> The fix to failed integration is not to prevent people from getting in. It's to improve integration.
And why is that our responsibility?
This is outrageous. I were forced to emigrate due to war, poverty or prosecution and happened to be accepted in a country that is not my own, I would have to be 1) extremely thankful of my hosts for saving my life and 2) morally obligated to obey their laws and customs. This is basic morality.
> come down to treating each other as human beings instead of being afraid of "The Different Ones".
This is naive to the point of irrationality. The social unrest that is spreading through Europe is not _caused_ by yellow journalism (they just profit from it), it's driven by actual contact with radically different, incompatible cultures.
Because humans are humans, regardless of where they originated from. It's our responsibility to take care of people, period. I'm not american but remember "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"?
Here's what I don't understand. When it's about blacks, the mentality comes down to being so scared of "being racist" that people want to stop using the word "slave" in database/hardware lingo. But when it's about muslims, it's not our responsibility to integrate them, they are all guilty of terrorism until proven innocent, they should be thankful we even accept them in our country (even though, really, we don't), etc..
The contrast is so fucked up. I just don't get it. And often enough it's the same people talking both talks.
> The social unrest that is spreading through Europe is not _caused_ by yellow journalism (they just profit from it), it's driven by actual contact with radically different, incompatible cultures.
{{cn}}. Most people who will complain about muslims have never met any, if they don't actively entirely avoid them. I'll give you that I can't prove all of the unrest is directly caused by toilet-papers, but I can show you a LOT of people who only know the term islam as a synonym of terrorism because the daily mail is the only place they actually read about islam.
> Because humans are humans, regardless of where they originated from. It's our responsibility to take care of people, period
I think that only westerners, with our pathological altruism, are silly enough, or brainwashed enough, to think that way. The rest of the world think of THEIR people first, as is natural. And any government has to take care of its citizens, not play world saviour.
But my point stands: if you emigrate, it is YOUR responsibility to integrate.
> because the daily mail is the only place they actually read about islam.
Surely Islamic terrorism existing in the first place is a factor to take into account. People aren't worried about Shintoist terrorism for some reason.
> if you emigrate, it is YOUR responsibility to integrate.
It's both parties' responsibility. Don't get me wrong; it's mostly your job... but the government also has to step in and make the same efforts they make towards their own citizens. Anyway, those seem to be details; I think we agree on this point more or less.
> People aren't worried about Shintoist terrorism for some reason.
And in some unnamed country, a majority of people are not worried about gun violence despite it taking far more lives than muslim terrorism. It's all a blame game on video games, mental health, etc...
The majority of people are worried about what their media makes them worried about. I'm no different - I nearly exclusively worry about what I read about. I can't worry about things I don't know about. My only choice there is to seek as much information as possible, to avoid merely mirroring the opinion of whoever wrote the piece I read.
It never stops to amaze me the doublethinking necessary to simultaneously believe that "colonization is bad and Africa is war-torn because of the arbitrarily drawn borders by Western powers" and "multiculturalism for the West is a great idea".
Why? The problem with colonization is that it disrupted the holistic growth of national communities like we experienced in XVIII to XIX century. We've "grown up" since then, recognising the competitive advantage of exploiting talents regardless of cultural provenance; but we couldn't do the latter without going through the former process and recognising its limits. Colonised countries were blocked from experiencing a similar process.
No doublethink involved, as long as you see history as a continuum, rather than believing in a fixed set of norms (typically your own, no offense) as an absolute ideal "best" transcending space and time.
> The problem with colonization is that it disrupted the holistic growth of national communities
The same with immigration, then. Psychologically is even worse maybe, because instead of an overtly foreign power coming to conquer your land it's your own very government selling your society.
Mass-immigration in Europe didn't happen until late XX century, when national identities were entirely fully-formed and indeed brought upon us the disastrous World Wars. The cosmopolitan worldview that approves of melting-pots was born in response to the terrible failure of nationalism, which "we" experienced to the fullest.
