Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Are there any legitimate arguments against homogeneity? Watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crassy)
    There's nothing wrong with it, it's just a matter of scale. If immigration is happening at the rate and scale that recognisable different communities start to form within your country and ghettoise than its already too much IMO.

    America is a propisitional nation though and truly a nation of immigrants (even though that immigration was very restricted up until the 60's) so things are slightly different there I feel. Nations that are fundamentally based on organic ethnic groups can't deal with immigration the same way.

    But even America is struggling under the strain of immigration. People from cultures who don't value individual freedom and other American ideals are becoming the majority. Hispanics don't give a crap about the American Revolution, rugged individualism, laissez faire capitalism and all those other things that make America great - unless Trump wins, America will cease to exist in the upcoming decades.
    I agree. It's all about the scale.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oShahpo)
    But why? All of this money is going to be wasted, as the majority of them will leave anyway as they have no means of supporting themselves.
    Then they will leave and nothing will have changed.The population of the UK has been constantly increasing but the unemployment rate has been broadly speaking, falling (or staying constant depending how far back you go). Funnily enough the number of jobs grows as the number of people grows. (I'm not suggesting people actually build their own houses)
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crassy)
    The only arguments I've seen in favour of multiculturalism generally revolve around food or soppy platitudes like "diversity is our strength!". It's really just an upper middle class fetishism for non-white cultures and for helping "those poor brown people" that white liberals think of as pets.

    What are your thoughts ?
    For me the most important part of multiculturalism is how, combined with a strong base of social housing, immigrants with a different culture can be housed in mixed communities alongside native British people.

    That means we don't get ghettos and they are more likely to integrate. As a common law country we don't believe integration is a top-down civic assimilation like in France, we believe it happens between individual people at the grassroots.

    I am regularly disappointed with how poorly the proponents of multiculturalism defend it, to which you allude in the quoted paragraph; but I am also disappointed with the dismissive, presumptuous, and often verging on conspiracy theory attitude with which its detractors build a narrative against it - which the quoted paragraph also illustrates.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crassy)
    Exactly. It happened slowly and organically with groups that were already similar to eachother and shared ethnic "Chinese" heritage if not "Han Chinese".

    I was only comparing Tibet to modern day Germany. My point was that western China is further away from the Chinese heartland, full of people that are more different to the Han Chinese, thus assimilation doesn't really work and there is more ethnic tension in these regions.
    You're still not getting it. Han Chinese groups in the beginning did not have a shared heritage. They didn't even come from the same evolutionary route.

    Contrary to what you believe, Tibet is a proof that assimilation could work. PRC is the problem here - forcing everyone to subscribe to the same set of culture and erasing all other ones, banning identities. Under Qing rule, China had even more bigger ethnic minorities and they were even more different than they are today. The difference was that Qing didn't force assimilation and respected the minorities' cultures - at one point Mongolia even wanted to reunite with Qing.

    Assimilation takes time and forcing people to conform is counterproductive, but it does work once there's enough time. The proof is the Han Chinese ethnicity. The proof is the Latino ethnicity.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crassy)
    Of course. Why wouldn't it be?
    Well for starters we aren't be monocultural when it comes to religion. Protestantism is almost as large as atheism is in this country, and a large fraction of Christians are Catholic.

    That's multicultural by definition.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    You're still not getting it. Han Chinese groups in the beginning did not have a shared heritage. They didn't even come from the same evolutionary route.

    Contrary to what you believe, Tibet is a proof that assimilation could work. PRC is the problem here - forcing everyone to subscribe to the same set of culture and erasing all other ones, banning identities. Under Qing rule, China had even more bigger ethnic minorities and they were even more different than they are today. The difference was that Qing didn't force assimilation and respected the minorities' cultures - at one point Mongolia even wanted to reunite with Qing.

