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

Is Brevik the logical outcome of "multiculturalism"

Announcements Posted on
Applying to Uni? Let Universities come to you. Click here to get your perfect place 20-10-2014
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    Until I decide to undertake independent research, I reject your position and remain neutral. In any case, I would like to know why the same actions committed by a non-migrant and a migrant induce different effects.

    If this majority demographic also has a psychological affinity and a shared outlook, they do. Under a system of true collectivism, nobody in the collective would take an action that undermines the vitality of the local 'white' businesses (shopping online or elsewhere) or majority demographic (moving out). Evidently, collectivism creating a shared goal by the mere incidence of being 'white' or living in a particular area is not present, else people wouldn't individualistically undermine this apparently shared goal.

    "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."

    Replace 'individualistic' with 'collectivist'. And I'm not saying all 'white' people should, just those who move out of an area then complain about people moving out of that area.
    Can't answer until you accept facts.

    Like Britain today? :dunce: As this isn't the system in Britain today, this is irrelevant.

    Oh, soz. 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 collectivist".
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Not really no.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bonged.)
    Why do you try to ascribe blame to a person? You know full well that a high crime ethnic enclave is not going to have natives moving back in.
    Because it is the individual that contributes to the collective decline of the 'white' population and enables migrants to occupy their previous residence. How you can deny this is beyond me.

    I think you're just goading now to be honest, we've been over the fact that there isn't a vote on every road to decides who moves in, so don't be so disingenuous.
    No, but this is absolutely critical in this discussion. If people want a collective goal, they must contribute to this collective goal. It is apparent that this collective goal does not exist in any tangible or agreed upon form, and you believe there is a shared psychological goal when in actuality, people do not care about their local businesses or the maintenance of a 'white' majority. You cannot blame migrants for the individual action of diffusing responsibility.

    ..I'm not sure what you mean by that? What is different about them that means that they aren't a "true" collective.
    Again you are ascribing vast levels of education and agency to the average person, which is a blinkered way of viewing the world. I suppose it does nourish your dogma though. Out.
    The alleged goal of maintaining a 'white' majority and 'white' businesses necessitates the collective endeavour of remaining a resident in the area and shopping at these businesses, respectively. If people are not doing either, how can they be said to be a collective or somebody who ascribes importance to this alleged goal?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bonged.)
    Can't answer until you accept facts.
    Then for the sake of continuation, I will hypothetically accept your assertion. How will you answer my question?

    Like Britain today? :dunce: As this isn't the system in Britain today, this is irrelevant.
    It never was the system. If what you're suggesting is correct, somebody moved out and permitted the decline of local businesses and the 'white' population, and this progressive individualism resulted in areas being 'white' minorities.

    Oh, soz. 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 collectivist".
    Nobody was run out. If people want a goal that requires a collective effort, they cannot simultaneously execute an individual action that is inimical to that collective goal and complain about the goal not being achieved. It's not difficult.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    Because it is the individual that contributes to the collective decline of the 'white' population and enables migrants to occupy their previous residence. How you can deny this is beyond me.

    No, but this is absolutely critical in this discussion. If people want a collective goal, they must contribute to this collective goal. It is apparent that this collective goal does not exist in any tangible or agreed upon form, and you believe there is a shared psychological goal when people actually do not care about their local businesses or the maintenance of a 'white' majority. You cannot blame migrants for the individual action of diffusing responsibility.

    The alleged goal of maintaining a 'white' majority and 'white' businesses necessitates the collective endeavour of remaining a resident in the area and shopping at these businesses, respectively. If people are not doing either, how can they be said to be a collective or somebody who ascribes importance to this alleged goal?
    Yet you blame whites collectively for this. We've been through the fact that people can't decide who moves in their area several times now.

    Why on earth would white people have had a goal of their area remaining white? Pre 60's to say such things would sound absolutely absurd. And of course post 60s a goal of keeping your area white would be viewed as criminal. So you've got people in a bind. I don't blame migrants, for the millionth time, I blame the government for saturating the country with migrants. Some migrants = good, more migrants than natives = bad. Same with property prices, crime rates etc etc.

    See above.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    Then for the sake of continuation, I will hypothetically accept your assertion. How will you answer my question?

    It never was the system. If what you're suggesting is correct, somebody moved out and permitted the decline of local businesses and the 'white' population, and this progressive individualism resulted in areas being 'white' minorities.

    Nobody was run out. If people want a goal that requires a collective effort, they cannot simultaneously execute an individual action that is inimical to that collective goal and complain about the goal not being achieved. It's not difficult.
    Interracial violence is often seen as more serious, as we've been taught by growing up in the PC age.

    Yes. An individual. That individuals actions do not reflect whether remaining white people would rather remain in the majority or become the minority. Unless you're suggesting that extra legal action should have been taken against people selling houses. And of course no one has any say over who moves in.

    Crime rates? Declining wages? Worse standards of living? Intercommunal tensions?

