Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

Is Brevik the logical outcome of "multiculturalism"

Announcements Posted on
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    What single sociocultural trait exists between all native members of a country?
    Irrelevant. There is a continuum of customs, beliefs, rituals which constitutes a culture. You can't just pick certain traits and say that they must be uniformly present in every member of a cultural group, it's the group as a whole that constitutes the culture.

    Quote if further education is required.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by G8D)
    Disliking Islam and denying the existence of successful multiculturalism doesn't equate to killing people.

    Also, I don't suspect my views are held by that many people. Views are open to scrutiny and disagreement.

    Still, you've not made a good point yet. I'm gonna leave it here
    Of course not. Sympathising with the specific motives of a mass murdering terrorist less than a year after his massacre isn't something that is a minor issue. Your second and third sentences are obvious statements which don't contribute anything but I suspect they're there to conceal the real issue which is that there is a direct parallel with a Bin Laden sympathiser if he simply agreed with his motives but not his violent actions. Recently a man in America was imprisoned for a long time exactly for those reasons, sympathising with the motives of insurgents in Iraq/Afghanistan.
    • Thread Starter
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Killer Bean)
    it is to call a .
    Did you not read what I said in the description, or indeed, the first and last objects in the post

    Is

    and a

    question mark.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bonged.)
    Irrelevant. There is a continuum of customs, beliefs, rituals which constitutes a culture. You can't just pick certain traits and say that they must be uniformly present in every member of a cultural group, it's the group as a whole that constitutes the culture.

    Quote if further education is required.
    A multidimensional polygon with an indeterminate number of sides. There are innumerable, undefinable and overlapping sociocultural traits existing on an individual basis that are temporally and situationally moderated and developed, which is why no two individuals are identical in their mannerisms.

    How can you call for a group when there is no coterminous delineation of any individual or arbitrary 'group' of traits?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bonged.)
    Same if you sympathised with Breivik in public.

    Many are sympathetic to his views though. Much the same as many muslims were sympathetic to OBLs views.

    Just a pretty evil way of expressing them. I wonder if people would feel differently if the socialists he shot weren't teenagers.
    I don't know of any Muslims who are aware of OBL's views considering his tapes weren't aired in the UK. Certainly you'd be detained and/or imprisoned if you publicly sympathised directly with his motives under the Terrorism Act. You should look at the recent Tarek Mehanna case for an example and that's not even terrorism but sympathising with insurgents in Iraq/Afghanistan who kill occupying troops.

    I don't get the last sentence? I don't think it'd make much difference would it?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    A multidimensional polygon with an indeterminate number of sides. There are innumerable, undefinable and overlapping sociocultural traits that exist on an individual basis that are temporally and situationally moderated and developed, which is why no two individuals are identical in their mannerisms.

    How can you call for a group when there is no coterminous delineation of any individual or arbitrary 'group' of traits?
    That is true but irrelevant, we're talking about culture which by it's very nature isn't an individualistic thing. I will not engage in any further discourse that ignores this.

    I'm not calling for a group. These groups already exist.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Brutal Honesty)
    I don't know of any Muslims who are aware of OBL's views considering his tapes weren't aired in the UK. Certainly you'd be detained and/or imprisoned if you publicly sympathised directly with his motives under the Terrorism Act. You should look at the recent Tarek Mehanna case for an example and that's not even terrorism but sympathising with insurgents in Iraq/Afghanistan who kill occupying troops.

    I don't get the last sentence? I don't think it'd make much difference would it?
    Establishing a caliphate, anti-western etc. Mainstream views.

    No, many people are openly anti western.

    What don't you get?
    • Thread Starter
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Brutal Honesty)
    There is a very good point, if anyone tried to sympathise with OBL's views in public in 2002 they'd be annihilated for it. For some reason it seems to be quite acceptable to do so with Breivik a few months on from a huge massacre of children.
    They would still be annihilated now.

    I don't sympthatise with these people, but I can't try to understand their motives.

