[LaughingBro]

I got racially abused by a motorcyclist recently.

[Foo.mp3]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
If propaganda, which everyone sees, tells people to acquire X social value, that social value will become consuetudinary

I see, so you were talking about the salience of the propaganda, rather than the salience of jews as being prominent in certain positions in society at that time. Well, then we’re back to the idea that you too are a ”misanthrope” (if you feel that people are that easily persuaded into rather dark thoughts that carry no resonance with their own, innate inklings)

(Original post by whyumadtho)
It's not like a social value is produced independently and simultaneously across the majority of the population

Of course not, there are always social effects at play in such large scale shifts in public sentiment, however to suggest that this is the only process at play is extremely naïve (wishful thinking)

(Original post by whyumadtho)
Why do you find it so hard to understand there isn't a single British ideal?

I don’t in any ironclad objective sense, and at no stage have I claimed this

(Original post by whyumadtho)
The premises are identical, so both their and your cultures and ideals of cultures are equally valid

In an objective sense yes (or equally invalid/flawed)

(Original post by whyumadtho)
Since this is paradoxical, you cannot claim the existence of a single British culture or ideal of British culture

I can claim the existence of a British cultural ideal to which Brits would by and large subscribe

(Original post by whyumadtho)
Antisocial in your opinion/social circle, but not in theirs

I’m sorry but most pikeys know the difference between acts seen by society as legitimate and acts seen as antisocial, and indeed many could tell you why they are deemed antisocial

(Original post by whyumadtho)
That woman on the BBC didn't know she was violating your ideals either because her social circle did not consider that trait to be a negative thing

Not so long ago she’d have known because those with our ideals, who wish to set a good example to the rest of the country, would have ensured that she gave a better account of herself or wouldn’t have selected her for the role in the first place if she fell short on her spoken English (historically held as being pretty important in a C1 national evening news reporter!)

(Original post by whyumadtho)
If somebody's ideal was that everyone said "good morning/afternoon/evening" to everyone they pass on the street you would be behaving in an antisocial manner because you do not do this

Naw, it would be falling short of the ideal but anti-social means detrimental to society. The absence of a positive does not constitute an outright negative in this sense, however the absence of any positives in ones social behaviour does constitute a detriment to society in terms of opportunity cost, so far as most of us are concerned (opportunity cost rather than direct cost)

I don’t do all that many pro-social acts (partly because I am disabled from doing so) but because I do a few here and there I feel like I am, on balance, pro-social in my behaviour and conform reasonably well to the British ideal I speak of (although not as well as many others)

(Original post by whyumadtho)
I do not understand why you consider your perspective to be the correct one when the logical premises are equal

We consider our perspective to be among those most conducive to social harmony and a strengthening of relations within the UK, and indeed therefore of the brand that is the UK. I wouldn’t be so bold as to claim that it is the ‘correct’ e.g. the perfect one in an objective sense, but then few proponents of any ideology would be so bold as to do so, we just put forward our ‘best guess’ and hope that it bears fruit. If others want to come along and constructively criticise/offer more viable alternatives then they are most welcome

(Original post by whyumadtho)
I'm simply distinguishing between the properties of reality and your ideals

So ideals are invalid unless they tally with the current state of affairs? By extension Syrians shouldn’t aspire to anything other than sectarian bloodshed? Do me a lemon

(Original post by whyumadtho)
I don't believe people take an active role in enforcing their social ideals

Indeed they do not, and this feeds into the picture of general and growing disinterest/disinvolvement in politics, and community ~ fabric of society, in the UK - something that may not bother you but that many of the rest of us find rather sad/concerning

(Original post by whyumadtho)
they simply gravitate towards those who already possess them and avoid those who do not

Correct, which feeds into segregation and ghettoisation, again this may not bother you but it bothers most of the rest of us

(Original post by whyumadtho)
you are capable of/content with living in a society/space where people do not possess your idealised traits

I am indeed, hell I went to a university full of people with shall we say, a wide variety of ‘traits’, does that mean I set my sights low and muck in or try to be a part of reversing the process of decline and encourage people to aim higher?