    Individual that moves out /=/ remaining populace.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bonged.)
    Yet you blame whites collectively for this. We've been through the fact that people can't decide who moves in their area several times now.
    No I don't, I blame the 'white' individuals who want a 'white' majority in any given area and then move out of that area anyway.

    Why on earth would white people have had a goal of their area remaining white? Pre 60's to say such things would sound absolutely absurd.
    The simple act or remaining resident will ensure the collective demographic is 'white' and there is no space for migrants to move in. If migrants are apparently responsible for poverty, why wasn't the area prosperous enough under a 'white' majority to economically exclude poor, unfavourable migrants?

    Evidently, the area was already poor and fractured (hence the pre-existing deprivation), and there was no 'white' community with a collective interest to uphold in the first place. There would have been 'white' people who were contributing to the sustained deprivation in the area prior to the arrival of migrants.

    And of course post 60s a goal of keeping your area white would be viewed as criminal.
    Since when was not moving out and shopping at local businesses criminal?

    So you've got people in a bind. I don't blame migrants, for the millionth time, I blame the government for saturating the country with migrants. Some migrants = good, more migrants than natives = bad. Same with property prices, crime rates etc etc.

    See above.
    They are inextricable. :confused: My response in the second section covers this.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bonged.)
    Interracial violence is often seen as more serious, as we've been taught by growing up in the PC age.
    Somebody would rather be a victim of crime by an individual of the own ethnicity than somebody of another ethnicity? ...Crime is crime to the majority of people. :erm:

    Crime rates? Declining wages? Worse standards of living? Intercommunal tensions?
    All of which would have already been present, which is why the area wasn't prosperous and financially inaccessible to poor, unfavourable migrants/

    Yes. An individual. That individuals actions do not reflect whether remaining white people would rather remain in the majority or become the minority. Unless you're suggesting that extra legal action should have been taken against people selling houses. And of course no one has any say over who moves in.

    Individual that moves out /=/ remaining populace.
    Then it is blindingly apparent that the majority of people in an area (when it was 100% 'white' British) were acting as individuals, as evinced by their act of moving out. Migrants did not break down the 'white community', the 'white community' wasn't there in the first place.

    If a majority of residents had an affinity with their area, they would not have individualistically moved out.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    No I don't, I blame the 'white' individuals who want a 'white' majority in any given area and then move out of that area anyway.

    The simple act or remaining resident will ensure the collective demographic is 'white' and there is no space for migrants to move in. If migrants are apparently responsible for poverty, why wasn't the area prosperous enough under a 'white' majority to economically exclude poor, unfavourable migrants?

    Evidently, the area was already poor and fractured (hence the pre-existing deprivation), and there was no 'white' community with a collective interest to uphold in the first place. There would have been 'white' people who were contributing to the sustained deprivation in the area prior to the arrival of migrants.

    Since was not moving out and shopping at local businesses criminal?

    They are inextricable. :confused: My response in the second section covers this.
    K. Who am I to say who you blame eh? Though of course many of those that leave the area will be leaving because they are no longer the majority, so the "goal" (lol) will have been lost anyway.

    So.. your argument is that poor whites have no right to collectivism? And that it is their fault as they lived in a poor area? Are you a social darwinist?
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    Somebody would rather be a victim of crime by an individual of the own ethnicity than somebody of another ethnicity? ...Crime is crime to the majority of people. :erm:

    All of which would have already been present, which is why the area wasn't prosperous and financially inaccessible to poor, unfavourable migrants/

    Then it is blindingly apparent that the majority of people in an area (when it was 100% 'white' British) were acting as individuals, as evinced by their act of moving out. Migrants did not break down the 'white community', the 'white community' wasn't there in the first place.

    If a majority of residents had an affinity with their area, they would not have individualistically moved out.
    See trayvon martin case.

    Yet it has increased, going above the threshold of what is tolerable for native residents.

    What?

    Alot of people collectively moved out. See essex. Man it's easy arguing with you cos all you need to do is point at the real world every now and again, lol.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bonged.)
    K. Who am I to say who you blame eh? Though of course many of those that leave the area will be leaving because they are no longer the majority, so the "goal" (lol) will have been lost anyway.
    Prior to migration, every area in the country was 100% 'white' British. At least 50% of the residents were acting as individuals in that case, which means the 'community' was either weak, non-existent or had no psychological affinities in the first place.

    So.. you're argument is that poor whites have no right to collectivism?
    That is irrelevant to anything I've said. If people desire a goal that can only be achieved as a collective, they must contribute to the collectivism and not execute any action that is inimical to the collective goal.

    And that it is their fault as they lived in a poor area?
    The notion of 'white collectivism/majority'=prosperity are incompossible: there were 'white' people contributing to the sustained deprivation of the area, meaning there was not an immanent community cohesion by the mere circumstance of being 'white'; and the mere circumstance of being under a 'white majority/collectivist policy' does not imply socioeconomic effervescence.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    Prior to migration, every area in the country was 100% 'white' British. At least 50% of the residents were acting as individuals in that case, which means the 'community' was either weak, non-existent or had no psychological affinities in the first place.

