Multiculturalism is dangerous

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

I'm sorry Seph but why are you trying to side derail your interesting debate with roughbeast on Islamism and multiculturalism by inserting a cut-and-paste paragraph on gender identity? Is that effectively a white flag I see? Or just a large handkerchief?

Just responding to Hugh's nonsense. I'm surprised at your interpretation.

[Stephen]

No its not dangerous at all.

[roughbeast]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I am not of a right-wing mind set. Nobody here has yet properly and validly defined 'right wing'. They've tried to pin 'right-wing' on Leavers and now you're pinning it on me because I have smelt the coffee.



I have not dismissed history. History is part of evolution. Some societies (esp. European and its diaspora) have evolved along lines circumscribed by the Ten Commandments. Others vary in their adoption of western society values. One, in particular, that sends 300,000 marchers into London's streets (they could have ripped London up), does not share our values; there will be spectra within their society, at one end, who are bought into our values; at the other end - well you've seen the death and misery wreaked by ISIS, Al Qaeda, Hamas, etc. If that society's MPs exceed in number our society's MPs, there is no doubt as to what will happen next - the militants will take over.

Your mention of Oswald Mosley was gratuitous. He was a one-off in the UK whose handful of nasty followers demonstrated what can happen when the wrong types take to the streets.



Yep - you got it. 9/11 proved that. 7/7 too. And October 7. Plus the demonstrators who want Israel wiped off the map.




You only have to look at the influence that only 6 Muslim MPs are trying to bear on the rest of the party. Why? They represent constituencies that are heavily Muslim populated. A Muslim majority in Parliament is, of course, contingent on the birth rate and immigration rate. Even if that tails off, a Muslim MP bloc is inevitable and that will bring culture clashes and, I'm quite certain, another 300,000 plus unpoliceable demonstrations.




Yep - another route to eventually gaining a parliamentary majority for the Muslims. In fact, that is the greater danger.



I first saw the word "WOKERATI" on Hugh's Avatar. You've fallen for the left-wing/right-wing fallacy. What you don't concede is the fact that men are men and woman are women, especially when it comes to public toilets and sports changing rooms. The 'liberal left' need their brains re-tested in that context.

I. I spoke about the right-wing origins of your language, not about your position on the left/right political spectrum. If you continue to use right-wing buzz words and make right wing assumptions I may eventually conclude that you are right wing. Because I don't know you well, I can't come to a view yet.

2. My point about your attitude to history is that you are selective when it suits you. We agree, I think, in general terms about what it is that caused the rise of radical Islam and thereby terrorist acts, i.e. continued western military support for Israel despite its illegal expansionism and military interventions in Muslim lands, killing millions, in order to secure oil supplies. Yet, you believe that there is something exceptional about Islam that makes their reaction more likely than that of Christians or Jews. You choose not to list the colonial terrorist acts of Christian Europeans such as the Amritsar Massacre. There is a long list of the use of terror and air policing by countries such as the UK and France in order to subjugate local populations in Kenya, Libya, Algeria etc. Then, of course, there were the terrorist acts by Zionist zealots against Palestinians ands Brits that contributed to the creation of Israel. No doubt you will chose not to attribute this terrorism to the Christian or Jewish nature of those terrorists.

Incidentally, I was one of those peace marchers on Armistice Day, that could have ripped up London. I and 10s of thousands of non-Muslims joined the march for peace. Why did the marchers not rip up London? Could it be that the marchers, mostly Muslim men, women and children, shared the values of peace, which is why they were easily policeable? You selected out the genuinely unpoliceable fascist gangs of Mr Loxley Lennon who caused mayhem at the Cenotaph.

You probably need to read this survey of the attitudes of British Muslims to give yourself a balanced picture. https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/...in-ipsos_0.pdf

3. The British Union of Fascists had a membership of over 50,000 in the 1930s and had the full support of Lord Rothermere and the Daily Mail. They subscribed to the Nazi view of Jewry. Only the outbreak of war prevented Mosley et al from gaining strength. As it is, his organisation was made illegal and members were thrown into jail.

4. I'm glad you noted how those Muslim MPs stood up for the people of Gaza and the West Bank but you omitted to mention the sizeable number of non-Muslim MPs. You see, you did it again. By leaving out the non-Muslim peace protestors and rebelling MPs you hoped that would support your conspiracy theory that the Muslims are against us and preparing for an takeover when Muslim population suddenly leaps to over 50% of the population.

For my amusement, I see a great irony here, when you project the rising number of Muslims in the light of large Muslim component of our vastly increasing net immigration numbers. The irony is that those immigrants are replacing the 100s of thousands of white, Christian EU workers who started to leave our shores from June 23rd 2016. I don't know if you voted Leave or Remain, but many who voted leave did so to reduce immigration. They hadn't realised that immigration numbers are largely ruled by the needs of the economy and that EU workers would have to be replaced with mostly non-white, non-Christian immigrants, many of whom are skilled Muslims. I wonder if some of those Leave voters are now complaining about a Muslim takeover.

5. I see you have had a go at the left and at liberals poorly stereotyping them as unable to distinguish between male and female. These kinds of generalisations are pretty mindless and shabby stuff, not worth of someone capable of grasping the intricacies of the world of IT, networks etc way beyond my ability. You stereotype Muslims just as clumsily. I understand that pigeon-holing groups and individuals makes it easier to dismiss or attack them and also reduces cognitive dissonance, but in the end it intellectually lazy and potentially dangerous as we saw when Adolf deployed stereotypes to powerful effect.

A general problem I see in the field of sexual identity, is people's inability to distinguish between sex and gender. Our sex is either Male or Female according to attributes we have at birth. (Genuine hermaphrodites are a miniscule minority) However, gender is a social construct. A significant number of males and females, due to hormone irregularities or socio-environmental factors or wilful misassignment by their parents do not feel that they are the gender they have been assigned. They need recognition, help and support, either medical and/or social. They certainly shouldn't be discriminated against.

Regarding public toilets and showers my view is that maximum choice is the key to reducing concerns about privacy especially when accommodating people who don't fall into traditional gender categories. It would also accommodate those men and women who are concerned about being perved by gays. The move towards unisex toilets and showers areas, but with ample private spaces for those who need and want it, is the way to go anyway. Lots of toilet cubicles and hidden urinals and individual shower cubicles is sensible. I am not proposing that we go down the route of Belgium Sun Parks that I experienced over 30 years ago. There I was changing ready for a swim when two women entered the area and started changing too I hadn't realised that the Belgians were so grown up and had left concerns about nudity so far behind years ago and that if I had wanted privacy there were plenty cubicles. I guess they feel that if nudity in public areas is commonplace then there is no point in furtive perving.

---------- Post added at 11:52 ---------- Previous post was at 11:43 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Well I have enjoyed your lengthy diatribes, and your well structured, seemingly well researched, cognisant opinion.

But you’ve just torpedoed yourself under the water line with that remark.

I now see you for who you are. You are illuminated.

Thank you for the clarification.

I'm disappointed. You tease me with your remarks, but give no explanation or examples.

---------- Post added at 11:55 ---------- Previous post was at 11:52 ----------

Originally Posted by Pierre

Not these.

https://www.poolre.co.uk/19-individu...ular-migrants/

https://www.timesofisrael.com/livebl...blic-not-told/

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...acks-2014.html

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo...001669_EN.html


Etc, etc, etc

Doh! We can all find examples of useless people especially if we trawl those sources, but what about the vast majority who are useful?

[Sephiroth]

@Roughbeast

We agree to disagree. I haven't the time to answer you point by point any more. We're going round in circles anyway.

You accuse me of being 'selective' on the historical points. No more so than you - and going back hundreds of years, bearing in mind how societies have evolved, is pointless unless it shows how we got to where we are today.


---------- Post added at 12:32 ---------- Previous post was at 12:22 ----------

Originally Posted by roughbeast

<SNIP>

5. I see you have had a go at the left and at liberals poorly stereotyping them as unable to distinguish between male and female. ....

<SNIP>

I can't let that one go.

