I don't really see how multiculturalism is bad...

I don't really see how multiculturalism is bad...

Postby Faquarl on Thu Nov 09, 2006 9:11 am

I'm one of those long time readers, first time posters.

I've seen some very good arguments against Liberalism, bad art and political correctness. I don't like two out of the three in there myself.

I can't quite grasp how multiculturalism fits in, though.
Maybe it's because I automatically assume that the opposite of multiculturalism is racism, but there could be different degrees of anti-multiculturalism (or whatever the heck you're supposed to call being opposed to being multicultural) or an entirely different meaning than the one I automatically assumed.

Can anyone elaborate or at least clear me up a little bit on this? (On what being non-multicultural entails.)
Faquarl
Newbie
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:54 am

Postby Kerry Skydancer on Thu Nov 09, 2006 9:22 am

Ah, the media have done their work well, young Skywalker...

Multiculturalism is the claim/belief that all cultures are intrinsically equally valid. The Media have been pushing the meme that to be against multiculturalism is to be racist, which is arrant nonsense, since culture is not race.

This false equivalence is being used by the 'progressives' to subvert American cultural values that they don't care for, such as self-reliance and honor and other parts of traditional morality, since people who hold such values have a tendency to believe that their culture is superior to others. The progressives seem to miss the minor detail that other cultures believe the same thing, and tend to be much more violent about it when they have the upper hand.
Skydancer

Ignorance is not a point of view.
User avatar
Kerry Skydancer
Cartoon Hero
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Bethlehem PA

Postby Faquarl on Thu Nov 09, 2006 9:42 am

I'm not too sure about that definition. I can think of at least one culture that is quite often identified with race: Judaism. I've also heard arguments that race is just a construct (a bunch of bollocks if you ask me), thus one's culture is analogous to one's race or is at least as close to race as any constructed concept can be.

I think I understand your point in the second statement as well, even though it does fall victim to that argumentum ad populum thing.

Thanks for clearing it up. :)
Faquarl
Newbie
 
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:54 am

Postby BrockthePaine on Thu Nov 09, 2006 10:00 am

Faquarl wrote:I'm not too sure about that definition. I can think of at least one culture that is quite often identified with race: Judaism.

Often identified with race, yes. What they neglect to mention is that during the time of the first historic Jewish states, anyone, regardless of race, could become a Jew and thus a citizen of ancient Israel. The Jews were the original melting-pot culture of the world. You're Assyrian? Okay, here's how you become a Jew. You're Arabic? Great! You can become a Jew, too. British barbarian? Greek? Roman? African? Indian? Doesn't matter. Simon of Cyrene, the man who carried Christ's cross, was a Jew and probably black. Ruth, the great-grandmother of King David, was a Moabite, one of the hated enemies of Israel. Judaism is not based upon race, but upon cultural affiliation. Even Obadiah, a prophet of Judaism, is supposedly a convert.
It does not take a majority to prevail ... but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men. - attributed to Samuel Adams

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.” - Richard Henry Lee
User avatar
BrockthePaine
Cartoon Hero
 
Posts: 1538
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2006 12:45 pm
Location: Further up and further in!

Postby The JAM on Thu Nov 09, 2006 11:29 am

And don't forget that Abraham was originally a Kuwaiti :D
User avatar
The JAM
Cartoon Hero
 
Posts: 2281
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
Location: Somewhere in Mexico...

Postby Nikas_Zekeval on Thu Nov 09, 2006 5:46 pm

Kerry Skydancer wrote:Ah, the media have done their work well, young Skywalker...

Multiculturalism is the claim/belief that all cultures are intrinsically equally valid. The Media have been pushing the meme that to be against multiculturalism is to be racist, which is arrant nonsense, since culture is not race.

This false equivalence is being used by the 'progressives' to subvert American cultural values that they don't care for, such as self-reliance and honor and other parts of traditional morality, since people who hold such values have a tendency to believe that their culture is superior to others. The progressives seem to miss the minor detail that other cultures believe the same thing, and tend to be much more violent about it when they have the upper hand.


