Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTANet.com

    2. GTANet 20th Anniversary

    1. GTA Online

      1. The Cayo Perico Heist
      2. Find Lobbies & Players
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Vehicles
      5. Content Creator
      6. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

      1. St. Andrews Cathedral
    2. GTA VI

    3. GTA V

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    6. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    7. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    8. Portable Games

      1. GTA Chinatown Wars
      2. GTA Vice City Stories
      3. GTA Liberty City Stories
    9. Top-Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. Design Your Own Mission
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Movies & TV
      5. Music
      6. Sports
      7. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    1. Announcements

    2. Support

      1. Court House
    3. Suggestions

The Migration Crisis


Recommended Posts

 

Are you suggesting that brown people and white people in the UK are different species entirely?

 

Yes. That's clearly what I'm saying.

 

My point was a world where everyone is the same race would likely come about due to homogenisation of the globe, and this would also probably mean homogenisation of culture too. Not like there'd be exactly just 1 culture, but it wouldn't be anywhere near what it's like today.

 

 

Sounds like a good thing to me. Maybe people could start hating eachother for things that actually matter.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

So you'd happily see all other races apart from 1 vanish and lose the majority of cultures, just so long as there's no more racism? Grea logic there. I doubt you'd actually get rid of racism anyways, Nazis still hated Slavs even though they were white, Hutus still hated Tutsis even though were black. Plus people will find other ways to hate each other like religion and politics or something else. You wouldn't really reduce hate, you'd just reduce the diversity (which I thought was supposed a good thing) of human life and culture that exists.

Edited by GTA_stu
Link to post
Share on other sites

The question arises how artificial these distinctions are, and how much this "diversity" is just a product of artificially arbitrated boundaries between societies. Case in pont, there's no coherent genetic or ethnic differentiation between Tutsis and Hutus.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Are you suggesting that brown people and white people in the UK are different species entirely?

 

Yes. That's clearly what I'm saying.

 

My point was a world where everyone is the same race would likely come about due to homogenisation of the globe, and this would also probably mean homogenisation of culture too. Not like there'd be exactly just 1 culture, but it wouldn't be anywhere near what it's like today.

 

 

Sounds like a good thing to me. Maybe people could start hating eachother for things that actually matter.

 

 

The problem with this is that minority cultures would be in major trouble. How would insular (but, let me stress this, peaceful and cooperative) communities like the Druze, Yazidis, Zoroastrians or religious-Jewish communities survive in that kind of world? A global society would be dominated either by some form of Christianity or Islam, or enforced secularism. The idea of a tolerant, secular society is that it can accommodate different communities, not enforce homogeneity. It's sort of a contract. People can dress as they please and practice whatever religion they want, but they can't forcefully impose their views on others. This is a much better situation than a global society which would, explicitly or subversively, promote absolute conformity. It's perfectly possible to be both in touch with your culture and be respectful of other cultures. Suggesting that we need a world with one culture, one language and everyone being exactly alike in order to eliminate racism is massively defeatist in my view. Truly defeating racism means celebrating our differences and understanding that we should judge others by their character alone, not actively eliminating that which makes us a diverse species. Hate not the Egyptian for you were once a stranger in his land and all that.

Edited by Failure
Link to post
Share on other sites

Today, the results of poll commissioned by one of our two big public TV channels was released that state that 81% of our people think that our chancellor Merkel has lost control over the crisis.

Edited by Stephan90
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Melchior you keep saying stuff like "we can have discussions about problems in minority communities" but I really don't as many here doing that and when they do they're reluctant and then go about highlighting problems already in the West, which doesn't get anyone anywhere.

 

All you've said is it's "the states responsibility" etc. but really aren't coming up with any solutions or anything. I'd like to know exactly how you'd go about ridding of sexist attitudes flowing into a country, and at the same time have zero risk to the native inhabitants.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

What happened to the woman in that video was brutal and heartbreaking, but it happens everyday in the West on university campuses, and it happens so often on military bases that Western governments basically declare the problem insurmountable.