    Assimilation takes time and forcing people to conform is counterproductive, but it does work once there's enough time. The proof is the Han Chinese ethnicity. The proof is the Latino ethnicity.
    Well that only reinforces my point, forcing everyone to share the same identity is stupid and never works. It's more harmonious to accept differences and respect every identity (including that of the majority) rather than forcing "diversity" in every sphere of life. Assimilation can happen over a long period of time organically but shouldn't be forced by a central power/government. That's also why I don't really buy some of the "assimilationist" civic nationalist type rhetoric coming from the right, you aren't going to get muslims to care about being British by forcing them to.

    The problem in the west is that whilst we understand that identity, ethnicity, nationality etc are important for non-whites, whites are supposed to give up their identities and and say they don't exist and anyone who wants to be can be German/French/Swedish (which implicitly means that no one actually is) and that these groups don't have a homeland.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    Well for starters we aren't be monocultural when it comes to religion. Protestantism is almost as large as atheism is in this country, and a large fraction of Christians are Catholic.

    That's multicultural by definition.
    Sharing a culture does not mean being exactly the same. It's not "multiculturalism", it's just variation within a group. Nor is cultural evolution the same as multiculturalism.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Crassy)
    Sharing a culture does not mean being exactly the same. It's not "multiculturalism", it's just variation within a group. Nor is cultural evolution the same as multiculturalism.
    Hardly. Religion is a significant part of culture and to dismiss it as ''just variation within a group'' ignores the major behavioural differences between those who are religious and also those who aren't.

    Are Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, etc, just variation? If not, why?

    How would you define the 'British' culture?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SHallowvale)
    Hardly. Religion is a significant part of culture and to dismiss it as ''just variation within a group'' ignores the major behavioural differences between those who are religious and also those who aren't.

    Are Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs, etc, just variation? If not, why?

    How would you define the 'British' culture?
    If you actually think that the social change within the western world that led to a rejection of religion is the same thing as people from Asia, the Middle East and Africa coming en masse and changing the demographics of previously homogenous communities you are beyond hope. You are conflating things that blatantly are not the same.

    Cultural change is obviously not the same thing as multiculturalism. Though it could be argued that multiculturalism could be a part of cultural change, that still doesn't automatically make it good or desirable.

    Read the thread title, what are the downsides of an ethnically homogenous society?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    You're still not getting it. Han Chinese groups in the beginning did not have a shared heritage. They didn't even come from the same evolutionary route.

    Contrary to what you believe, Tibet is a proof that assimilation could work. PRC is the problem here - forcing everyone to subscribe to the same set of culture and erasing all other ones, banning identities. Under Qing rule, China had even more bigger ethnic minorities and they were even more different than they are today. The difference was that Qing didn't force assimilation and respected the minorities' cultures - at one point Mongolia even wanted to reunite with Qing.