I believe it would be more accurate to state that multiculturalism believes that all cultures other than the traditional Jeudo-Christian American are equal valid. The good old American melting pot on the other hand is oppressive, evil, and the source of suffering in the modern world. Think Animal Farm, 'All cultures are equal, but the rest are more equal than our evil culture'. Heavy on the self guilt.

It repudiates the old 'melting pot' them of a shared American cultural idenity spiced with the culture of immigrants, and replaces it with a balkanized model, where everyone has a different national identity and even language. Conformity is anathema, you must be different, just like everyone else. :roll:
"Come on Sam, it can't be as hard as blowing up a star."
"I tell you, blow up one star and suddenly everyone thinks you can walk on water."
*Beepboop* [connection established]
"Okay. Up next, parting the Red Sea."
Gen. Jacob Carter and Lt. Col. Samatha Carter, Stargate SG-1, "Reckoning"
Nikas_Zekeval
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 8:56 pm

Postby MikeVanPelt on Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:46 pm

Nikas_Zekeval wrote:
Kerry Skydancer wrote:Multiculturalism is the claim/belief that all cultures are intrinsically equally valid.


I believe it would be more accurate to state that multiculturalism believes that all cultures other than the traditional Jeudo-Christian American are equal valid.


I think Gilbert and Sullivan characterized them pretty well back in the 19th century:

"Idiots who praise in enthusiastic tone
Every century but this and every nation but their own."

(Sometimes I think Koko had the right idea about these morons... "Something lingering but amusing...")
User avatar
MikeVanPelt
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 11:07 pm

Postby Wanderwolf on Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:38 am

The problem, as a long-ago Analog article pointed out, is The Doctrine of Otherness.

The Doctrine of Otherness is a very successful doctrine, for the most part. It's basic element: All doctrines deserve consideration. This is extremely useful in politics, science, and planning. Less useful in religious or moral matters, of course, but that's in accordance with the natures of those fields.

The pitfalls of the Doctrine of Otherness are two:

The Doctrine of Otherness' Otherness: This states that even the Doctrine of Otherness may not be the best doctrine. Taken to the extreme, this tends to disintegrate into solipsism.

The Doctrine of Ultimate Otherness: This states that the Doctrine of Otherness is the Ultimate Doctrine, and should be applied to all systems; not really a logical or even desirable option, since it results in the types of situations seen in "Fallen Angels". "According to law, the value of pi is 3. Just 3."

I follow the original Doctrine of Otherness in non-religious, non-scientific matters only: The doctrine that all systems deserve evaluation under identical situations and classifications, and that this doctrine is the best option found to date.

In scientific matters, I follow the Doctrine of Evidence: If the evidence and logic make sense, evaluate. If they don't, evaluate. If it fails evaluation, re-evaluate. If it still fails, disregard.

In political matters, I evaluate according to history and known behavior. I extrapolate according to historical evidence and known tendencies. Then I vote according to the best projected outcome. Don't know if it's a doctrine, but I like it.

Yours truly,

The wolfish,

Wanderer
User avatar
Wanderwolf
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:18 pm
Location: Forney, TX, U.S.A.

Postby Greatbeast on Fri Nov 10, 2006 9:09 am

Kerry Skydancer wrote:Ah, the media have done their work well, young Skywalker...


This false equivalence is being used by the 'progressives' to subvert American cultural values that they don't care for, such as self-reliance and honor


AH, the old "Self Reliance" ideal....

Otherwise known as "Survival of the Fittest" ideal.

You usually hear the "Self reliance" dogma spoken by either rich politicians who inherited fortunes...or those they either fool into thinking that "people should always be able to be self reliant" or, of course those who believe the idea that 100% of all people on welfare/ social security/ disability are all slackers who should be working, and are sitting home making babies and sleeping all day, raising taxes for the honest workers.

Of course this forgets the idea that As a SOCIETY we are (somewhat) responsible for Our Own. Do not get me wrong, EVERYONE who can work should work, unless they have some other means to support themselves.

We should Not bear the brunt of supporting lazy but healthy people.

BUT we should DEFINATELY NEVER leave our own people to starve. live in the streets, Or even Drown in New Orleans due to flooding when WE ARE ONE OF, IF NOT THE MOST POWERFULL NATION ON THE EARTH etc while there are means to help them. AND wealthy people with more than they need.