Starmer and Cooper (Labour) could/would not define a 'woman'; Moran (Lib-Dem) likewise. She actually said:

“a woman is a gender, it is a way to self-identify and there are lots of genders. There is male and that is biological. There is female, which is also biological. A woman is a gender identity which is more akin to being a man. Those are the opposites and then there is also non-binary, which is people who don’t identify with either.”

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-suzanne-moore

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by roughbeast

For my amusement, I see a great irony here, when you project the rising number of Muslims in the light of large Muslim component of our vastly increasing net immigration numbers. The irony is that those immigrants are replacing the 100s of thousands of white, Christian EU workers who started to leave our shores from June 23rd 2016. I don't know if you voted Leave or Remain, but many who voted leave did so to reduce immigration. They hadn't realised that immigration numbers are largely ruled by the needs of the economy and that EU workers would have to be replaced with mostly non-white, non-Christian immigrants, many of whom are skilled Muslims. I wonder if some of those Leave voters are now complaining about a Muslim takeover.

Nail on the head! Covid certainly increased or accelerated the exit of Christians back to their EU home states too.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Nail on the head! Covid certainly increased or accelerated the exit of Christians back to their EU home states too.

This is taking things to a silly level.

[roughbeast]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

@Roughbeast

We agree to disagree. I haven't the time to answer you point by point any more. We're going round in circles anyway.

You accuse me of being 'selective' on the historical points. No more so than you - and going back hundreds of years, bearing in mind how societies have evolved, is pointless unless it shows how we got to where we are today.


---------- Post added at 12:32 ---------- Previous post was at 12:22 ----------





I can't let that one go.

Starmer and Cooper (Labour) could/would not define a 'woman'; Moran (Lib-Dem) likewise. She actually said:



https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-suzanne-moore

1. We aren't going around in circles. Your arguments have been well and truly dissed. You just haven't realised it yet.

2. If Starmer and Cooper were of the left, that wouldn't mean the whole of the left think like them. You applied a stereotypical view of the left, as you did that of Muslims. I wasn't prepared to let you get away with that.

---------- Post added at 13:17 ---------- Previous post was at 13:14 ----------

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Nail on the head! Covid certainly increased or accelerated the exit of Christians back to their EU home states too.

That was a bit random.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by roughbeast

That was a bit random.

Sorry, posted in haste. In long form it would read

You've certainly hit the nail on the head there.

We should also acknowledge that Covid increased or accelerated the exit of Christians from the UK back to their EU home states.

[roughbeast]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Sorry, posted in haste. In long form it would read

You've certainly hit the nail on the head there.

We should also acknowledge that Covid increased or accelerated the exit of Christians from the UK back to their EU home states.

This is true, although Brexit has been the main factor. Also, without Brexit, most of those workers who went home for Covid, may well have come back after the pandemic. Either way, EU workers have been replaced by non-EU workers.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by roughbeast

This is true, although Brexit has been the main factor. Also, without Brexit, most of those workers who went home for Covid, may well have come back after the pandemic. Either way, EU workers have been replaced by non-EU workers.

Agreed.

[daveeb]

Originally Posted by roughbeast

This is true, although Brexit has been the main factor. Also, without Brexit, most of those workers who went home for Covid, may well have come back after the pandemic. Either way, EU workers have been replaced by non-EU workers.

This in a nutshell

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by roughbeast

The mere use of the term 'virtue signalling', whoever it is aimed at, has become an indicator of a right-wing mind set. Having said that, I once used it ironically against a right-wing correspondent who indulged in actual virtual signalling.

You can't dismiss history just because it no longer suit you. I first brought up recent immigration of Jews as an example of how the current stereotyping of Islam and Muslims has happened under similar immigration circumstances, but in the context of Judaism and Jews. I was hoping you might learn from history. Right-wing fanatics and fascist like Oswald Mosley warned us of Jews doing what you are now telling us that Muslims are planning.

You then dip into history to explain that Europe has always been Judeo-Christian and that is why Jews integrated so well. Pity someone didn't explain that to Oswald Mosley

I then dipped into history to explain how relatively tolerant of Christianity Islam was when it was at its height in contrast to the brutality of evangelical Christian European colonialists. I also explained how the scriptures predisposed all three Ibrahimic religions to being either brutal or highly civilised. I explained that on this basis Muslims weren't exceptionally hard to integrate. Suddenly, you decided that history wasn't so relevant after all.