    Assimilation takes time and forcing people to conform is counterproductive, but it does work once there's enough time. The proof is the Han Chinese ethnicity. The proof is the Latino ethnicity.
    I don't understand. How is "assimilation" working in Tibet? China is not very transparent about its politics so not a lot of people living in it can voice their opinion (especially if it is distasteful to their policies). They can easily show the world a false image of Tibetans being happy about how China barged into Tibet when in actuality, there are so many people self-immolating, protesting against the Chinese policies. People just "disappear" if they protest against the Chinese government. Many are imprisoned and tortured for simply having a portrait of the Dalai Lama. How on Earth can this "assimilation" possibly be working if people are treated in this way for having different opinions from the government? In any country that exercises the basic human rights, I believe that people are allowed to express their views freely. It a right of every human to be able to express their views. But why is it not the case for people in "China" (honestly, I don't like including Tibet in China but that's what conventional geography says)? I don't know much about the other ethnic groups, but in Tibet's case, it was more of an "invasion" than assimilation. Tibet has it's own history of being a separate country (There were even times when it was in war against China). It is not like I'm being anti-assimilationism or anything but I just didn't the way in which Tibet was portrayed as if it was intrinsically related to the other ethnic minorities. Tibet wasn't a part of the assimilation that took place over 3000 years. China's invasion of Tibet only began in around 1949. I think it is great for different cultures to respect each other and people from different backgrounds to come together but not in the way that the Chinese govt enforces it. China did NOT assimilate into Tibet, They just forced themselves into Tibet. Tibetans would have been more accepting if they would at least respect the pre-existing culture. But no, the Chinese government destroyed monasteries and religious scriptures, imprisoned religious figures and demoralised them. They would have been gladly welcomed into Tibet if China just wanted to be there. Assimilation wasn't the reason why China came into Tibet. Tibet was underdeveloped and had plenty of unused natural resources and land. That is why China invaded Tibet, to take advantage of the resources, not to rejoice our humanity. I just wanted to point out the reality of Tibet because not many people know about it and someone who hasn't heard of Tibet can be easily misinformed. ..sorry for diverging from the main point. I tend to ramble. I think considering we are all from the same "evolutionary route", all homo sapiens, we should all respect each other. We are not that different. I'm not like a Chinese-hater or anything, just don't like how the govt has little ("NO") respect for human rights.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by k_popper)
    I don't understand. How is "assimilation" working in Tibet? China is not very transparent about its politics so not a lot of people living in it can voice their opinion (especially if it is distasteful to their policies). They can easily show the world a false image of Tibetans being happy about how China barged into Tibet when in actuality, there are so many people self-immolating, protesting against the Chinese policies. People just "disappear" if they protest against the Chinese government. Many are imprisoned and tortured for simply having a portrait of the Dalai Lama. How on Earth can this "assimilation" possibly be working if people are treated in this way for having different opinions from the government? In any country that exercises the basic human rights, I believe that people are allowed to express their views freely. It a right of every human to be able to express their views. But why is it not the case for people in "China" (honestly, I don't like including Tibet in China but that's what conventional geography says)? I don't know much about the other ethnic groups, but in Tibet's case, it was more of an "invasion" than assimilation. Tibet has it's own history of being a separate country (There were even times when it was in war against China). It is not like I'm being anti-assimilationism or anything but I just didn't the way in which Tibet was portrayed as if it was intrinsically related to the other ethnic minorities. Tibet wasn't a part of the assimilation that took place over 3000 years. China's invasion of Tibet only began in around 1949. I think it is great for different cultures to respect each other and people from different backgrounds to come together but not in the way that the Chinese govt enforces it. China did NOT assimilate into Tibet, They just forced themselves into Tibet. Tibetans would have been more accepting if they would at least respect the pre-existing culture. But no, the Chinese government destroyed monasteries and religious scriptures, imprisoned religious figures and demoralised them. They would have been gladly welcomed into Tibet if China just wanted to be there. Assimilation wasn't the reason why China came into Tibet. Tibet was underdeveloped and had plenty of unused natural resources and land. That is why China invaded Tibet, to take advantage of the resources, not to rejoice our humanity. I just wanted to point out the reality of Tibet because not many people know about it and someone who hasn't heard of Tibet can be easily misinformed. ..sorry for diverging from the main point. I tend to ramble. I think considering we are all from the same "evolutionary route", all homo sapiens, we should all respect each other. We are not that different. I'm not like a Chinese-hater or anything, just don't like how the govt has little ("NO" respect for human rights.
    I'm a very politically aware Hongkonger who actually did read Chinese history and Chinese sociology at university so you can save your lecture.

    If you have actually read my post, you will probably be able to understand what I said.

    I said it worked under Qing rule, and it doesn't work under PRC - and that it's a proof that assimilation could work. it just needs to happen organically through a long period of time.