AS for Honor....

Well I don't think that Democrats/Liberals/what have you have Forgotten honor.

Many many people serve as police, national guard, coast guard, firemen, army/navy/AF/Marines who ARE liberal in thought.

Most of the people who would be critisizing liberal thought simply mean that they do Not like they THEIR particular beliefs are not followed. The people they are unhappy with are those who arent in THEIR church or temple, or do not live their lives how the unhappy one would have them live.

IE "If you arent in MY church, you must be Godless"
http://www.popularparanoia.com
--Watching them watch you...
Greatbeast
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 76
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
Location: Taunton, MA 02780

Postby RHJunior on Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:20 am

Okay, let's start off with the basics:

Self Reliance is not Darwinism.

Self Reliance is the doctrine that 1) you have an obligation to carry your own weight, to the maximum of your individual ability 2)you do not have the right to demand that anyone else carry your weight for you.

And yes, if you're not a Christian, I believe you're going to hell. Does that shock you? Funny, you don't seem to have any problem with believing that if I don't stop driving a car and eating red meat I'll go to Global Warming. Somehow, believing that <I>you're</i> right and <I>I'm</i> wrong is okay--- but believing that <I>I'm</i> correct and <I>you're</i> wrong is misanthropy.

Interesting.

And as to the cute little quote from "Dogma," that movie was written and produced by a committee of biblically and historically illiterate bong-monkeys.

The "3 is pi" thing comes from a description given of a bath, or basin, that was made for King Solomon.
What is ignored is that the description also says <I>that the top was flanged, or had a lip.</I> It is therefore believed that the circumference given was around the inside or base of the bath, while the diameter given was from <I> outside rim to outside rim.</i>

Also, take into account that 1)the basin may not have been perfectly round-- it may have been somewhat ovoid 2)the measuring tool used was a piece of string, not a digital measuring tape-- the measure given, self evidently, was an approximation

3)over history the precise value of pi has been given as several different values, depending on who was doing the calculations and how. In fact, an "exact" measurement of pi is essentially mathematically impossible. So where do you get off criticizing anyone for using an approximation-- especially where it was irrelevant to the discussion at hand?

4)<I>nowhere does it say that pi is "exactly 3." It does not even say the measure of the bath in question was "exactly" 3.</I>

5) And finally, the point of the passage was to give the reader a general idea of just how dang HUGE this golden bath was--- in short, it was an illustration of just how rich Solomon was.

I am sick to death of clove-smoking, greasy haired, curled-lip, barely literate disaffected slackers trying to make hash of that issue... and of yelping morons repeating it as if it made them hip by association. And I am DOUBLY sick of having to go over the salient points for people who have already been schooled on it previously.

Consider this a final warning: Any further attempts to bring up "teh bibel sez PI equals THREE, hur hur" shall be grounds for a deleted post and a locked thread, if not a ritual killing with a rusty spoon.
"What was that popping noise ?"
"A paradigm shifting without a clutch."
--Dilbert
RHJunior
Cartoon Hero
 
Posts: 1689
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
Location: WV

Postby Wanderwolf on Fri Nov 10, 2006 1:30 pm

Okay, taking it from the top:

1. Self-reliance is Darwinism. If I'm not allowed to ask anyone else to carry my weight, and I can't carry it, then what happens? That means self-reliance favors only those who can handle their problems and situation without any help from anyone. Thus, yes, it is Darwinism. Social Darwinism has been around a long time, and you're disputing its existence now?

2. Funny, you're the first person in this thread to mention "Global Warming". Are you aware you're generalizing your distaste for certain factions to include everyone that disagrees with you on any subject? As for non-Christians, I'm not qualified to speak on them; all I can say is this:

"For he that is not against us is on our part."--Mark 9:40.
Same in Luke 9:50, if you're wondering.

3. If you'd bothered to read what I wrote, you'd know where I got that reference from. Hint: It's not Dogma, which I have never watched. It's from "Fallen Angels", by Niven, Pournelle and Flynn. Try reading it sometime. It references a real bill almost passed by the Georgia legislature, which would, indeed, have officially made the value of pi equal to 3.

"Of course truth is stranger than fiction. Fiction has to make sense." -- Mark Twain.