 

 

This is a bit general though. UK universities are really clamping down on sexual violence on-campus. Rape Crisis, "I heart consent", countless feminist demonstrations...Sexual abuse on-campus is rightly being talked about and dealt with. It's also, in fact, not an everyday occurrence in many British universities*. Most Muslims in the West tend to treat women with respect and simply value modesty, both of which are good things. What I think we're seeing is a phenomenon concerning young men from heavily conservative, gender-segregated Islamic communities being influenced by ISIS and their ilk, which basically declare Western women to be perverse and "deserving" of abuse. It's not an Islamic issue so much as an issue particular to young Muslim men, predominantly those raised outside of the West, who have fallen prey to a specific brand of Islam. I know Muslims who would be disgusted if their sons had committed the sort of behavior we saw at Cologne, so framing it broadly as an issue with Islam is wrong, but It's perfectly reasonable for Tony to want dialogue to be taking place as, in all honesty, it really is something that the left doesn't want to touch. I feel that it should be talked about because there needs to be a clear line between the many good Muslims in the West and those committing these attacks. I really don't want to see sensationalism about refugees being spread because of what's been happening and the best way forward is to deal with and talk about what has gone on, and what might still be going on.

 

There are a lot of double-standards. For example, a UK university recently banned a humanist speaker on the grounds that her presence would offend Muslim students, but anti-Israel events remain without issue:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/sep/26/student-union-blocks-speech-activist-maryam-namazie-warwick

 

An event designed to bridge the gap between pro-Palestinian students and pro-Israel students was also canceled by the former camp:

 

http://theboar.org/2016/01/20/jisoc-response-israel-palestine/

 

 

I might not like anti-Israel events as I think they're laden with bias, propaganda and misinformation, but they still have a right to take place, just as pro-Israel events or events from the speaker above should be allowed to take place (in particular without riots going on outside: http://www.independent.co.uk/student/news/king-s-college-london-launches-urgent-investigation-after-pro-israel-event-attacked-by-pro-palestine-a6825116.html).

 

Part of living in the West is allowing dialogue to take place. Obviously when that crosses the line into libel or hatred it's too much, but just talking about things has to be allowed.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

*That's not to undermine the phenomenon. It is an issue on many campuses and this warrants the strong response we see, it's just that we can't allow ourselves to ignore other issues because of it.

Edited by Failure
Link to post
Share on other sites

How on earth do you conclude that a homogenous society would be ruled by one of two options? Not really my point either, about the homogenous society. I don't see a valid reason to "preserve" any race.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It stands to reason that a homogeneous, global society would be ruled by one of the dominant forces in today's world (which are, loosely, Christianity, Islam and secularism. I'd also mention Hinduism but that's basically unique to India and the Indian diaspora). I'm not on about preserving races, I'm on about not seeing the preservation of culture as a bad thing. Do you see it as a bad thing that orthodox Jews only marry other Jews? The reason they do this is to ensure that their children will be aware of the culture, tradition and faith that has guided their ancestors since antiquity. This is a valid reason in my eyes, and it's made even more valid by the fact that the Jewish population still has a long way to go before it recovers from the Holocaust. Druze only marry other Druze because they are such a small community that they would be at real risk of dying out if intermarriage were tolerated. It's critical that the Druze way of life is able to continue because it's an exemplar for how minorities can exist peacefully in countries not their own and because it incorporates Islam in a totally peaceful way.

 

Is it reasonable for the Kurds to want to maintain their distinct identity and culture? I think it is. The Kurdish regions of Iraq and Syria are excellent examples of nation-building and are basically the only functioning regions in those countries not dominated by fundamentalism. The Kurds have invited Christians to take sanctuary in their lands. There's nothing at all wrong with marrying someone who is from a different background, it's completely up to you, the heart wants what it wants and so on, but there's also nothing wrong with wanting your grandchildren to know where they come from and to preserve your culture.

 

 

 

 

EDIT: I was going to edit this into my previous post but I may as well put it here. I can sort of get why Mel is annoyed. I think we're working hard to curtail sexual violence in the West, but it's still an issue. The Cologne attacks led to a lot of uproar (rightly so), but a lot of this focused on the migrants and less on the fact that women were attacked. The argument rests on to what extent the background of the migrants led to the attacks. I think a lot of questions still need to be asked. Who were the perpetrators exactly? If they were refugees, from which countries where they fleeing? Do we know if the attacks were organised in advance by the perpetrators? How many attacks (if any) are reported at the NYE event in Cologne in typical years? The burning question is why did the perpetrators feel that they could do what they did? How little respect did they have for the women they attacked and where did this irreverence come from? I infer an attitude coming from some of these men that Western women are "sluts" for dressing provocatively or whatever. This really doesn't corroborate with the attitudes of many Western Muslims, or even some Muslims in parts of the Islamic world, so we could be seeing the influence of more hardline forms of Islam, namely Wahhabism.