    That is irrelevant to anything I've said. If people desire a goal that can only be achieved as a collective, they must contribute to the collectivism and not execute any action that is inimical to the collective goal.

    The notion of 'white collectivism/majority'=prosperity are incompossible: there were 'white' people contributing to the sustained deprivation of the area, meaning there was not an immanent community cohesion by the mere circumstance of being 'white'; and the mere circumstance of being under a 'white majority/collectivist policy' does not imply socioeconomic effervescence.
    Just going to ignore this. The things that you were saying before lead me to the conclusion that you are a social darwinist.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bonged.)
    See trayvon martin case.
    That is irrelevant. In terms of town/city/village/etc.-wide crime incidences, people would not want to live in an area with high crime rates, irrespective of who commits them.

    Yet it has increased, going above the threshold of what is tolerable for native residents.
    The 'white flight' must have started before 'non-white' people moved in.

    What?
    Meaning, in this case, a psychological affinity amongst all 'white' persons that causes them to all have the same goals and ambitions.

    Alot of people collectively moved out. See essex. Man it's easy arguing with you cos all you need to do is point at the real world every now and again, lol.
    Leaving behind their businesses, properties, and contributing to the drop in the relative 'white' population of the area. Congratulations, you have just instantiated my point.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bonged.)
    Just going to ignore this. The things that you were saying before lead me to the conclusion that you are a social darwinist.
    Try to avoid unsubstantiated circumstantial ad hominem arguments and challenge my points, if you can.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    Try to avoid unsubstantiated circumstantial ad hominem arguments and challenge my points, if you can.
    I'm tiring of it because you argue from a viewpoint that is not based in reality. What I am interested in is whether you would admit to being a social darwinist, as that would explain your position.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bonged.)
    I'm tiring of it because you argue from a viewpoint that is not based in reality.
    I am? You haven't demonstrated that to me.

    What I am interested in is whether you would admit to being a social darwinist, as that would explain your position.
    The only explanation of my position exists in the arguments I am presenting to you. Anything that may or may not be external to the arguments I am presenting is irrelevant.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    That is irrelevant. In terms of town/city/village/etc.-wide crime incidences, people would not want to live in an area with high crime rates, irrespective of who commits them.

    The 'white flight' must have started before 'non-white' people moved in.

    Meaning, in this case, a psychological affinity amongst all 'white' persons that causes them to all have the same goals and ambitions.

    Leaving behind their businesses, properties, and contributing to the drop in the relative 'white' population of the area. Congratulations, you have just instantiated my point.
    Nope, people would rather not be the victims of racially motivated crime. White people aren't flocking to manningham exactly. lol.

    Ahem. I think you misunderstood. The crime levels have increased since the population was largely English. Armed streetgangs divided by ethnicity were a rare occurrence previously, now they are to be expected.

    Don't be facetious.

    Not at all. They were fleeing crime rates, ethnic tensions and cultural displacement, whether you want to then blame them for the crime rates, ethnic tensions and cultural displacement (which would be rather difficult, but you'll try I imagine) or not, these are the reasons for which they have fled.
    • Thread Starter
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by madders94)
    Ah ok, thanks for the explanation
    Its a libertarian vs authoritarian argument when it comes to multiculturalism and immigration.

    However, the left tend to be fancyfull of state enforced conditions, which does fall to the left, and the right will view immgration as a good thing as it is a free market principle, but not necassarily multiculturalism as this places restrictions on one group, to give to another, and that people generally are punished for not being intolerant of the intolerant.

    I suppose the pro-multiculturalist left are statists, where as the right are more libertarian on the issue, viewing that there shouldn't be restrictions and, conversely, enforcement.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by whyumadtho)
    I am? You haven't demonstrated that to me.

    The only explanation of my position exists in the arguments I am presenting to you. Anything that may or may not be external to the arguments I am presenting is irrelevant.
    K. done. I'm not going to debate with someone that won't explain their position. It's almost as pointless as debating someone whose world view isn't rooted in reality. :pierre:
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bonged.)
    Nope, people would rather not be the victims of racially motivated crime. White people aren't flocking to manningham exactly. lol.
    Crime in general.

    Ahem. I think you misunderstood. The crime levels have increased since the population was largely English. Armed streetgangs divided by ethnicity were a rare occurrence previously, now they are to be expected.
    There has been a nationwide increase in armed teenagers, and the common link is the unpropitious socioeconomic variables presented in that report I frequently present to you.

    Don't be facetious.
    I've simply answered your question. If a community doesn't require a shared psychological affinity, what makes the community? How is it unilaterally the fault of the migrants if nothing tangible is holding the existing 'community' together or creating any obligation to each other?

    Not at all. They were fleeing crime rates, ethnic tensions and cultural displacement, whether you want to then blame them for the crime rates, ethnic tensions and cultural displacement (which would be rather difficult, but you'll try I imagine) or not, these are the reasons for which they have fled.
    None of which could have been enabled without individual evacuation. There would have been existing social problems in the area that precluded the establishment of a cohesive community.

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
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.