone likes flowery words without actually looking at the results on the ground.

Relating group preference to crime or disease is just unworkable.....should we do that with class? Because that's far more common and actually has far more inpact on how well someone does? Is inequality a disease as well? It all sounds as realistic as communism was.

No, what is natural to the human being isn't a disease or a crime. I put it to you that those with these ideas are far more harmful to society that ten million Alf Garnetts ever could be.

All these ideas do is worsen social cohesion, turn people into liars and demonise people for natural behaviour. These ideas encourage the very stuff they explicitly say they oppose.....indeed, they have created an industry to look for any infringements to their ideology. Indeed, they don't even impose their ideas evenly creating 'protected groups' and ignoring tribal self interest from them and hunting for it only in Europeans.

No one was asked or given a choice.

People in Japan are happy living their lives without radicals calling them racists because your ideas don't have power there. They get to live without an industry and activists looking to destroy their lives for natural behaviours. Those polls showed how little they know about what would be waiting for them.

But in Europe the working classes have been forced to live out the fantasies of elites and globalists...and any that object are demonised.

Edited by Stirlingsays (23 Sep 2021 10.12pm)

Nations that have managed to maintain a peaceful balance whilst being multicultural are not unknown. I think, however, that as I write this you will say that the two or more cultures are too similar, I will mention a couple anyway.

Switzerland, renowned for being peaceful, has at least four or five main cultural groups. The Swiss speak four different languages, (French, Swiss-German, Italian and Romansh), two main religious groups (Catholics and Swiss Reform). Perhaps you will say that the wealth in Switzerland enables it to support diversity but Switzerland was not always the rich country it is today and throughout most of the 18th and 19th centuries, it was prime to poverty and famine.

I will also argue that the UK has always been a multicultural society. Should you seek to suggest to a Scotsman, an Irishman or a Welshman that their culture is just the same as English culture you would of course get short shrift. Minorities in this country are justly proud of our culture, I am myself Welsh and very proud of that, however, I do not place my own culture above the culture of others.

I would agree that the secularisation of society has in general made us much more tolerant. The church was always what stood in the way of addressing many of the inequalities in society.

I have seen the statement, we were never asked or given a choice, before. This type of revisionist thinking is not true. When the Empire Windrush, arrived in 1948 the passengers were confined to the ship for a few days as there was disquiet in government and attempts were made to stop some of the passengers from landing. This was of course impossible because at that time their passports gave them the right of residence in the UK. In the twenty General Elections that have taken place since then, there have always been candidates wishing to restrict or completely stop emigration from the former colonies. In none of those elections did those candidates gain sufficient votes or seats to bring such policies into law.

I would agree that class is as insidious in the distortion of societies as any other factor. Particularly this is true in the UK where as soon as you speak it will likely be clear to what social class you belong to or aspire to belong to. This is almost unique to our culture and we suffer greatly from it. In France, if you come from Provance your accent will reflect that whether you are a Duke or a docker. That is not to say that one is likely to have a very different vocabulary to the other. Likewise in Japan the regional dialects that make many Japanese, people from Tohoku for instance, incomprehensible to other Japanese. Returning to class one of the factors that makes Jappan such a harmonious country is the relatively small gap between the wealthiest and the poorest and that despite there being elites as there are in all counties they are relatively permeable.

I notice that you have suggested a few times that Japan is a homogeneous nation without minorities. This is just not true. The Ainu people of Hokkaido have been in Japan for many thousands of years, long before the people that now form the majority of the Japanese population. They have always suffered from persecution and racism which continues today. Likewise, Burakumin are discriminated against despite being genetically identical to other Japanese.

Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays Online 24 Sep 21 12.34am
Originally posted by kuge Nations that have managed to maintain a peaceful balance whilst being multicultural are not unknown. I think, however, that as I write this you will say that the two or more cultures are too similar, I will mention a couple anyway. Switzerland, renowned for being peaceful, has at least four or five main cultural groups. The Swiss speak four different languages, (French, Swiss-German, Italian and Romansh), two main religious groups (Catholics and Swiss Reform). Perhaps you will say that the wealth in Switzerland enables it to support diversity but Switzerland was not always the rich country it is today and throughout most of the 18th and 19th centuries, it was prime to poverty and famine. I will also argue that the UK has always been a multicultural society. Should you seek to suggest to a Scotsman, an Irishman or a Welshman that their culture is just the same as English culture you would of course get short shrift. Minorities in this country are justly proud of our culture, I am myself Welsh and very proud of that, however, I do not place my own culture above the culture of others. I notice that you have suggested a few times that Japan is a homogeneous nation without minorities. This is just not true. The Ainu people of Hokkaido have been in Japan for many thousands of years, long before the people that now form the majority of the Japanese population. They have always suffered from persecution and racism which continues today. Likewise, Burakumin are discriminated against despite being genetically identical to other Japanese. You seem to have unknowingly spent most of this post proving my own point. You refer to the regional differences within an ethnicity and the natural tensions that exist within them without seeming to recognize that an ideology that seeks to introduce much more diverse cultures and ethnicities into them is taking those differences, which can be analogized to a playground scuffle and enlarging them to WW2. Yet your view that this approach is desirable.....when I contend that societies must always have a dominant monoculture within them to be stable. You have attempted to push the idea that differences within a single ethnicity can be compared accurately to genuine diverse multiculturalism and so be presented as examples of successful multiculturalism. I honestly don't think the contention makes sense. What I do recognise is that cohesion does become fractured within highly religious societies. While it's not the same this division will produce the same outcome of tension and frequently has led to war and conflict as we know......again, it proves my own argument that an approach that avoids introducing division is sensible while one that introduces it and then finger points doesn't. Also Switzerland far from being a peaceful collection of cultures had several civil wars spread over centuries mainly between the groups you cited. Secularization within relative monoculture is certainly a factor in enabling peace, however that is a far more complex picture than just secularization......Sure, there are regional differences but they exist within the same ethnicity and hence are less than real multiculturalism......Even Cameron recognised this years ago...Merkel as well before they decided to tread the path of denial for 'kicked can down the road' convenience. Whether it's Japan or the UK this point stands universally. Originally posted by kuge I would agree that the secularisation of society has in general made us much more tolerant. The church was always what stood in the way of addressing many of the inequalities in society. Originally posted by kuge I have seen the statement, we were never asked or given a choice, before. This type of revisionist thinking is not true. When the Empire Windrush, arrived in 1948 the passengers were confined to the ship for a few days as there was disquiet in government and attempts were made to stop some of the passengers from landing. This was of course impossible because at that time their passports gave them the right of residence in the UK. In the twenty General Elections that have taken place since then, there have always been candidates wishing to restrict or completely stop emigration from the former colonies. In none of those elections did those candidates gain sufficient votes or seats to bring such policies into law. Yes, I'm well aware that Windrush was not welcomed, why should it have been. It also may be asked just who were the people behind organizing the influx. General Elections are far more than single issue votes....note the word general. I think you will find that a single issue vote is called a referendum and the last one the UK had on that saw a rejection of the EU. The main sentiment being a rejection of freedom of movement and hence a vote against mass immigration. National opinion polls within the UK also come out against your opinion here. There has never been a majority in favour of multiculturalism or indeed increasing diversity. So it's true to say that the nation were kept away from a vote on mass immigration and for the very reason that the elites knew that they would lose the vote. Indeed, after Powell's 'rivers of blood' speech in 68 opinion polls showed he had mass approval with over seventy percent agreement....just on its own it proves my contentions regarding this point. The elites however, had other ideas. Originally posted by kuge I would agree that class is as insidious in the distortion of societies as any other factor. Particularly this is true in the UK where as soon as you speak it will likely be clear to what social class you belong to or aspire to belong to. This is almost unique to our culture and we suffer greatly from it. In France, if you come from Provance your accent will reflect that whether you are a Duke or a docker. That is not to say that one is likely to have a very different vocabulary to the other. Likewise in Japan the regional dialects that make many Japanese, people from Tohoku for instance, incomprehensible to other Japanese. Returning to class one of the factors that makes Jappan such a harmonious country is the relatively small gap between the wealthiest and the poorest and that despite there being elites as there are in all counties they are relatively permeable. I won't dismiss that class has an ugly side. However, it is also inevitable within any society that seeks meritocracy. It's an interesting discussion point in isolation and one far larger than I could serve here when I have this tea to drink.....why am I drinking tea at this hour?....God knows....especially the Catholic one. Edited by Stirlingsays (24 Sep 2021 12.37am) 'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)
Alert a moderator to this post

Stirlingsays Online

24 Sep 21 12.34am

Originally posted by kuge

You seem to have unknowingly spent most of this post proving my own point.

You refer to the regional differences within an ethnicity and the natural tensions that exist within them without seeming to recognize that an ideology that seeks to introduce much more diverse cultures and ethnicities into them is taking those differences, which can be analogized to a playground scuffle and enlarging them to WW2.

Yet your view that this approach is desirable.....when I contend that societies must always have a dominant monoculture within them to be stable.

You have attempted to push the idea that differences within a single ethnicity can be compared accurately to genuine diverse multiculturalism and so be presented as examples of successful multiculturalism. I honestly don't think the contention makes sense.

What I do recognise is that cohesion does become fractured within highly religious societies. While it's not the same this division will produce the same outcome of tension and frequently has led to war and conflict as we know......again, it proves my own argument that an approach that avoids introducing division is sensible while one that introduces it and then finger points doesn't.