Edited by Failure
Link to post
Share on other sites

So you'd happily see all other races apart from 1 vanish and lose the majority of cultures, just so long as there's no more racism?

I don't think culture = race....

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to edit this into my previous post but I may as well put it here. I can sort of get why Mel is annoyed. I think we're working hard to curtail sexual violence in the West, but it's still an issue. The Cologne attacks led to a lot of uproar (rightly so), but a lot of this focused on the migrants and less on the fact that women were attacked. The argument rests on to what extent the background of the migrants led to the attacks. I think a lot of questions still need to be asked. Who were the perpetrators exactly? If they were refugees, from which countries where they fleeing? Do we know if the attacks were organised in advance by the perpetrators? How many attacks (if any) are reported at the NYE event in Cologne in typical years? The burning question is why did the perpetrators feel that they could do what they did? How little respect did they have for the women they attacked and where did this irreverence come from? I infer an attitude coming from some of these men that Western women are "sluts" for dressing provocatively or whatever. This really doesn't corroborate with the attitudes of many Western Muslims, or even some Muslims in parts of the Islamic world, so we could be seeing the influence of more hardline forms of Islam, namely Wahhabism.

 

Really I'd consider you the most balanced person in here. You're supporting taking in refugees, but are also acknowledging the issues and trying to work out a solution.

 

While vocally decrying turning them away at the boarder none of the "lefties" in here are really offering any real solutions or anything, just that we're responsible for these millions of people, and if a few women get groped, raped, etc. or w/e it would certainly suck to be them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Melchior you keep saying stuff like "we can have discussions about problems in minority communities" but I really don't as many here doing that

Because we don't accept your particular grievance as being legitimate. The only solution you'll get from me is 'smash the patriarchy.'

 

If rape mobs were common place in Syria and were now common in Germany you'd have a point but that's not the case is it? I don't think you have any conception of who these people are or where they come from, because this is just completely ridiculous. I'm 'throwing women under the bus' by not wanting to restrict peoples' movement for some marginal, completely theoretical benefit to society? Is there evidence that Muslim immigration noticeably increases sexual violence?

 

Should we ban Jamaicans for the sake of queer people? Because as a policy that would make a substantial difference, and Jamaicans have the option of staying home or flying somewhere else. It's just f*cking daft and there's not much more to say.

The burning question is why did the perpetrators feel that they could do what they did?

Because, whether in Syria or Germany, women are not equal to men.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

So you'd happily see all other races apart from 1 vanish and lose the majority of cultures, just so long as there's no more racism? Grea logic there. I doubt you'd actually get rid of racism anyways, Nazis still hated Slavs even though they were white, Hutus still hated Tutsis even though were black. Plus people will find other ways to hate each other like religion and politics or something else. You wouldn't really reduce hate, you'd just reduce the diversity (which I thought was supposed a good thing) of human life and culture that exists.

 

Pray tell, why should you care if all races converge into one? The timeframe for any such event is centuries down the line from where stand now, and everyone you know or will ever know will already be gone.

 

And I didn't know race = culture. Contrary to what you seem to believe, there's plenty of mixed Japanese that live as any other Japanese. And the culture of white people in Britain is pretty different from the culture of white people in Poland.

 

And all of that is assuming that "mixed race" relationships explode and become the norm, displacing "racially pure" babies/relationships, which just isn't the case either. Really, can you care to provide any source for your statements of massive cultural homogenization in progress?

Link to post
Share on other sites

1. Pray tell, why should you care if all races converge into one? The timeframe for any such event is centuries down the line from where stand now, and everyone you know or will ever know will already be gone.

 

2. And I didn't know race = culture. Contrary to what you seem to believe, there's plenty of mixed Japanese that live as any other Japanese. And the culture of white people in Britain is pretty different from the culture of white people in Poland.