    Unlike most people, who are either too thick to try, too scared to debate, or want to sterilise debate for a pre-set agenda These sort of people call Osama and Breivik "insane" and can't understand their motives at all, it must just be because "they are evil" (I think evil does not exist, and is a quasi-physchological term that ties in from the days of pre-englightenment). Other more half-baked argument from people that generally look for the moral high ground aswell as the reasons given in bold, are people that say "Osama hated the west because he is a backwards Muslim", or "Breivik killed those people because he is an uncompromising (killed anyone, even if white and christian, that contradicted his agenda)) bigot/Islamophobe" (I'm avoiding racist because there is no evidence to suggest he hated people on racial grounds). And, IMO, I would agree with that second opinion that he was an islamophobe, one of the few people I would apply the term to, very few, actually.

    Anyway, Osama and Breivik may well fill their labels, but that's not their motive.

    Osama (though never carrying out the actions himself) did the things he did because a) Military occupation of Islamic holy sites, b) attorcities commited by US troops and allies, c) support of Israel and then LASTLY its because we were "kaffir infadels", and a lot of stuff with women, gay, and religious freedom ... and a fouth, not even second or third thought.

    Breivik layed out in his manifesto, and in his video why is would carry out the attack, and has stated so in court. Even though he has a bunch of conspiracies that don't hold true, his central motives are, as he percieves, the fact Norway and europe will become outnumbered in a ration of recent generation Muslims to secular/christian natives, that free speach is being banned (criticism), and reactionary responses to muslim immigrant related crime.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bonged.)
    That is true but irrelevant, we're talking about culture which by it's very nature isn't an individualistic thing. I will not engage in any further discourse that ignores this.
    People operate as individuals in a capitalist, liberal society—this isn't communism. Theorising culture in this context necessitates the consideration of the agency of the individual, in that their individual actions contribute to whatever culture you wish to construct as being representative of their individual actions.

    I'm not calling for a group. These groups already exist.
    How can it possibly be a group when you are unable to identify even one unifying factor of all the members within the group?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bonged.)
    Establishing a caliphate, anti-western etc. Mainstream views.

    No, many people are openly anti western.

    What don't you get?
    These are generic Islamist views, Al Qaeda/OBL is more specific than that. OBL wasn't anti-Western either, as stated in his tapes, there were some countries he liked (Sweden where he used to live for example).
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    People operate as individuals in a capitalist, liberal society—this isn't communism. Theorising culture in this context necessitates the consideration of the agency of the individual, in that their individual actions contribute to whatever culture you wish to construct as being representative of their individual actions.

    How can it possibly be a group when you are unable to identify even one unifying factor of all the members within the group?
    In your world view. Plenty of people operate as part of a community based on culture.

    I'm not theorising it in that context.

    You seem to have a problem with the word group. There are no groups of people that all have a specific trait. Individuals are all different. However, as part of a cultural group likelihoods of certain traits are more or less likely to manifest in the individual respective to that culture.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    While it is a serious issue that needs to be discussed, the guy is clearly seems so demented, especially from what I've seen so far of the trial that there can't possibly have been any excuses/possible justification for his behaviour.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Brutal Honesty)
    These are generic Islamist views, Al Qaeda/OBL is more specific than that. OBL wasn't anti-Western either, as stated in his tapes, there were some countries he liked (Sweden where he used to live for example).
    LOL! well at least now we know why he liked sweden so much. man i feel bad for scandinavians atm. They didn't even have empires, what have they done to deserve this?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by prog2djent)
    They would still be annihilated now.

    I don't sympthatise with these people, but I can't try to understand their motives.

    Unlike most people, who are either too thick to try, too scared to debate, or want to sterilise debate for a pre-set agenda These sort of people call Osama and Breivik "insane" and can't understand their motives at all, it must just be because "they are evil" (I think evil does not exist, and is a quasi-physchological term that ties in from the days of pre-englightenment). Other more half-baked argument from people that generally look for the moral high ground aswell as the reasons given in bold, are people that say "Osama hated the west because he is a backwards Muslim", or "Breivik killed those people because he is an uncompromising (killed anyone, even if white and christian, that contradicted his agenda)) bigot/Islamophobe" (I'm avoiding racist because there is no evidence to suggest he hated people on racial grounds). And, IMO, I would agree with that second opinion that he was an islamophobe, one of the few people I would apply the term to, very few, actually.

    Anyway, Osama and Breivik may well fill their labels, but that's not their motive.