Also Switzerland far from being a peaceful collection of cultures had several civil wars spread over centuries mainly between the groups you cited.

Secularization within relative monoculture is certainly a factor in enabling peace, however that is a far more complex picture than just secularization......Sure, there are regional differences but they exist within the same ethnicity and hence are less than real multiculturalism......Even Cameron recognised this years ago...Merkel as well before they decided to tread the path of denial for 'kicked can down the road' convenience.

Whether it's Japan or the UK this point stands universally.

Originally posted by kuge

I would agree that the secularisation of society has in general made us much more tolerant. The church was always what stood in the way of addressing many of the inequalities in society.

Originally posted by kuge

Yes, I'm well aware that Windrush was not welcomed, why should it have been. It also may be asked just who were the people behind organizing the influx.

General Elections are far more than single issue votes....note the word general. I think you will find that a single issue vote is called a referendum and the last one the UK had on that saw a rejection of the EU. The main sentiment being a rejection of freedom of movement and hence a vote against mass immigration.

National opinion polls within the UK also come out against your opinion here. There has never been a majority in favour of multiculturalism or indeed increasing diversity.

So it's true to say that the nation were kept away from a vote on mass immigration and for the very reason that the elites knew that they would lose the vote.

Indeed, after Powell's 'rivers of blood' speech in 68 opinion polls showed he had mass approval with over seventy percent agreement....just on its own it proves my contentions regarding this point.

The elites however, had other ideas.

Originally posted by kuge

I won't dismiss that class has an ugly side. However, it is also inevitable within any society that seeks meritocracy. It's an interesting discussion point in isolation and one far larger than I could serve here when I have this tea to drink.....why am I drinking tea at this hour?....God knows....especially the Catholic one.

Edited by Stirlingsays (24 Sep 2021 12.37am)

'Who are you and how did you get in here? I'm a locksmith. And, I'm a locksmith.' (Leslie Nielsen)

Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman Horsham 24 Sep 21 7.19am
Originally posted by croydon proud Ha ha, can just picture Barry from auf wiedersien playing that part! Indeed. It was a very funny moment
Alert a moderator to this post

Spiderman

Horsham 24 Sep 21 7.19am

Originally posted by croydon proud

Ha ha, can just picture Barry from auf wiedersien playing that part!

Indeed. It was a very funny moment

Alert a moderator to this post

DanH Online SW2 25 Sep 21 11.24am
GB News continuing to hammer home air punches in the supposed culture war. [Tweet Link]
Alert a moderator to this post

DanH Online

SW2 25 Sep 21 11.24am

GB News continuing to hammer home air punches in the supposed culture war.

[Tweet Link]

Alert a moderator to this post

DanH Online SW2 25 Sep 21 11.27am
This �culture war� label really does give me a rye smile. Anything that anyone would probably fit under the �culture� umbrella - music, theatre, comedy, drama, art etc. has and always will be filled overwhelmingly by those with left wing politics. If the right are trying to fight a �culture� war what exactly is their culture they are fighting for?
Alert a moderator to this post

DanH Online

SW2 25 Sep 21 11.27am

This �culture war� label really does give me a rye smile. Anything that anyone would probably fit under the �culture� umbrella - music, theatre, comedy, drama, art etc. has and always will be filled overwhelmingly by those with left wing politics.

If the right are trying to fight a �culture� war what exactly is their culture they are fighting for?

Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 25 Sep 21 12.02pm
Originally posted by DanH This �culture war� label really does give me a rye smile. Anything that anyone would probably fit under the �culture� umbrella - music, theatre, comedy, drama, art etc. has and always will be filled overwhelmingly by those with left wing politics. If the right are trying to fight a �culture� war what exactly is their culture they are fighting for? I suppose the definition of culture as in way of life. Things like language, morals, traditions, societal norms - a kind of Sociological culture, rather than luvvies' arty things. Red and Blue Army!
Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC

Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 25 Sep 21 12.02pm

Originally posted by DanH

If the right are trying to fight a �culture� war what exactly is their culture they are fighting for?

I suppose the definition of culture as in way of life. Things like language, morals, traditions, societal norms - a kind of Sociological culture, rather than luvvies' arty things.

Red and Blue Army!

Alert a moderator to this post

DanH Online SW2 25 Sep 21 1.30pm
Originally posted by ASCPFC I suppose the definition of culture as in way of life. Things like language, morals, traditions, societal norms - a kind of Sociological culture, rather than luvvies' arty things. Not sure you can claim that language and morals are exclusively a right wing concept.
Alert a moderator to this post

DanH Online

SW2 25 Sep 21 1.30pm

Originally posted by ASCPFC

I suppose the definition of culture as in way of life. Things like language, morals, traditions, societal norms - a kind of Sociological culture, rather than luvvies' arty things.