 

3. And all of that is assuming that "mixed race" relationships explode and become the norm, displacing "racially pure" babies/relationships, which just isn't the case either. Really, can you care to provide any source for your statements of massive cultural homogenization in progress?

 

 

1. Already covered this. Like I said, I think the diversity and variety of human life is worth preserving.

 

2. I never said it did.

 

3. When did I say it was in progress? We're talking about hypothetical future situations. Although I suppose the mass immigration and multiculturalism we see in the West could be considered the start of this to some extent.

Edited by GTA_stu
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Are you suggesting that brown people and white people in the UK are different species entirely?

 

Yes. That's clearly what I'm saying.

 

My point was a world where everyone is the same race would likely come about due to homogenisation of the globe, and this would also probably mean homogenisation of culture too. Not like there'd be exactly just 1 culture, but it wouldn't be anywhere near what it's like today.

 

 

Sounds like a good thing to me. Maybe people could start hating eachother for things that actually matter.

 

 

The problem with this is that minority cultures would be in major trouble. How would insular (but, let me stress this, peaceful and cooperative) communities like the Druze, Yazidis, Zoroastrians or religious-Jewish communities survive in that kind of world? A global society would be dominated either by some form of Christianity or Islam, or enforced secularism. The idea of a tolerant, secular society is that it can accommodate different communities, not enforce homogeneity. It's sort of a contract. People can dress as they please and practice whatever religion they want, but they can't forcefully impose their views on others. This is a much better situation than a global society which would, explicitly or subversively, promote absolute conformity. It's perfectly possible to be both in touch with your culture and be respectful of other cultures. Suggesting that we need a world with one culture, one language and everyone being exactly alike in order to eliminate racism is massively defeatist in my view. Truly defeating racism means celebrating our differences and understanding that we should judge others by their character alone, not actively eliminating that which makes us a diverse species. Hate not the Egyptian for you were once a stranger in his land and all that.

 

Ethnic groups can have autonomy and remain culturally insular, but there's no rational reason why human beings should be divided by arbitrary lines. Diversity shouldn't come at the cost of using warfare to avoid accountability to each other and having ethnic groups claiming disproportionate amounts of land and resources.

 

And you're talking about Jews and Kurds but stu is talking about the British. The British state is a perfect example of cultural identities not matching up to administrative distinctions, having arbitrary constituencies. Which cultural divisions are actually picked up on are also arbitrary; you have multiple cultural identities. You probably identify with your town to a certain degree, you're also a Welshmen, a southerner, a Brit, a Jew, a European, an English speaker, a Westerner and apart of an even broader Sino-Western civilisation. You probably only consider some of those to be worth talking about, and some are obviously more important than others. But an Arab wouldn't call you Jewish or call stu British, they'd call you both Westerners and leave it at that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A lot of people in Wales actually identify a lot more with the North than the South of England due to similar heritage of industry and mining funnily enough.

 

 

Stu is basically speaking for the preservation of his identity. You're right in saying that the UK has various identities, but British culture is enough of a tangible entity for people to speak up in its defense. You raise some good points but I'm not sure how arbitrary a cultural division is. The town I grew up in feels like home, but so does the north of Israel despite having spent little time there. I don't identify with the city I've lived in for the past few years because I'm just here to get qualifications/work. Generally I just see myself as a human being and my cultural affiliations don't affect my dealings with others, but I'm still aware of my background, just as Stu is. I think the problem both Stu and I have with the idea of a global society is enforced homogeneity; I wouldn't want to live under a global version of the Chinese government, say. For now at least the best answer is nation states which accommodate minorities but are also aware of their national culture.

Edited by Failure
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the problem both Stu and I have with the idea of a global society is enforced homogeneity

 

And this is the issue. Because it is enforced. A small bunch of elitists decided mass immigration and multiculturalism should happen, it didn't come about because the people wanted it. Which is why I find it so puzzling when certain types who profess to be all about standing with the common man and against elitists, favour the elitists.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

And this is the issue. Because it is enforced. A small bunch of elitists decided mass immigration and multiculturalism should happen, it didn't come about because the people wanted it. Which is why I find it so puzzling when certain types who profess to be all about standing with the common man and against elitists, favour the elitists.