(Original post by whyumadtho)
I'm not sure if their vagueness is supposed to prove something

Their vagueness relates to two things: 1) Forming the list off the bat; 2) Not wishing to be too prescriptive sans consultation (were you to take such a list and inculcate it into citizenship tests for example you would need to consult on the nature/degrees of the associated terms)

(Original post by whyumadtho)
simply irrelevant (the last two in particular—somebody not knowing the names of the members of the royal family, for example, doesn't actually influence their day to day lives)

Why do you think the Olympics opening ceremony was based around our heritage? It’s an important part of our culture/identity. We want people to buy into it/take pride in it/get involved in taking it forward or else stay away

(Original post by whyumadtho)
I'm not sure what you want

At the very least, for people to aspire to/work towards the sort of ideal touched on in those points about Britishness

(Original post by whyumadtho)
Can you explain how what you have said refutes this?

If I must, sure ~ differences of an ethno-cultural nature are an unfortunate exception to your rule

(Original post by whyumadtho)
they will attribute various things to generic 'cultural differences' instead of offering a critical insight into the substance of these differences

Yup. I’m not justifying the stances/underlying processes, merely outlining the reality

(Original post by whyumadtho)
Parochialism + lack of critical thinking + a belief that sameness and difference exist where they are not present = multiculturalism seen as being a novel phenomenon

Aye, each of those terms are ostensive proxies for what I wrote

(Original post by whyumadtho)
These manifestations will not correspond to how other people conceive the same imaginary label

You’re being pedantic. All subjective values are subject to individual idiosyncratic differences, but may still be likened by reasonable people content to live their lives along functional, pragmatic lines rather than pick things apart to the nth degree (in a shallow attempt to score points)

(Original post by whyumadtho)
many people simply do not consider some of the things you have listed to be important

The more qualifications you add to any criteria the more likely it is that ‘many people won’t consider some of them to be important’, does that mean we drop them and wittle it down to just having a passport that says you’re British? We think not. If the church followed that logic they'd be on about 2 commandments by now bending over for populism et. 'modernity'

(Original post by whyumadtho)
It's not exactly an amalgamation of the British population if a very small minority hold any one of those values when defined specifically

1) I didn’t say it was an amalgamation of the British population’s current traits; 2) One must of course strike a balance between the fantastic and the feasible when one manifests such ideals in practice/legislature

(Original post by whyumadtho)
Ideals are idiosyncratic and cannot be generalised

Oh dear me. Are you an anarchist or something?

(Original post by whyumadtho)
It's quite interesting that you promote a social standard but seem to have an unfavourable view of social conformity

Recurrent recourse to social conformity (on important/divisive/destructive matters) without qualification makes one a sheep, I’m sure we can agree on that much

(Original post by whyumadtho)
In an idealistic world, you wouldn't want everyone to speak with received pronunciation? How would you like them to speak?

God no. The reason I think it’s important for people presenting/reporting the national news to have a high/excellent level of spoken English/not use slang/not get lazy with word endings, is that it’s a standard bearer position. Diversity of accents in day to day life is charming, so long as the quality of spoken English is reasonably good and comprehension is not a problem

(Original post by whyumadtho)
To your British ideal

In this example we may legitimately definitively state the (common) British ideal, as we know that most Brits do not aspire to be anything like that guy

(Original post by whyumadtho)
I'm inclined to believe hardened nationalists know exactly what their ideals of Britain are and would not be behaving in a manner that is incompatible with this ideal, funnily enough

You think in a binary manner, use your imagination! The average EDL supporter considers himself more British than the average ‘Muslamic type’, however many of them will be aware that someone well educated, well spoken, who indulges in more Cricket and Christianity than Stella and slanging is typically more classically British in nature/behaviour than they are

(Original post by whyumadtho)
Explain

Pro-social acts are acts that benefit society (may or may not involve friendly social interaction), as distinct from socialisation, which does relate directly to interacting socially

For me net pro-social behaviour is a bottom line, seeking/forming friendly social relations is something to be encouraged too but separate from that basic requirement and certainly not something that can/should be enforced on an exhaustive basis, that would be ludicrous!

(Original post by whyumadtho)
In addition, is somebody being less/anti-social if they do not conform to your ideals?

There may in certain examples be a correlation between non-conformity and anti-social behaviour yes e.g. not having a sense of individual responsibility/accountability may correlate with damage to property. Mostly those standards are positively skewed however, more about promoting/ensuring a more harmonious/better functioning society

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
See history? How about you explain your point

There are countless examples throughout history of distinct ethnic/cultural groups moving into territories and the indigenous peoples and/or their culture/traditions being pushed/phased out

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
I'd like to see some proof of please

Let me google that for you..

