[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Bonged.)
You would have to look at locality of course. Manningham in Bradford isn't exactly pub friendly, therefore pubs close down. Little to do with online shopping etc.

As the migrants have not displaced the existing residents, I fail to see how the existing residents' abilities to continue attending the pub are hindered.

(Original post by Bonged.)
You're using immigrants to hide behind again. Changing demographics (the fault of the government) produce a wholly different atmosphere, especially if the natives are outnumbered. Find me one example of a locality in the UK where whites are the minority where crime rates are low. That is why "white flight" occurs, along with the fact that people don't like being in a minority in their homeland. Which is perfectly reasonable of course.

See my most recent post.

[Bonged.]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
There is an incompossible duality of individualism ("I'm going to move out and leave my area and community behind") and collectivism ("I dislike how this area is being overrun by migrants"). It is the actions of the individual that impact on the wider community; how can somebody execute an action as an individual that directly causes what they don't want as a collective?

So in your view, the right of the immigrant to "individualism" should override the right of the native to collectivism. Except that you don't have a problem with collectivism when it is not amongst the native community.

dogma.

[Formerly Helpful_C]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
Then it is the fault of the 'white' people who chose to leave the area and their businesses behind. Migrants haven't displaced them and so cannot be blamed for other people's decisions.

So, even though these people would have stayed without immigration, they are to blame for the shop losing its customers? I don't think it is as simple as you are making it. Immigration has directly led to "white flight" and the closure of local shops.

I don't disagree with immigration but, when you allow 3.2 million (I believe) people to settle, you are going to change the demographic of certain areas. This will directly affect existing businesses, causing many to close.

[minniiee]

multiculturalism suggest the full integration and therefore acceptance of people of all cultures in any given community
therefore, had there been true multiculturalism, the incident would never have happened because people like breivik wouldnt exist...

[Bonged.]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
As the migrants have not displaced the existing residents, I fail to see how the existing residents' abilities to continue attending the pub are hindered.

See my most recent post.

Erm, if they go into manningham they'll get battered? Which co-incidentally sounds exactly like displacement.

Find me one example of a locality in the UK where whites are the minority where crime rates are low. That is why "white flight" occurs.

[SpongebobSquarepan]

Also where you go into mainly muslim areas there are loads of charity shops for islamic aid, no other charity shops. Just these ones.

[Snagprophet]

I don't think being against mass immigration and against giving 90% of newly created jobs to foreigners means you will be a mass murder. This guy believed in something. He went to extremes. What I'm scared of is terrorists using guns if this incident has proved to kill more people than 7/7 did without using bombs.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Formerly Helpful_C)
So, even though these people would have stayed without immigration, they are to blame for the shop losing its customers? I don't think it is as simple as you are making it. Immigration has directly led to "white flight" and the closure of local shops.

I don't disagree with immigration but, when you allow 3.2 million (I believe) people to settle, you are going to change the demographic of certain areas. This will directly affect existing businesses, causing many to close.

It hasn't directly led to anything. These people, as autonomous agents, have made a private, individualistic decision to move out of their area, and then ironically complain about the loss of 'white' people and 'white' businesses in the area they have evacuated.

(Original post by Bonged.)
So in your view, the right of the immigrant to "individualism" should override the right of the native to collectivism. Except that you don't have a problem with collectivism when it is not amongst the native community.

dogma.

I don't see how this relates to anything I've said. Can you reconcile my examples of the sentiments I believe to be incompossible? If people want 'white' businesses and 'white' majorities, they cannot take an individualistic decision that is inimical to this desire by moving out of the area. If people want their individualism, they cannot complain about the collective trend when they are not privately contributing to its desired reversal.

[Bonged.]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
It hasn't directly led to anything. These people, as autonomous agents, have made a private, individualistic decision to move out of their area, and then ironically complain about the loss of 'white' people and 'white' businesses in the area they have evacuated.