So now who's the "clove-smoking, greasy haired, curled-lip, barely literate disaffected slacker", again?

Yours truly,

The affronted,

Wanderer
User avatar
Wanderwolf
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:18 pm
Location: Forney, TX, U.S.A.

Postby The JAM on Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:07 pm

Bath? Who mentioned a bath? When I read the "pi = 3" I also thought of that legislature. The Guiness Book, in fact, has them as one of the most innacurate approximations of pi. Er....or was it another legislature that had it = 4? But I don't recall any bath being mentioned. Ralph, are you okay there?
User avatar
The JAM
Cartoon Hero
 
Posts: 2281
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
Location: Somewhere in Mexico...

Postby Madmoonie on Fri Nov 10, 2006 3:09 pm

Now I am confused. I always thought that Darwinism was 'survival of the species' and all that. The weaker of the species will be eleminated to make room for the growth and development of said species until a 'bigger fish' comes along and this starts over again. And the stronger must adapt to its environment and situation to continue to be the stronger one. Self-reliance sounds like everyone contributes to overall good of the whole. That even the weak are given a workshare according to there ability and they expected to carry it. Its almost a mindset of 'I can carry my load because I know that they will carry theirs.' It seems to be not so much 'the weak are left behind' but more of 'Everyone must carry their load and the lazy are left behind.' If you can explain the differance without getting nasty at each other then go for it.

And this really does not answer the original question anyway. The original question was what was wrong about multi-culturalism? Well, from my point of view its bad and not just in regards to the 'American Culture,' either. Go watch the Incredibles, it really talks about what I going to refer to here. If every culture and mindset is equally special and valid, then what is important? What is special? If they are all equally special, then there are no special ones. Consider, say, Chinatown in San Fransisco. Are the Chinese people there, in an effort to become 'multi-cultural,' supposed to try to be Irish as well? And Greek? Or Russian? What about Egyptian? If people try to become everything, then they lose everything that was special about them as an indivual in the first place. The loss of touch of their culture and history are due to the desire to 'not infringe on the culture of others.' The history and culture of one's people then becomes commonplace and, sadly, then boring and even forgotten. I tend to think of it like this: First, I am a Christian. Then I am American. Then (very much down the Moonie line) German and English. But I am not Chinese or Russian, and to say those are my culture as well would be rather silly and, in some ways, even disrespectful. Although I respect these cultures and wish to learn about them, I can not say I am them. If I did (and this is where I close the loop) take all the cultures and say they are all equally important, then what am I? What are they? I can not possibly celebrate each one with the respect it deserves or the time required or even just the memory space in my head. So they dwindle in importance and uniqueness until all that is left is a few squibbles on a calendar.

(Wow....that is a long way to say a simple thing: You lose to speciality of what makes you....YOU. And become just another boring stat in some history book.)
Jesus said to her, 'I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in Me, though he may die, he shall live. And whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?' John 11: 25-26
----
Want a new avatar? Contact me and I can set you up with a new sig pic or avatar, totally FREE!
User avatar
Madmoonie
Cartoon Hero
 
Posts: 2215
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:05 pm
Location: Not a fuzzy clue.... (waves)

Postby MikeVanPelt on Fri Nov 10, 2006 6:30 pm

Wanderwolf wrote:It references a real bill almost passed by the Georgia legislature, which would, indeed, have officially made the value of pi equal to 3.


References, please?

snopes.com says the rumor was about Alabama, and it was entirely false. An earlier sighting was in Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, but that was allegedly Tennessee, and fictional. No references to anything in reality.

(As near as I can tell, to the extent that Snopes has any bias, it tends mildly to the liberal side, but mostly what they're all about is debunking Internet nonsense.)
User avatar
MikeVanPelt
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 341
Joined: Fri Nov 11, 2005 11:07 pm

Postby Rangers on Fri Nov 10, 2006 6:41 pm

I always thought it was Texas. It never was the Bible. Israel and Judah have had the same ratio of engineering geniuses as any other nation.
Join the adventure at http://rangers.keenspace.com
Licensed Online Comic Macquettes - get 'em at http://www.ntoonz.com
User avatar
Rangers
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2005 6:32 am

Postby TMLutas on Fri Nov 10, 2006 7:59 pm

MikeVanPelt wrote:
Wanderwolf wrote:It references a real bill almost passed by the Georgia legislature, which would, indeed, have officially made the value of pi equal to 3.