 

This sounds familiar

 

 

 

 

And this is the issue. Because it is enforced. A small bunch of Jews decided mass immigration and multiculturalism should happen, it didn't come about because the people wanted it. Which is why I find it so puzzling when certain types who profess to be all about standing with the common man and against Jews, favour the Jews.

 

 

 

o ya

Link to post
Share on other sites

You've lost the plot.

 

edit: I'll just reply to the one below, here. Yh everyone can sound like a antiseptic conspiracy tard if you replace a random word in their post with the word " Jews". If I took one of yours and replaced bourgeoisie/cops/capitalists with "Jews" then so would you. But I guess you've labelled me everything else, so in order to complete your sticker book and send off for that penny whistle, I suppose you might as well call me an antisemite and finish your collection.

Edited by GTA_stu
Link to post
Share on other sites

nah you just sound like an antisemitic conspiracy theorist if we replace 'elitists' with 'jews' and that makes me giggle

 

it was either that or quoting your comment and making it look like a poorly-sourced wikipedia article

 

btw m8 im almost certain war decided, not the jew--oh erm, elitists

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think the problem both Stu and I have with the idea of a global society is enforced homogeneity

 

And this is the issue. Because it is enforced. A small bunch of elitists decided mass immigration and multiculturalism should happen, it didn't come about because the people wanted it. Which is why I find it so puzzling when certain types who profess to be all about standing with the common man and against elitists, favour the elitists.

 

 

What IS "your" culture? Aren't you part of the problem because you're dutch and as you've made clear, you HAVE TO impose your birth nation's culture on the country to which you move..? I don't favour the elitists. I stand with the common man, the people, for the people. Brown people are people just like you and me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

edit: I'll just reply to the one below, here. Yh everyone can sound like a antiseptic conspiracy tard if you replace a random word in their post with the word " Jews". If I took one of yours and replaced bourgeoisie/cops/capitalists with "Jews" then so would you. But I guess you've labelled me everything else, so in order to complete your sticker book and send off for that penny whistle, I suppose you might as well call me an antisemite and finish your collection.

Except 'the joos are flooding europe with immigrants' is a fairly popular conspiracy theory, and has been around for decades. You'll hear that kind of talk in Neo-Nazi circles all the time. I mean, yeah, if you took something I said and substituted a few words, I could most definitely be portrayed as an antisemite, but I'm not repeating an old antisemitic conspiracy theory almost verbatim.

 

And m8, I'm not saying you're an antisemite, or that this is what you actually believe, but the rhetoric is nearly identical. I just found it interesting. It's almost like how old 'Judeo-Bolshevik' conspiracy theories have been repackaged and replaced with 'Cultural Marxism', although that doesn't necessarily carry the same antisemitic connotations (or, at least, it's much more subtle), and I've seen people that otherwise never struck me as antisemitic repeating that nonsense simply because they didn't know any better. I think the same applies here. I'm almost certain you've simply picked up on the rhetoric of antisemites--who tend to use dog whistles rather than just flat out ranting about Jews--without seeing it for what it really is. You've been duped. A steady diet of /r/European and /r/WorldNews will do that to a person.

Edited by make total destroy
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I think the problem both Stu and I have with the idea of a global society is enforced homogeneity

 

And this is the issue. Because it is enforced. A small bunch of elitists decided mass immigration and multiculturalism should happen, it didn't come about because the people wanted it. Which is why I find it so puzzling when certain types who profess to be all about standing with the common man and against elitists, favour the elitists.

 

 

What IS "your" culture? Aren't you part of the problem because you're dutch and as you've made clear, you HAVE TO impose your birth nation's culture on the country to which you move..? I don't favour the elitists. I stand with the common man, the people, for the people. Brown people are people just like you and me.

 

 

lol I'm not Dutch. You clearly don't stand with the common man, since the common man doesn't want mass immigration and multiculturalism.

 

MTD, I really don't understand what you're saying. There are a whole bunch of different allegations/speculations/conspiracy theories whatever you want to call them, about varying groups and organisations having either direct total control over governments, or having varying degrees of undue influence over governments and other institutions of countries. Some with more grounding in reality than others. Everything from lizard people, to zionist NWO, to corporation lobbying, to just saying that the lower classes views and opinions and their overall say in a country is nowhere near proportional and that democracy is heavily flawed.