I don't see how this relates to anything I've said. Can you reconcile my examples of the sentiments I believe to be incompossible? If people want 'white' businesses and 'white' majorities, they cannot take an individualistic decision that is inimical to this desire by moving out of the area. If people want their individualism, they cannot complain about the collective trend when they are not privately contributing to its desired reversal.

I don't accept your pedantic, reductionist argument

Are you seriously saying that your average, non uni educated person knows full well about how they should be upholding the values of individualism? People vote with their feet, and they have done in these cases. People don't like dealing with increased crime or being in a minority in their own homeland.

Again I will ask you to provide an example of a locality in the UK where whites are the minority where crime rates are low. That is why "white flight" occurs.

Deal with these if expecting reply.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Bonged.)
Erm, if they go into manningham they'll get battered? Which co-incidentally sounds exactly like displacement.

Who moved out and facilitated the creation of this demographic pattern?

Find me one example of a locality in the UK where whites are the minority where crime rates are low. That is why "white flight" occurs.

This has no bearing on this discussion, seeing as crime incidence can be geographically paired with the incidence of unpropitious socioeconomic variables. The calibre of migrants in question move to areas that are already deprived. The same question can be asked about areas that are principally 'white' and have high crime rates, like parts of Glasgow, Liverpool and Manchester. Is it possible for 'white flight' to be precipitated by the actions of 'white people'? If not, why does the same behaviour from 'non-white people' induce a different effect?

[Formerly Helpful_C]

(Original post by minniiee)
multiculturalism suggest the full integration and therefore acceptance of people of all cultures in any given community
therefore, had there been true multiculturalism, the incident would never have happened because people like breivik wouldnt exist...

I believe this has hit the nail on the head. On This World: Norway's Massacre, there was a section towards the end that highlighted the current social problems. In Oslo there is a clear divide between the East and West. That isn't multiculturalism by any stretch of the imagination. It's segregation.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Bonged.)
I don't accept your pedantic, reductionist argument

Are you seriously saying that your average, non uni educated person knows full well about how they should be upholding the values of individualism? People vote with their feet, and they have done in these cases.

It doesn't take an education to realise the individual makes the community. If they take the individual choice to move out, they cannot complain about the collective trend of people moving out—it's just stupid, really.

The other points have received a response in my previous post.

[Bonged.]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
Who moved out and facilitated the creation of this demographic pattern?

This has no bearing on this discussion, seeing as crime incidence can be geographically paired with the incidence of unpropitious socioeconomic variables. The calibre of migrants in question move to areas that are already deprived. The same question can be asked about areas that are principally 'white' and have high crime rates, like parts of Glasgow, Liverpool and Manchester. Is it possible for 'white flight' to be precipitated by the actions of 'white people'? If not, why does the same behaviour from 'non-white people' induce a different effect?

lol, well if you want to look back far enough "white" people (I'll humour you) are to blame for literally everything wrong in Britain. Presuming that you want to collectivise based on race, which I find you increasingly doing. Only about white people of course.

So, you can't find one. K. Now do you think that people are likely to want to stay in a place where they are becoming outnumbered. Keep in mind that they are actually in their homeland.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Bonged.)
lol, well if you want to look back far enough "white" people (I'll humour you) are to blame for literally everything wrong in Britain. Presuming that you want to collectivise based on race, which I find you increasingly doing. Only about white people of course.

Can you answer my question directly?

So, you can't find one. K.

I haven't looked, as I don't see the relevance.

Now do you think that people are likely to want to stay in a place where they are becoming outnumbered. Keep in mind that they are actually in their homeland.

You're attempting, and failing, to reconcile the individual with the collective. If they (individual) don't want to stay in a place where they (collective) are becoming outnumbered, they (individual) are contributing to their (collective) own outnumbering. Ipso facto, the area was originally majority 'white' British, so mass individualism is evidently responsible for any outnumbering that is occurring.

[Bonged.]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
It doesn't take an education to realise the individual makes the community. If they take the individual choice to move out, they cannot complain about the collective trend of people moving out—it's just stupid, really.

The other points have received a response in my previous post.

It also doesn't take much education to realise that people do not always act as individuals, and that trends specific to groups increase the likelihood of certain traits manifesting in the individual.