Not sure you can claim that language and morals are exclusively a right wing concept.

Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 25 Sep 21 1.43pm
Originally posted by DanH Not sure you can claim that language and morals are exclusively a right wing concept. No you can't - it's just that tpe of culture that is being 'fought' over. Rather than art, drama, books etc. I was basically just trying to answer your question. The Arts as culture is essentially high brow culture, mainly for the upper middle classes. Culture is actually the everyday way that we live in a society too. The way we talk, eat, interact - everything we do can be seen as culture, more or less. Red and Blue Army!
Alert a moderator to this post

ASCPFC

Pro-Cathedral/caravan park 25 Sep 21 1.43pm

Originally posted by DanH

Not sure you can claim that language and morals are exclusively a right wing concept.

No you can't - it's just that tpe of culture that is being 'fought' over. Rather than art, drama, books etc. I was basically just trying to answer your question.
The Arts as culture is essentially high brow culture, mainly for the upper middle classes. Culture is actually the everyday way that we live in a society too. The way we talk, eat, interact - everything we do can be seen as culture, more or less.

Red and Blue Army!

Alert a moderator to this post

DanH Online SW2 25 Sep 21 2.06pm
Originally posted by ASCPFC No you can't - it's just that tpe of culture that is being 'fought' over. Rather than art, drama, books etc. I was basically just trying to answer your question. The Arts as culture is essentially high brow culture, mainly for the upper middle classes. Culture is actually the everyday way that we live in a society too. The way we talk, eat, interact - everything we do can be seen as culture, more or less. I get you. Bizarre that people find that under threat though. All those things naturally evolve over time and are influenced by all sorts. I don�t think anyone has ever been able to point to one thing historically �British� that can�t be done any more. People just don�t like change and always look back on the past with rose tinted specs when they were in their younger years and pine for the most enjoyable years of their lives. Times change, culture changes, technology and science advances, people change. It�s a fact of life.
Alert a moderator to this post

DanH Online

SW2 25 Sep 21 2.06pm

Originally posted by ASCPFC

I get you. Bizarre that people find that under threat though. All those things naturally evolve over time and are influenced by all sorts.

I don�t think anyone has ever been able to point to one thing historically �British� that can�t be done any more. People just don�t like change and always look back on the past with rose tinted specs when they were in their younger years and pine for the most enjoyable years of their lives. Times change, culture changes, technology and science advances, people change. It�s a fact of life.

Alert a moderator to this post

PalazioVecchio south pole 25 Sep 21 2.47pm
Originally posted by DanH This �culture war� label really does give me a rye smile. Anything that anyone would probably fit under the �culture� umbrella - music, theatre, comedy, drama, art etc. has and always will be filled overwhelmingly by those with left wing politics. If the right are trying to fight a �culture� war what exactly is their culture they are fighting for? fighting to not have Lefty tossers telling us what to think. Eze Peasy at Anfield....
Alert a moderator to this post

PalazioVecchio

south pole 25 Sep 21 2.47pm

Send a Private Message to PalazioVecchio

Originally posted by DanH

If the right are trying to fight a �culture� war what exactly is their culture they are fighting for?

fighting to not have Lefty tossers telling us what to think.

Eze Peasy at Anfield....

Alert a moderator to this post

PalazioVecchio south pole 25 Sep 21 2.49pm
Originally posted by DanH People just don�t like change and always look back on the past with rose tinted specs when they were in their younger years and pine for the most enjoyable years of their lives. Times change, culture changes, technology and science advances, people change. It�s a fact of life. change in South Africa, its just a fact of life, get over it, eh Dan ? Eze Peasy at Anfield....
Alert a moderator to this post

PalazioVecchio

south pole 25 Sep 21 2.49pm

Originally posted by DanH

People just don�t like change and always look back on the past with rose tinted specs when they were in their younger years and pine for the most enjoyable years of their lives. Times change, culture changes, technology and science advances, people change. It�s a fact of life.

change in South Africa, its just a fact of life, get over it, eh Dan ?

Eze Peasy at Anfield....

Alert a moderator to this post

DanH Online SW2 25 Sep 21 3.31pm
Originally posted by PalazioVecchio fighting to not have Lefty tossers telling us what to think. No one�s telling you what to think. People are just calling people out for sh*tty behaviour these days. Just because no one called you a prick years ago doesn�t mean you haven�t always been one.
Alert a moderator to this post

DanH Online

SW2 25 Sep 21 3.31pm

Originally posted by PalazioVecchio

fighting to not have Lefty tossers telling us what to think.

No one�s telling you what to think. People are just calling people out for sh*tty behaviour these days. Just because no one called you a prick years ago doesn�t mean you haven�t always been one.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 14 of 18 < 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Culture War

Site Map

Sponsors