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
that's still a tiny amount and my point still stands

A tiny amount by what measure? Look at the growth rate over the past couple of decades, in state-evolutionary terms it's sizable, particularly given birth, and continued net migration, rates

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by Foo.mp3)
Let me google that for you..

A tiny amount by what measure? Look at the growth rate over the past couple of decades, in state-evolutionary terms it's sizable, particularly given birth, and continued net migration, rates

If you can't provide proof of your claims, then I won't take them seriously. It's up to you to back up what you say.
It is a tiny amount, there is nothing to suggest that they will somehow take over all other cultures in Britain, and them being here isn't a bad thing anyway.

[Foo.mp3]

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
If you can't provide proof of your claims, then I won't take them seriously

Errr.. did you miss the link?

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
It is a tiny amount

Do you know much about demographic trends?.. I do, and trust me, several million people within a generation is anything but tiny in this context

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
There is nothing to suggest that they will somehow take over all other cultures in Britain

There is nothing conclusive to prove that they will necessarily 'take over'*, true, and I don't tend to concern myself with such dramatic conjecture myself

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
Them being here isn't a bad thing anyway.

I don't know enough about their impact on society at the macro level (and sincerely doubt that you do either) to be able to say definitively whether on balance it's a 'good' or 'bad' thing

Indeed we cannot see into the future either so we cannot be sure as to whether it will lead to an increasingly stable/united or an increasingly unstable/segmented society. My feeling is that the former is less likely than the later, given scale/the exclusive nature of Islamic ideology/inexorale self-organising propensities of man

I do know enough to know that the impact of the beliefs/practices of some of these people is rather 'mixed' shall we say (and certainly not invariably positive)

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by Foo.mp3)
Errr.. did you miss the link?

Do you know much about demographic trends?.. I do, and trust me, several million people within a generation is anything but tiny in this context

There is nothing conclusive to prove that they will necessarily 'take over'*, true, and I don't tend to concern myself with such dramatic conjecture myself

I don't know enough about their impact on society at the macro level (and sincerely doubt that you do either) to be able to say definitively whether on balance it's a 'good' or 'bad' thing

Indeed we cannot see into the future either so we cannot be sure as to whether it will lead to an increasingly stable/united or an increasingly unstable/segmented society. My feeling is that the former is less likely than the later, given scale/the exclusive nature of Islamic ideology/inexorale self-organising propensities of man

I do know enough to know that the impact of the beliefs/practices of some of these people is rather 'mixed' shall we say (and certainly not invariably positive)

Your link didn't prove your points.

I know plenty enough to know that Muslims being in this country is not a bad thing.
I'll reply again when you provide that proof of the two things I originally asked for.

[Foo.mp3]

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
Your link didn't prove your points

You feel those sources are flawed/inadequate?

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
I know plenty enough to know that Muslims being in this country is not a bad thing

Really, what qualifies this view? Have you studied the relevant socio-economic trends in depth?

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
I'll reply again when you provide that proof of the two things I originally asked for

Two things?

[Emaemmaemily]

(Original post by Foo.mp3)
You feel those sources are flawed/inadequate?

Really, what qualifies this view? Have you studied the relevant socio-economic trends in depth?

Two things?

Yes two things, clearly you haven't been paying attention.
You didn't give me specific links, and I'm not going through all of the google results to find your evidence for you.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Foo.mp3)
I see, so you were talking about the salience of the propaganda, rather than the salience of jews as being prominent in certain positions in society at that time. Well, then we’re back to the idea that you too are a ”misanthrope” (if you feel that people are that easily persuaded into rather dark thoughts that carry no resonance with their own, innate inklings)

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.

Of course not, there are always social effects at play in such large scale shifts in public sentiment, however to suggest that this is the only process at play is extremely naïve (wishful thinking)

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.

I don’t in any ironclad objective sense, and at no stage have I claimed this

Your argument revolves around it.

I can claim the existence of a British cultural ideal to which true Brits would by and large subscribe

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.

I’m sorry but most pikeys know the difference between acts seen by society as legitimate and acts seen as anti social, and indeed most could tell you why they are deemed anti social, and probably agree on some of them as being just that themselves

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.