    And it's funny you think I'm ignorant of the situation when you didn't even seem to realize Tibet was under Qing rule, ie Chinese rule did not start in 1949. As far as I remember, Chinese "invasion" started during the Han dynasty.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)

    And it's funny you think I'm ignorant of the situation when you didn't even seem to realize Tibet was under Qing rule, ie Chinese rule did not start in 1949. As far as I remember, Chinese "invasion" started during the Han dynasty.
    I am a Tibetan myself so I'm very much aware of Tibet's history. Every country tells its own version of history but as far as Tibetan History is concerned, it was a different country before 1949. The 13th Dalai Lama designed the Tibetan Flag and composed the Tibetan national anthem. We had our own currency. The Chinese rule may have started early on for other neighbouring countries. And we did have relations with China, but even Mao addrressed Tibet as a seperate country and would have political meet-ups with the 14th Dalai lama to discuss Communism. He invited the Dalai Lama as a leader of a seperate country. I'm not talking about the other ethinc minorities. I'm only speaking for Tibet. Is "assimilation" working in Tibet if more than half of Tibetans arent happy with it?
    Chinese govt has a lot of control over their media so it would be foolish to just beleive that the people are satisfied with the rule if the govt says so.
    I did NOT say that you were ignorant, but now that you brought it up, i do feel that you know little about a lot of things that actually happened in Tibet and your take on the Chinese History is more inclined towards the Chinese version of it.
    You paid no regard to everything I have said about the suffering of the innocent Tibetans. When the issue doesn't affect you, it would be wise to put yourself in someone else's shoes and think about their point of view too if you want to speak about it. Things may be going very well in the CHN govts point of view, but for those who are affected by their policies like me and many other people in Tibet (and China), it's not.

    http://tibet.net/2015/07/tenzin-dele...hinese-prison/ ..

    http://www.leavingfearbehind.com/dhondup-wangchen/ ..

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-32771242 ..

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/04...ions.html?_r=0 ..

    https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...-international
    A lot of people get imprisoned for doing things that we can freely do outside China (because its our basic human rights). In China, the can't express it if it doesn't "comply with China's institutions".
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by k_popper)
    I am a Tibetan myself so I'm very much aware of Tibet's history. Every country tells its own version of history but as far as Tibetan History is concerned, it was a different country before 1949. The 13th Dalai Lama designed the Tibetan Flag and composed the Tibetan national anthem. We had our own currency. The Chinese rule may have started early on for other neighbouring countries. And we did have relations with China, but even Mao addrressed Tibet as a seperate country and would have political meet-ups with the 14th Dalai lama to discuss Communism. He invited the Dalai Lama as a leader of a seperate country. I'm not talking about the other ethinc minorities. I'm only speaking for Tibet. Is "assimilation" working in Tibet if more than half of Tibetans arent happy with it?
    Chinese govt has a lot of control over their media so it would be foolish to just beleive that the people are satisfied with the rule if the govt says so.
    I did NOT say that you were ignorant, but now that you brought it up, i do feel that you know little about a lot of things that actually happened in Tibet and your take on the Chinese History is more inclined towards the Chinese version of it.
    You paid no regard to everything I have said about the suffering of the innocent Tibetans. When the issue doesn't affect you, it would be wise to put yourself in someone else's shoes and think about their point of view too if you want to speak about it. Things may be going very well in the CHN govts point of view, but for those who are affected by their policies like me and many other people in Tibet (and China), it's not.

    http://tibet.net/2015/07/tenzin-dele...hinese-prison/ ..

    http://www.leavingfearbehind.com/dhondup-wangchen/ ..

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-32771242 ..

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/03/04...ions.html?_r=0 ..

    https://www.theguardian.com/books/20...-international
    A lot of people get imprisoned for doing things that we can freely do outside China (because its our basic human rights). In China, the can't express it if it doesn't "comply with China's institutions".
    Do you reallt struggle this much with reading, or are you just going to say what you want to say regardless of what I've said?

    The suffering of Tibetan people now is irrelevant to the topic. You have to be an incredibly deluded person to not recognize the fact that there have been periodic Chinese rule from Han Dynasty and that by Qing Tibet was definitely under "Chinese" rule.