    Osama (though never carrying out the actions himself) did the things he did because a) Military occupation of Islamic holy sites, b) attorcities commited by US troops and allies, c) support of Israel and then LASTLY its because we were "kaffir infadels", and a lot of stuff with women, gay, and religious freedom ... and a fouth, not even second or third thought.

    Breivik layed out in his manifesto, and in his video why is would carry out the attack, and has stated so in court. Even though he has a bunch of conspiracies that don't hold true, his central motives are, as he percieves, the fact Norway and europe will become outnumbered in a ration of recent generation Muslims to secular/christian natives, that free speach is being banned (criticism), and reactionary responses to muslim immigrant related crime.
    If someone agreed openly with Al Qaeda's philosophy they'd be put on a watch list, have their internet/phones tapped and detained on terrorism charges. Even in America they've overturned the First Amendment to charge and imprison Tarek Mehanna for sympathising with the motives of insurgents in Iraq/Afghanistan even though he opposed terrorism (the CIA tried to lure him into it via a spy but he rejected the proposal). The same is not true for Breivik even though there's a lot of support for his specific ideology, i.e. Muslim immigrants are ruining the culture of Christian Europe via 'liberal elites' and 'cultural Marxism' etc. There's a difference between general alignment of views, i.e. anti-immigration views or pro-caliphate views vs. specific ideological alignment as we've seen with people who follow Breivik/Al Qaeda's ideological argument.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    No.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bonged.)
    LOL! well at least now we know why he liked sweden so much. man i feel bad for scandinavians atm. They didn't even have empires, what have they done to deserve this?
    I doubt Scandinavians care. He merely enjoyed his time there as a young man, here he is:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	youngbinladen.jpg 
Views:	64 
Size:	84.0 KB 
ID:	142603
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bonged.)
    In your world view. Plenty of people operate as part of a community based on culture.
    In Britain, what is the nationwide axis of operation? Isn't it the law? Even then, there are organised criminals who operate outside of the law.

    I'm not theorising it in that context.
    Then in what context are you theorising it?

    You seem to have a problem with the word group. There are no groups of people that all have a specific trait. Individuals are all different. However, as part of a cultural group likelihoods of certain traits are more or less likely to manifest in the individual respective to that culture.
    What is this cultural group? I have already identified multiple sociocultural disparities between native Britons, and you have suggested there is an overarching culture that still connects these people but have refused to identify it. If they are within a group, what factor(s) puts them within this group, and what factor(s) obviate migrants from also being in this group?

    How, when you admit to the multidimensional polygonal nature of people's psychological traits, do you still feel it is possible to delineate between the overlapping, fissiparous and often clashing qualities immanent in any democratic, consumerist/capitalist, liberal, etc. society? How do these qualities connect and preclude any connection with migrant individuals?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Miss_Scarlett)
    No.

    There will be some tensions, but his response was completely abnormal and unnecessarily violent.

    Also as a complete random aside, I swear to God this is the truth...Anders Breivik tried to add me on facebook about 3 years ago. It really freaks me out. Was in the gym today watching him on sky news, he literally has no remorse for his behaviour stating he would "do the same again...". :/
    Maybe if you accepted him he wouldn't have killed so many people.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mehmoodd)
    He'll use whatever reason he can to justify himself.

    He's a nutjob.

    He was against the islamification of Europe and multiculturalism but killed more nationals...
    Are you missing the vital link? The Labour Party (of Norway) allowed mass immigration, which sparked and fuelled his hatred of Muslims and immigrants. The camp that he attacked was organised by the Workers' Youth League, which is the youth division of the ruling Labour Party.

    Makes sense now, doesn't it?
    • Thread Starter
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Spaz Man)
    While it is a serious issue that needs to be discussed, the guy is clearly seems so demented, especially from what I've seen so far of the trial that there can't possibly have been any excuses/possible justification for his behaviour.
    "Is clearly seems to be demented" :confused:

    You do realise that in most of my comments I've been describing the "he's crazy, no justification" view is wrong IMO.

    He clearly layed out hi motives for the attack, wrote a manifesto, planned it, precision.

    He was extreme, but calculating.

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: June 1, 2012
New on TSR

The future of apprenticeships

Join the discussion in the apprenticeships hub!

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.