Not so long ago she’d have known because those with our ideals, who wish to set a good example to the rest of the country, would have ensured that she gave a better account of herself or wouldn’t have selected her for the role in the first place if she fell short on her spoken English (pretty important in a C1 national evening news reporter!)

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.

Naw, it would be falling short of the ideal but anti-social means socially disruptive. The absence of a positive does not constitute an outright negative in this sense, however the absence of any positives in ones social behaviour does constitute a detriment to society in terms of opportunity cost, so far as most of us are concerned

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.

I don’t do all that many pro-social acts (partly because I am disabled from doing so) but because I do a few here and there I feel like I am, on balance, pro-social in my behaviour and conform reasonably well to the British ideal I speak of (although not as well as many others)

You're pro-social relative to your perspective of what such a thing constitutes.

We consider our perspective to be among those most conducive to social harmony and a strengthening of relations within the UK, and indeed therefore of the brand that is the UK. I wouldn’t be so bold as to claim that it is the ‘correct’ e.g. the perfect one in an objective sense, but then few proponents of any ideology would be so bold as to do so, we just put forward our ‘best guess’ and hope that it bears fruit. If others want to come along and constructively criticise/offer more viable alternatives then they are most welcome

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).

So you are stating that my ideals are invalid unless they tally with the current state of affairs? By extension Syrians shouldn’t aspire to anything other than sectarian bloodshed? Do me a lemon

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.

Indeed they do not, and this feeds into the picture of general and growing disinterest/disinvolvement in politics, and community, in the UK - something which you may not find sad but we certainly do

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.

Correct, which feeds into segregation and ghettoisation, again this may not bother you but it bothers most of the rest of us

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.

I am indeed, hell I went to a university full of people with shall we say, a wide variety of ‘traits’, does that mean I set my sights low and muck in or try to be a part of reversing the process of decline and encourage people to aim higher?

That's an unwarrantably elitist 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.

Why do you think the Olympics opening ceremony was based around our heritage? It’s an important part of our culture/identity. We want people to buy into it/take pride in it/get involved in taking it forward or else stay away

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.

If I must, sure ~ differences of an ethno-cultural nature are an unfortunate exception to your rule

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."

Yup. I’m not justifying the stances/underlying processes, merely outlining the reality

The reality is that things are treated as 'cultural' when they are not. They are merely nominal.

Aye, each of those terms are ostensive proxies for what I wrote

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.

You’re being pedantic. All subjective values are subject to individual idiosyncratic differences, but may still be likened by reasonable people content to live their lives rather than pick things apart to the nth degree (in a shallow attempt to score points)

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.

The more qualifications you add to any criteria the more likely it is that ‘many people won’t consider some of them to be important’, does that mean we drop them and wittle it down to just having a passport that says you’re British? We think not If the church followed that logic they'd be on about 2 commandments by now bending over for populism et. 'modernity'

1) I didn’t say it was an amalgamation of the British population’s current traits; 2) One must of course strike a balance between the fantastic and the feasible when one manifests such ideals in practice/legislature

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.

Oh dear me. Are you an anarchist or something?

No, I am simply stating your opinion is idiosyncratic.

Recurrent recourse to social conformity(on important/divisive/destructive matters) without qualification makes one a sheep, I’m sure we can agree on that much

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.

God no. The reason I think it’s important for people presenting/reporting the national news to have a high/excellent level of spoken English/not use slang/not get lazy with word endings, is that it’s a standard bearer position. Diversity of accents in day to day life is charming, so long as the quality of spoken English is reasonably good and comprehension is not a problem

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?

In this example we can definitively state the British ideal, as we know that most Brits do not aspire to be anything like that guy

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.

You think in a binary manner and lack imagination. The average EDL supporter considers himself more British than the average ‘Muslamic type’, however many of them will be aware that someone well educated, well spoken, who indulges in more Cricket and Christianity than Stella and slanging is typically more classically British in nature/behaviour than they are

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.

I can’t put it any more starkly than that. Pro-social acts are acts that benefit society (may or may not involve friendly social interaction), as distinct from socialisation, which does relate directly to interacting socially

For me net pro-social behaviour is a bottom line, seeking/forming friendly social relations is something to be encouraged too but separate from that basic requirement and certainly not something that can/should be enforced on an exhaustive basis, that would be ludicrous!