 

The fact that a very similar view exists to what I said, involving specifically the Jews, has literally no relevance whatsoever. Antisemitism exists... what do you want? A medal? Mass immigration and multiculturalism has never been supported by the majority and for a long time it was only a small minority in favour of it. It's not just a minor issue either, but has consistently ranked as a main issue and concern among voters. If the majority/vast majority are/were strongly against it, then surely the fact it's still been implemented should tell anyone observant that the decision makers aren't actually infuenced by the whole population, but a small minority, aka an elite who hold the real power and influence.

 

That can easily involve people who aren't Jewish, and to come to that conclusion doesn't require the Jewish conspiracy. The fact you seem to be unable to separate the Jewish conspiracy from other ones, says something about you not me. The fact I merely mentioned a group, and you immediately assume it must be the Jews, says something about you not me. I don't even understand how I've apparently been duped. You seem to agree that I'm not actually antisemitic and that I'm not talking about the Jews, and yet (unbeknownst to my simple easily tricked mind) I actually am talking about Jews, because obviously any such conspiracy must be related to Jews and every word like "group" or "elitists" is just code for Jews. Acting like it always has to be about the Jews when someone mentions a conspiracy, is just reinforcing that idea and giving more power to the antisemites.

 

So let me reiterate: I'm not talking about Jews. Not every conspiracy involves Jews. The tricksy Nazi bigotses didn't secretly brainwash me. I'm not talking in code. And you are totally mistaken about p much everything.

Edited by GTA_stu
Link to post
Share on other sites

The opinions of the common man are typically formed by appeals to the lowest common denominator. It's absolutely what we shouldn't be pandering to. The fact is that migration, as a common "whipping boy" or scapegoat for social issues in certain parts of the press, is pretty much the primary driver of sentiments amongst "the common man" because, and I mean this in the nicest possible way, the common man is an ignorant, reactionary, delusional, cretinous philistine I wouldn't trust to decide what I should have for lunch, let alone important policies which affect the whole of society.

 

This manifests itself time and time again in surveys- if people are asked to order issues including immigration in importance, or asked to choose important issues from a list, they often rank it highly but in unprompted surveys it appears as a concern in people's lists of important issues far less frequently. And the views of "the common man" on the issue are usually flat-out wrong. Case in point- the current furore about benefit entitlements for EU citizens in the UK, which has become, thanks in large part to the red-top rags, the Express and Mail, this massive issue that "the common man" seems very much riled up by...but in actual statistical terms is a complete non-event not even worthy of a tiny proportion of the time that's been effectively wasted on it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The opinions of the common man are typically formed by appeals to the lowest common denominator. It's absolutely what we shouldn't be pandering to.

 

This is the condescending elitist BS I'm talking about. The idea that the people should be ignored because they're ignorant simpletons, and only the "enlightened" elite should have a say. I mean maybe hundreds of years ago when we were actually illiterate and dumb as door posts you'd have a point. But that doesn't apply any more because we actually have things like an education system now. That's before you even get on to how you can objectively decide who should and shouldn't get a say. What are the criteria? Personally I think everyone having an equal say is a lot better than a dictatorship of STEM graduates or whatever other ridiculous thing you can come up with.

Edited by GTA_stu
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

I think the problem both Stu and I have with the idea of a global society is enforced homogeneity

 

And this is the issue. Because it is enforced. A small bunch of elitists decided mass immigration and multiculturalism should happen, it didn't come about because the people wanted it. Which is why I find it so puzzling when certain types who profess to be all about standing with the common man and against elitists, favour the elitists.

 

 

What IS "your" culture? Aren't you part of the problem because you're dutch and as you've made clear, you HAVE TO impose your birth nation's culture on the country to which you move..? I don't favour the elitists. I stand with the common man, the people, for the people. Brown people are people just like you and me.

 

 

lol I'm not Dutch. You clearly don't stand with the common man, since the common man doesn't want mass immigration and multiculturalism.

 

 

 

Ok, f*cking scratch it then. I don't want to stand with the damned common man then. I want to stand with the people. And I do.

 

I still don't fully understand why you're so afraid of brown people and them coming to your country?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The opinions of the common man are typically formed by appeals to the lowest common denominator. It's absolutely what we shouldn't be pandering to.

