(Original post by whyumadtho)
It doesn't matter what the Jewish people were doing if the propaganda demonised them. If they are neutral about something (on the whole, they would have had no prior reason to have a generally positive or generally negative opinion), and they are told to view a group negatively, they will begin to do so.
How is it extremely naive? If people undergo similar socialisation processes they will act the same. It is unlikely that somebody arrives at the same conclusion without similar or identical premises.
Your argument revolves around it.
To which you
subscribe. Since your ideal is not universal, there cannot be a universal standard of "Britishness". The premises are identical so the conclusions are equally valid; I am not sure if you acknowledge this when you don't say "in my opinion/social ideal" explicitly.
If most British people subscribed to the same ideals there would be a lot more social homogeneity than there is today and everyone would have a considerably larger friendship group. As I said, two people having different conceptions of the same label means the label is baseless. This is why contracts and other legal documents define every term they use explicitly to avoid any possible ambiguity.
As I have said, in their social circle, those behaviours are productive. Everyone can say why something they do would be antisocial in someone else's perspective (as I have shown in my examples about greeting the general public, wearing certain items of clothing, etc.), so I'm not sure what your point is.
What? Are you under the impression that everyone is exposed to received pronunciation and/or is told this is the correct way of speaking? Since she does not have this style of speech it is clear that both her and her supervisors did not see this as a significant trait.
You would be disrupting the social order. "Pikeys" are socially positive to those who hold anarchistic ideals.
If everyone wore hats and you decided not to wear one, you would be behaving in an antisocial manner relative to their ideals (disrupting social order), and they would be behaving in an antisocial manner relative to your ideals.
You're pro-social relative to your perspective of what such a thing constitutes.
Social harmony is possible if people simply let people do what they want within the confines of the law. Given this occurs in the case of native Britons (as I said, people don't suddenly suffer a crisis if they encounter somebody with different musical, culinary, fashion, political, etc. interests to them, they simply ignore them and continue with their day), I see no reason that people are unable to extend their thought process to non-native Britons.
Your ideals of social harmony will demolish the social groups of people who do not align to those ideals, which is why it is preferable that people are allowed to live their lives and form their social/friendship groups as they wish (which is what they already do).
I'm saying they are idiosyncratic and do not reflect reality. The equivalent would be saying the Syrian ideal is predicated on what is occurring at present, when it isn't. Your imaginary desires and reality are separate concepts.
People are aware that others don't consider their ideals to be the best/better, and will never do so, so they cohere with those who already possess them and avoid those who don't. Since the premises are equal, so too is the validity of the conclusion.
We all do this, which is why we all have a very limited friendship group. I don't see this as a problem. It's not like I or most people (especially in cities) speak to everyone anyway, so I'm not sure why this suddenly becomes problematic when migrants are concerned.
That's an unwarrenteblyelitist opinion to hold, especially considering they were in the same circumstances are you and have behaviours that are clearly working for them. Other people are content with your idiosyncrasies and will simply avoid you if you are deemed to be incompatible.
What else would they show? It is British history, but I'm not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that it is seen as important in people's daily lives.
It doesn't invalidate the "not often" quantifier, at all. "Everyone is socioculturally different, yet hostility/tension is not often a by-product of this difference."
The reality is that things are treated as 'cultural' when they are not. They are merely nominal.
Not at all. I am highlighting the fact that people don't critically evaluate their environment and the terms they use, which causes them to believe sameness and difference exist where they don't.
Which means they cannot be generalised. It's not pedantic to correctly note difference does not equal sameness. If you both desire "common values" but have vastly different conceptions of what that entails, the imaginary label cannot be employed as a unit of analysis.
It means you should accept your views are idiosyncratic and cannot be deemed to be representative of what the rest of society believes. There's a reason the Church is fading in the public consciousness and people interpret the same Biblical statement in wildly different ways. An imaginary concept will need to be defined before it can be acted upon or used as a unit of analysis.
No, I am simply stating your opinion is idiosyncratic.
In your opinion. An increasing number of men wearing skinny jeans, cleavage t-shirts and eye-liner, for example, would be a destructive phenomenon to somebody who believes it is important to uphold gender stereotypes. A Neo-Luddite would consider the increasing use of technology to be a destructive phenomenon that is of importance. As I said, everyone is in violation of somebody's ideals, but people must accept people's differences and get on with their lives.
Would you say it is a better way of speaking, just like you are saying your ideals are better ways of living? Why do you want people to aspire to one but not the other?
My point stands. The minority of British people conform to your particular ideals, which is why the minority of British people are in your social circle.
Yes, they conform to a historic stereotype of a small and particular section of middle-upper class society. This stereotype does not have any bearing on what Britishness means today (in their opinion or idealistic world) or in the past, which is why they make no attempt to emulate those standards. A poor person living in Victorian London would have also been "classically British"; the idiosyncrasies of behaviours are universal.
They are the people who think in an illogical, baseless dichotomy of "British culture" and "non-British culture", because they believes sameness and difference exist where they are not present.
Everything benefits and harms somebody in society, in one way or another, which links to my point about alienation and integration.
These migrants are not seen to be universally harmful agents or they would be imprisoned; they are simply not corresponding to somebody's social ideals, which applies to millions of other people in this country.