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.

[Foo.mp3]

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
Yes two things, clearly you haven't been paying attention

Clearly I haven't What was the second thing you needed 'proving'?

(Original post by Emaemmaemily)
I'm not going through all of the google results to find your evidence for you

Dear God you're hard work. Ok..

2.9m ~ Wiki

2.9m ~ Telegraph Newspaper

2.8m ~ Daily Mail Newspaper

"Islam is widely considered Europe's fastest growing religion, with immigration and above average birth rates leading to a rapid increase in the Muslim population" ~ BBC Website

[democracyforum]

(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.

Why are you applying logic and science to something that defies logic - racism ?

You honestly think racism, separatism etc comes down to science ?

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by democracyforum)
Why are you applying logic and science to something that defies logic - racism ?

You honestly think racism, separatism etc comes down to science ?

Nobody is talking about racism.

It comes down to whether people choose to critically evaluate their beliefs. These things are not factually grounded, they are imaginary; it is a question of whether or not people wish to give agency to these imaginary constructs.

[EuphoriaEli]

Regardless of whether you think multiculturalism is "good" or "bad" thing, you better get used it.
Along with multi- race, ethnic, and class, etc. not to mention same-sex relationships.

I pity all you closet racists. How scared are you going to be when your neighborhood starts looking beige?
Or when your daughter comes home with a Black man? Or she decides to convert to Islam? Or when your son brings
home an Asian girl?

Lol, I tried to learn something off this thread. Silly me

[democracyforum]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
Nobody is talking about racism.

It comes down to whether people choose to critically evaluate their beliefs. These things are not factually grounded, they are imaginary; it is a question of whether or not people wish to give agency to these imaginary constructs.

Sorry, I was referring to our previous discussion on race.

Beliefs override logic.

[democracyforum]

(Original post by EuphoriaEli)
Regardless of whether you think multiculturalism is "good" or "bad" thing, you better get used it.
Along with multi- race, ethnic, and class, etc. not to mention same-sex relationships.

I pity all you closet racists. How scared are you going to be when your neighborhood starts looking beige?
Or when your daughter comes home with a Black man? Or she decides to convert to Islam? Or when your son brings
home an Asian girl?

Lol, I tried to learn something off this thread. Silly me

Do you believe in racial preservation or not ?

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by democracyforum)
Sorry, I was referring to our previous discussion on race.

Beliefs override logic.

Only if you let them.

[democracyforum]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
Only if you let them.

Isn't multiculturalism working and racial equality just hopeful wishful beliefs ?

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by democracyforum)
Isn't multiculturalism working and racial equality just hopeful wishful beliefs ?

No, because multiculturalism already works (which is not everyone in this country dresses the same, likes the same music, has the same political interests, etc.). 'Race' is an arbitrary social construct that is also predicated on imaginary premises.

Everyone is biologically and psychologically unique.

[democracyforum]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
No, because multiculturalism already works (which is not everyone in this country dresses the same, likes the same music, has the same political interests, etc.). 'Race' is an arbitrary social construct that is also predicated on imaginary premises.

Everyone is biologically and psychologically unique.

Except for affirmative action.
Except for race specific bone marrow transplants.
Except when race is used to track down a criminal
Race specific diseases.
Race specific medical drugs.


About logic versus belief, beliefs always triumph. This is why people can have phobias of ants, spiders etc which cause no harm.

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by democracyforum)
Except for affirmative action.
Except for race specific bone marrow transplants.
Except when race is used to track down a criminal
Race specific diseases.
Race specific medical drugs.


About logic versus belief, beliefs always triumph. This is why people can have phobias of ants, spiders etc which cause no harm.

I've already refuted your awful reasoning in the other thread.

It clearly doesn't, which is why gender stereotypes, the concept of 'race', superstition, religion and various similar notions are on the decline. If these imaginary concepts are not passed onto later generations the fantasy will end.

[democracyforum]

(Original post by whyumadtho)
I've already refuted your awful reasoning in the other thread.

It clearly doesn't, which is why gender stereotypes, the concept of 'race', superstition, religion and various similar notions are on the decline. If these imaginary concepts are not passed onto later generations the fantasy will end.

You have not addressed my list of where race is used and is allowed to be used.