    Of course PRC's rule in Tibet didn't start until 1949. PRC was established by 1949. lmfao

    I'm from a place where things happened and are happening in Tibet are going to happen soon, and I'm living in a country where 6-digit people have died from wars with drug cartels (to the extent it pulled the male life expectancy rate down); radical teachers have controlled two states to the extent that they have run out of food, medicine, and gas for everyone; student-teachers on a bus shot by the military and many are still "missing" after years; the president bought votes by giving out TV sets; politicians literally sold historical buildings to put money into their pocket and no-one could do anything about it due to their life immunity; people, even in the capital, are still facing armed robberies even on a bus; villages raided by armed gangs and the government did nothing about it; and that one person's assets is literally 6% of the GDP so I'd advise you to get off your moral high ground.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    Do you reallt struggle this much with reading, or are you just going to say what you want to say regardless of what I've said?

    The suffering of Tibetan people now is irrelevant to the topic. You have to be an incredibly deluded person to not recognize the fact that there have been periodic Chinese rule from Han Dynasty and that by Qing Tibet was definitely under "Chinese" rule.

    Of course PRC's rule in Tibet didn't start until 1949. PRC was established by 1949. lmfao

    I'm from a place where things happened and are happening in Tibet are going to happen soon, and I'm living in a country where 6-digit people have died from wars with drug cartels (to the extent it pulled the male life expectancy rate down); radical teachers have controlled two states to the extent that they have run out of food, medicine, and gas for everyone; student-teachers on a bus shot by the military and many are still "missing" after years; the president bought votes by giving out TV sets; politicians literally sold historical buildings to put money into their pocket and no-one could do anything about it due to their life immunity; people, even in the capital, are still facing armed robberies even on a bus; villages raided by armed gangs and the government did nothing about it; and that one person's assets is literally 6% of the GDP so I'd advise you to get off your moral high ground.
    Yes, PRC rule started in 1959. But the large influx of Chinese migrants in Tibet occurred in around the 1940s because of the fake promises he made to the Dalai Lama about helping bring about equality in Tibet. Before that, the Chinese population in Tibet wasn't as big. As i mentioned earlier, there were relations due to trade and war etc (after all, they're neighbouring countries) so there were Chinese migrations, but i dont think it was enough to constitute the whole of tibet as a part of china. Tibet had 41 kings and after that, due to the spiritual nature of the population, it was led by spiritual leaders and other nobilities. It was a bit messy. There was always interactions between china and Tibet and ocassional wars and fight over land in history, but tibet as a whole wasnt under Chinese rule. Tibetan culture wasn't that infuenced by the "Han rule". I cant see any chinese properties in most tibetan culture. But ever since 1959, they have destroyed a lot of tibetan monasteries and scriptures, language which are core to our culture. Therefore, ever since 1959, more tibetans started mixing chinese words with tibetans, using chinese goods. People were coerced into learning and speaking mandarin because otherwise, they wouldnt get a modern job. Everything is forced. People are just helplessly accepting the reality that the govt is too powerful to go against and any other country is too much of a coward to call out the CHN govt. Prior to that, the chinese influence was little in my culture...