Of course, also most non english people have not had their sense of community or collectivism knocked out of them as the English have done. So you've got this bunch of people that have leftists dancing around them ready to shout racist if they say something like "I'm proud of being English", and on the other side a bunch of people that have leftists dancing around fawning over their other-ness, telling them they don't need to integrate. This creates a disparity as we can see through white flight.

[a rusH]

Knowing that people like Breivik -with his capabilities and intentions- actually exist in the world, makes me feel physically sick

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Bonged.)
It also doesn't take much education to realise that people do not always act as individuals, and that trends specific to groups increase the likelihood of certain traits manifesting in the individual.

What has this got to do with anything? If they take an individual action that is inimical to the wants of whatever collective of which they feel a part, they are clearly displaying a pretence of affection for this collective.

Of course, also most non english people have not had their sense of community or collectivism knocked out of them as the English have done. So you've got this bunch of people that have leftists dancing around them ready to shout racist if they say something like "I'm proud of being English", and on the other side a bunch of people that have leftists dancing around fawning over their other-ness, telling them they don't need to integrate. This creates a disparity as we can see through white flight.

Nobody forced them out of their area. If they felt an affinity with their neighbourhood/community/local businesses, they wouldn't have abandoned them. It is evident that whilst they were a majority, the community cohesion wasn't strong enough to retain this majority, which is why individualism has taken precedence with the act of leaving their community behind.

[Bonged.]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
Can you answer my question directly?

I haven't looked, as I don't see the relevance.

You're attempting, and failing, to reconcile the individual with the collective. If they (individual) don't want to stay in a place where they (collective) are becoming outnumbered, they (individual) are contributing to their (collective) own outnumbering. Ipso facto, the area was originally majority 'white' British, so mass individualism is evidently responsible for any outnumbering that is occurring.

Sho.

White people, though of course if you want to look back far enough "white" people (I'll humour you) are to blame for literally everything wrong in Britain. Presuming that you want to collectivise based on race, which I find you increasingly doing. Only about white people of course.

So you concede that there is not a majority non white locality with a low crime rate. That goes some way for explaining white flight.

Why are you bestowing each of these individuals you talk about with such high levels of agency? You know very well (unless you're just stupid) that the individual is influenced massively by the collective. There is something really quite sick in running poor whites out of cities throughout the country, then turning around and saying "lol well it's white peoples fault you shoulda been more individualistic!". I mean get a grip for christ sake.

[Bonged.]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
What has this got to do with anything? If they take an individual action that is inimical to the wants of whatever collective of which they feel a part, they are clearly displaying a pretence of affection for this collective.

Nobody forced them out of their area. If they felt an affinity with their neighbourhood/community/local businesses, they wouldn't have abandoned them. It is evident that whilst they were a majority, the community cohesion wasn't strong enough to retain this majority, which is why individualism has taken precedence with the act of leaving their community behind.

Or they feel that the ongoing process is irreversible and it's best to get out while they can?

Rising crime, falling standards of living, falling wages that come with immigrant communities I would say play a larger part in forcing people to move than their "betrayal of their community". lol.

That's simply a lie, residents can't decide who moves into their area, why are you making it sounds like they are somehow complicit?

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Bonged.)
So you concede that there is not a majority non white locality with a low crime rate. That goes some way for explaining white flight.

I can't confirm or deny, as I haven't looked. I would like to know why the same actions committed by a non-migrant and a migrant induce different effects.

Why are you bestowing each of these individuals you talk about with such high levels of agency? You know very well (unless you're just stupid) that the individual is influenced massively by the collective.

Indeed. That said, if the collective was so strong prior to migration, how was it progressively undermined? People clearly don't care about their area or the community if they decide to take the individualistic action to leave it.

There is something really quite sick in running poor whites out of cities throughout the country, then turning around and saying "lol well it's white peoples fault you shoulda been more individualistic!". I mean get a grip for christ sake.

If this isn't a Freudian slip, you have completely misinterpreted my argument.