> it's your own very government selling your society.
It's as much "your" government as it is mine, and I don't feel like they're selling anything, in this particular case.
If you think freedom of movement is bad, do you think capital should also be controlled? If not, why should money be free to flow, but not people? To artificially create "salary jails" to exploit? If you assume that money should move to maximize its potential, then the same should be allowed for people, surely?
Freedom of movement and freedom of enterprise are amongst the highest achievements of human civilization, which we paid for with millions of deaths in the XX and XIX century.
> The cosmopolitan worldview that approves of melting-pots was born in response to the terrible failure of nationalism, which "we" experienced to the fullest.
History hasn't ended up yet. I think we're going to see how far the string can be tensed, and whether that multi-culti "solution" isn't the genesis of new strife. Things aren't looking bright.
> If you think freedom of movement is bad, do you think capital should also be controlled?
Actually yes, in moderation. I used to lean libertarian, but not anymore. But that's another talk.
> then the same should be allowed for people, surely?
Why? Capital at least doesn't behead you, people do.
This is off topic, but what is up with the Roman numerals when referring to centuries?
I tried googling it but came up empty. I can't find any authoritative source for this being a thing in any particular dialect of English and at least one person I've seen using this was a native Russian speaker. Google results only indicate that this is common in Spanish and maybe Polish.
Am I missing something? Is this a thing in American or British academia? Is it part of some popular newspaper's house styles? As a non-native speaker I find this incredibly peculiar.
I'm actually Italian; that's the standard way to refer to centuries in Italian academia, and I believe it's common across the EU. It's probably linked to traditional research usage by Catholic scholars writing in Latin. It's also much more concise: XIX would become "diciannovesimo" in Italian...
> Every society on Earth exists as it does because it destroyed much of the previously existing landscape and natural inhabitants,
THANKS.
Every human culture out there is responsible for wars and horrible crimes and destruction; primitive societies were no better (Hobbes Was Right (TM)), but only a few have built advanced and prosperous civilizations, and what is more, the West is basically the only which reflects on its past.
You seem to think "reflecting on its past" is one of the advances that came with Western civilization. Not sure what "modern western ethnomasochism" is, but I imagine it goes along hand-in-glove with "reflecting on its past." Can you really have one without the other? Do you really think reflection is going to reveal only good things? Why reflect at all if you're not trying to identify things in past that can be fixed or improved upon?
It really lives up to its title. Suddenly computational complexity is not just a highly technical CS matter anymore, and the Chinese Room paradox is explained away successfully, at least for me.
I'd say pattern recognition is a very important aspect of science, and intelligence in general, so every ideology who tries to suppress theories for aesthetic or subjective reasons (criticizing something for being "offensive", instead of "false") is fundamentally anti-science, and anti-intelligence.
The obvious counterargument is that every ideology that tries to force theories to be accepted for aesthetic or subjective reasons is just as fundamentally anti-science.
0. Stop the dogmatic multi-culti cult, accept human nature (= we prefer to live with our kind) and strive for a world in which every race and religious group is able to live peacefully and prosper, in its OWN LAND, with its own way of life.
I used to like the Nolan chart too, but recently I've been thinking that even 2 axes is overfitting.
Politics is so complicated that only a very simple model has predictive value, even with huge variance. I think a single axis order-disorder is the best we can do to talk in general terms.
IIRC at the convention that wrote the constitution there were about 5 axis involved. I can't remember what they were though. Any insight on it would be appreciated.
And why is that our responsibility?
This is outrageous. I were forced to emigrate due to war, poverty or prosecution and happened to be accepted in a country that is not my own, I would have to be 1) extremely thankful of my hosts for saving my life and 2) morally obligated to obey their laws and customs. This is basic morality.
> come down to treating each other as human beings instead of being afraid of "The Different Ones".
This is naive to the point of irrationality. The social unrest that is spreading through Europe is not _caused_ by yellow journalism (they just profit from it), it's driven by actual contact with radically different, incompatible cultures.