    I have read all of your posts and that is why i am countering your argument. You clearly said that assimilation is definitely working in tibet. But your claim that the suffering of tibetans is irrelevant doesn't make sense because it certainly is proof that "assimilation" isn't working. its not organic assimilation, its "forced assimilation" by the govt, basically invasion. But whatever it is (assimilation or not) it definitely isn't working because people are being killed because of it.
    And don't talk about "moral high grounds". It is simply humanity. Otherwise, is it okay for them to go through imprisonment, genocide, torture and whatnot? No one deserves to suffer for wanting to voice their opinion. And the way the govt tortures the political prisinors is vulgar. I dont know how much you know, but it seems to me that there is much that you haven't heard or simply dont understand about tibet. If you have gone through all that, why do you act like the policies are working. It is not assimilation. The govt is just forcing everyone to do as they say. If they dont control the people that much, we would probably hear a lot more people voicing their distatste of the policies.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by k_popper)
    Yes, PRC rule started in 1959. But the large influx of Chinese migrants in Tibet occurred in around the 1940s because of the fake promises he made to the Dalai Lama about helping bring about equality in Tibet. Before that, the Chinese population in Tibet wasn't as big. As i mentioned earlier, there were relations due to trade and war etc (after all, they're neighbouring countries) so there were Chinese migrations, but i dont think it was enough to constitute the whole of tibet as a part of china. Tibet had 41 kings and after that, due to the spiritual nature of the population, it was led by spiritual leaders and other nobilities. It was a bit messy. There was always interactions between china and Tibet and ocassional wars and fight over land in history, but tibet as a whole wasnt under Chinese rule. Tibetan culture wasn't that infuenced by the "Han rule". I cant see any chinese properties in most tibetan culture. But ever since 1959, they have destroyed a lot of tibetan monasteries and scriptures, language which are core to our culture. Therefore, ever since 1959, more tibetans started mixing chinese words with tibetans, using chinese goods. People were coerced into learning and speaking mandarin because otherwise, they wouldnt get a modern job. Everything is forced. People are just helplessly accepting the reality that the govt is too powerful to go against and any other country is too much of a coward to call out the CHN govt. Prior to that, the chinese influence was little in my culture...

    I have read all of your posts and that is why i am countering your argument. You clearly said that assimilation is definitely working in tibet. But your claim that the suffering of tibetans is irrelevant doesn't make sense because it certainly is proof that "assimilation" isn't working. its not organic assimilation, its "forced assimilation" by the govt, basically invasion. But whatever it is (assimilation or not) it definitely isn't working because people are being killed because of it.
    And don't talk about "moral high grounds". It is simply humanity. Otherwise, is it okay for them to go through imprisonment, genocide, torture and whatnot? No one deserves to suffer for wanting to voice their opinion. And the way the govt tortures the political prisinors is vulgar. I dont know how much you know, but it seems to me that there is much that you haven't heard or simply dont understand about tibet. If you have gone through all that, why do you act like the policies are working. It is not assimilation. The govt is just forcing everyone to do as they say. If they dont control the people that much, we would probably hear a lot more people voicing their distatste of the policies.
    Oh yeah Qing clearly didn't rule Tibet.

    They just happened to form their governments, approve their appointments, send military to defend the Tibetan borders, incorporate parts into other Chinese provinces, and send troops to suppress a rebellion against Han Chinese.

    What is ruling anyway? Clearly it can't be a Chinese rule if you personally cannot bring yourself to recognize it. After all, your facts-denying way is sort of how the world does work.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    Oh yeah Qing clearly didn't rule Tibet.

    They just happened to form their governments, approve their appointments, send military to defend the Tibetan borders, incorporate parts into other Chinese provinces, and send troops to suppress a rebellion against Han Chinese.

    What is ruling anyway? Clearly it can't be a Chinese rule if you personally cannot bring yourself to recognize it. After all, your facts-denying way is sort of how the world does work.
    . I did accept that that happened. But only with PRC and not for many centuries like you said before. The ruling happened with PRC in the 20th century when the world wars were happening and borders were a mess. But in history, Tibet has it's own Kings, Culture, traditions and was not a part of the "assimilation took place over 3000 years".
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by k_popper)
    . I did accept that that happened. But only with PRC and not for many centuries like you said before. The ruling happened with PRC in the 20th century when the world wars were happening and borders were a mess. But in history, Tibet has it's own Kings, Culture, traditions and was not a part of the "assimilation took place over 3000 years".
    I did not say they were a part of the assimilation that took place over 3000 years.

    I said Tibet has been ruled by China since Qing, that it was first controlled by China in Han (and then only periodically influenced), and in fact was also entirely controlled by Yuan, though that's the Mongolian Empire and not necessarily "Chinese". And that's the simple fact.

    I'm sorry you can't accept a simple historical fact.

    What you're claiming is the same as claiming India was never under British rule because they still had their own principalities, or France was not entirely ruled by Nazi Germany because the south had its own government.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Are unpaid trial work shifts fair?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.