You tell me that history is no longer relevant, because we are looking at Muslims now, not 900 years ago, presumably because Islam now is intrinsically different than it was then.

Having then decided it is Muslims now that are the problem you then fail to convince us that there is a conspiracy to take over the western world. You are convinced this is there ambition berceuse ... erm history tells us that they are like that and that some of them are quite angry now for some reason or other.

Finally, there's that question you asked somewhere in that previous 13 pages of debate.

"What would happen to us if there was a Muslim majority in Parliament? "

Firstly, if that were to happen, then it would seem that most of the 93% of the country that aren't Muslim, decided they wanted Muslim MPs. Suddenly we must have decided that Muslims R us!

But, to be fair to you, I guess you meant that this might happen in some future you have in mind, where all those Muslims breeding like rabbits and arriving in rubber dinghies outnumber non-Muslims. I think that scenario has already been well and truly dissed. The only way that would happen is if most of the the folk of sub-Saharan Africa and the near East headed this way because climate change had made their land unlivable! Whoops! Perhaps we better sort out climate change quickly. After all, global warming is the enemy of all of us.

BTW. Your definitions of the made-up words Wokerati and Remoaner are just laughable. They would be hilarious terms if it were not for the fact that such words are deliberately deployed by the right-wing's puppet masters because they know that if their marionettes have those words in their vocabulary they can use them to pigeon-hole and dismiss members of the liberal left without having to engage them in informed rational debate. This makes it so much easier to propagate conspiracy theories amongst the gullible, keeping them socially and intellectually at a distance from those who might explain what is really going on.

Wonderful post. Well said. I just love the summary of the lazy, child-like use of the "Woke", "Remoaner", "Lefty" tropes. Perfect!

However, don't for one minute think that those who hide behind these lazy insults will be tempted to engage & debate the objective reality of the real world.

[roughbeast]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Wonderful post. Well said. I just love the summary of the lazy, child-like use of the "Woke", "Remoaner", "Lefty" tropes. Perfect!

However, don't for one minute think that those who hide behind these lazy insults will be tempted to engage & debate the objective reality of the real world.

Thank you for your appreciative comments.

I have no great expectations of people who lazily use insulting labels or apply stereotypes instead of engaging in the subject properly. For that reason I was very happy that Sephiroth engaged for a while at least. I might be wrong, but I sensed that he was beginning to find that some of the stereotypes he was applying to various groups aren't necessarily applicable or universal. Maybe that is why he backed off, but more likely he did so because I'm a pedantic old bugger who follows through in detail.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Wonderful post. Well said. I just love the summary of the lazy, child-like use of the "Woke", "Remoaner", "Lefty" tropes. Perfect!

However, don't for one minute think that those who hide behind these lazy insults will be tempted to engage & debate the objective reality of the real world.

you left out Right Wing.

---------- Post added at 12:59 ---------- Previous post was at 12:52 ----------

I then dipped into history to explain how relatively tolerant of Christianity Islam was when it was at its height in contrast to the brutality of evangelical Christian European colonialists. I also explained how the scriptures predisposed all three Ibrahimic religions to being either brutal or highly civilised. I explained that on this basis Muslims weren't exceptionally hard to integrate. Suddenly, you decided that history wasn't so relevant after all.

Islam isn't at it's Height, it's still growing.

And it's lovely to hear it was relatively tolerant, there's no evidence that is the case today. Quite the opposite

Muslims weren't exceptionally hard to integrate

They don't integrate, they set up their own closed communities.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Wonderful post. Well said. I just love the summary of the lazy, child-like use of the "Woke", "Remoaner", "Lefty" tropes. Perfect!

However, don't for one minute think that those who hide behind these lazy insults will be tempted to engage & debate the objective reality of the real world.

Like all the Doctor Who fans that are crying woke because of the diverse castings and mention of pronouns and a trans character. How very dare they bring that into their favourite show.