This is the condescending elitist BS I'm talking about. The idea that the people should be ignored because they're ignorant simpletons, and only the "enlightened" elite should have a say.I'm not suggesting we ignore them, I'm suggest we don't pander to them. Encourage people to form coherent views that aren't based on reactionary bullsh*t, give people an actual political and social education. The issue isn't so much the lowest common denominator in society but the fact they're preyed on for political capital, with all their hardships being cast as a product of scary funny coloured people.

 

The last thing we want to be ignoring is the indoctrination of entire chunks of society.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I still don't fully understand why you're so afraid of brown people and them coming to your country?

 

 

I'm not suggesting we ignore them, I'm suggest we don't pander to them. Encourage people to form coherent views that aren't based on reactionary bullsh*t, give people an actual political and social education.

The last thing we want to be ignoring is the indoctrination of entire chunks of society.

 

 

The thing is, this line of argument that you two are going along with is not actually true. It's just one big straw man. Nobody is scared of "brown people", nobody hates "brown people". Nobody is indoctrinated. Nobody has incoherent views. Well those do obviously apply to some, but not for most. It's just easier to paint certain people as prejudiced and illogical idiots that are corrupted, and dismiss their views and opinions as tainted and not valid. It's a complete and utter load of condescending bollocks.

 

What is it exactly that means the common person is these things you describe them as, whilst other people, generally more middle and upper class types, aren't like this? Where does this distinction lie? What is it that means someone is indoctrinated? And what makes someone else enlightened? I mean pro immigration and anti immigration positions are held by all different kinds of people with different backgrounds and different levels of education. So which of these people are the indoctrinated and incoherent people who's views we shouldn't pander to? And who are the ones we should we pay attention to?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's just easier to paint certain people as prejudiced and illogical idiots that are corrupted, and dismiss their views and opinions as tainted and not valid.

It would be a lot harder if the views in question weren't usually based on scaremongering and factual inaccuracy. I appreciate it might be difficult to isolate your own position from this because it's clear that you do, to some degree at least, fall into this group by vitue of your insistence of trying to preserve something as vapid, subjective and personal as "national identity" and "British ethnicity", a phrase you invoke frequently but as of yet haven't actually defined in any coherent way.

 

I mean pro immigration and anti immigration positions are held by all different kinds of people with different backgrounds and different levels of education.

Contrary to this statement, there are some very interesting social and demographic trends in anti-immigration support which are worth considering. The over-65s persistently show amongst the strongest anti-immigration views. There's a general inverse correlation between immigration into areas of the UK and the political views that residents of these areas express- that is, the higher the level of immigration, the lower the numbers of people voting for anti-immigration political parties. High income areas typically show stronger positive views towards immigration than the baseline, and low income areas and those with high unemployment show dramatically lower levels of support for it. There's an inverse correlation between educational level and support for anti-immigration policies; the less educated the individual, the more negatively they typically see immigration. You can see for yourself, as I did either in this thread or another, by overlaying the maps of UKIP votes in the 2015 general election with immigration heatmaps and picking certain constituencies which have certain characteristics. Also there have been several studies in the US confirming the correlation between both income and education, and views on immigration.

 

Media consumption reflects this. Is it merely coincidence that the Express and Mail, which have a reader demographic firmly in the "pensioner" sphere, perpetuate negative views on immigration? Or that the Sun, by far the most popular Redtop, has it's columnists call immigrants cockroaches and subhumans?

 

I mean these trends aren't exactly new. If you look back to the immigration of other groups to the UK, like the influx from the West Indies or Pakistan around the middle of last century, I think it's fair to say the same correlations between negative views and various characteristics existed. Is there somehow exceptional about the big scary I word these days?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I still don't fully understand why you're so afraid of brown people and them coming to your country?

 

 

I'm not suggesting we ignore them, I'm suggest we don't pander to them. Encourage people to form coherent views that aren't based on reactionary bullsh*t, give people an actual political and social education.

The last thing we want to be ignoring is the indoctrination of entire chunks of society.

 

 

The thing is, this line of argument that you two are going along with is not actually true. It's just one big straw man. Nobody is scared of "brown people", nobody hates "brown people".

 

 

Give me a f*cking break, you wouldn't bat an eye if my whole damned neighborhood moved to yours.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • 2 Users Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 2 Guests

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.