References, please?

snopes.com says the rumor was about Alabama, and it was entirely false. An earlier sighting was in Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land, but that was allegedly Tennessee, and fictional. No references to anything in reality.

(As near as I can tell, to the extent that Snopes has any bias, it tends mildly to the liberal side, but mostly what they're all about is debunking Internet nonsense.)


Here's a Snopes link conceding the story has a grain of truth to it. The bill was introduced in Indiana, passed one House, likely because the sponsor spent some personal favors for it to pass the education committee, and once it hit the floor with a pass recommendation, the rest of the house didn't want to buck it. The bill was killed in the other house of the legislature. Opposition to the proposal seems to have been entirely of the "it's not government business to legislate math constants" variety which is wisdom in its own way, just not scientific wisdom.
TMLutas
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 658
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 6:19 pm

Postby The JAM on Fri Nov 10, 2006 8:22 pm

Drat, the Guinness website doesn't include all the records. I'll have to find the dead tree edition somewhere....
User avatar
The JAM
Cartoon Hero
 
Posts: 2281
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
Location: Somewhere in Mexico...

Postby Calbeck on Fri Nov 10, 2006 9:21 pm

Wanderwolf wrote:Okay, taking it from the top:

1. Self-reliance is Darwinism. If I'm not allowed to ask anyone else to carry my weight, and I can't carry it, then what happens?


The problem here is all the flinging around of absolutes, regarding an ideal that is itself a generalization.

Self-reliance does not mean you can never ask for help --- it means you cannot expect it. Nor should you ask for more help than you actually need; this is why no one else should be "carrying your weight", which implies they are carrying all of it rather than part.

Then there is the question of charity; the self-reliant person often prefers not to take charity, even if they very much want it, and when they do take it they often try to limit how much they take. Self-reliance is essentially a philosophy of minimizing or even eliminating one's own greed.
User avatar
Calbeck
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 595
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 1999 4:00 pm
Location: The Land of AZ

Postby Wanderwolf on Sat Nov 11, 2006 2:32 am

Calbeck: Thank you. I didn't know that what my family considers "common sense and courtesy" is what other people call "self-reliance". Thank you for correcting the mistaken interpretation that I gathered from long-ago extremists.

Now, as for the pi bill: I apologize for misplacing it to Georgia. (It's been a few years since I last read "Fallen Angels".) Now that TMLutas has corrected me (and I thank you), I have a link to the actual text of Indiana House Bill No. 246, 1897, which was introduced (according to the accompanying legislative provenance):

Introduced
IN THE HOUSE
Read first time January 18th, 1897
Referred to Committee on Canals
Reported and referred to Committee on Education January 19th, 1897
Reported back February 2nd, 1897
Read second time February 5th, 1897
Ordered engrossed February 5th, 1897
Read third time February 5th, 1897
Passed February 5th, 1897
Ayes - 67 - Noes -0-

Introduced by Record
IN THE SENATE
Read first time and referred to
committee on Temperance, February 11th, 1897
Reported favorable February 12th, 1897
Read second time and indefinitely postponed February 12, 1897

Again, I apologize for my inaccuracy.

(Georgia... what was I thinking?)

Yours truly,

The slightly-absent-minded,

Wanderer
User avatar
Wanderwolf
Regular Poster
 
Posts: 705
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 6:18 pm
Location: Forney, TX, U.S.A.

Postby Kerry Skydancer on Sat Nov 11, 2006 3:15 pm

It did get re-introduced every so often by legislators in the Bible Belt who didn't figure it out the first time, though it never seems to make it out of committee any more. The coincidence of geography seems to imply that it's literalists doing it, apparently in a misguided effort to make some of the architectural details of Solomon's Temple exact instead of approximations.
Skydancer

Ignorance is not a point of view.
User avatar
Kerry Skydancer
Cartoon Hero
 
Posts: 1346
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2004 6:03 pm
Location: Bethlehem PA

Next

 

Return to NPC



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron