|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 2, 2024 15:26:49 GMT
I think 'culture' is difficult to define. I suspect most would agree that British culture is based on liberal, democratic values with equal rights and opportunities. The argument, then, runs along the lines of if the country imports large numbers of people whose culture is not based on similar values, then the country's cultural base is diluted.
What I find paradoxical is many of those who uphold (live by?) the values that I have proposed form the basis of British culture appear to turn a blind eye to communities whose cultural values are, at least in part, diametrically opposed to their own. At the same time, those who vocally object to the 'foreign' values in those communities appear, at least to me, to have most in common with them.
That's because the words 'liberal values' has become distorted out of all recognition to mean something akin to sacrificing your territory and inheritance to invaders. You therefore conclude that people who object to this process are somehow 'illiberal'. This is all quite mental and quite recent. If you naturally continued the thought you started with, rather than plunging off sideways for no reason, you would see that nobody who wanted liberal values to sustain would advocate swamping all liberal societies to extermination. There is no paradox here - an idiotic idea has be forced in to poison and destroy a heap of good ideas. |
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Jul 2, 2024 15:58:04 GMT
I think 'culture' is difficult to define. I suspect most would agree that British culture is based on liberal, democratic values with equal rights and opportunities. The argument, then, runs along the lines of if the country imports large numbers of people whose culture is not based on similar values, then the country's cultural base is diluted.
What I find paradoxical is many of those who uphold (live by?) the values that I have proposed form the basis of British culture appear to turn a blind eye to communities whose cultural values are, at least in part, diametrically opposed to their own. At the same time, those who vocally object to the 'foreign' values in those communities appear, at least to me, to have most in common with them.
That's because the words 'liberal values' has become distorted out of all recognition to mean something akin to sacrificing your territory and inheritance to invaders. You therefore conclude that people who object to this process are somehow 'illiberal'. This is all quite mental and quite recent. If you naturally continued the thought you started with, rather than plunging off sideways for no reason, you would see that nobody who wanted liberal values to sustain would advocate swamping all liberal societies to extermination. There is no paradox here - an idiotic idea has be forced in to poison and destroy a heap of good ideas. I'm afraid I disagree with your assertion(s).
I think it is a definitely paradoxical for individuals who would roundly condemn 'British' individuals for their failure to recognise, say, equal treatment of women or LBG(factorial) people to then tolerate that behaviour in communities with foreign roots because it's part of their 'culture'. From what I've seen on social media, the reverse appears to apply.
Setting aside issues of 'territory and inheritance' and concentrating on cultural dilution, I have always believed that acculturation, at least to the extent of core British values (above), would have been far preferable to the uncritical version of multiculturism operated, and probably little changed by Cameron's 'announcements', since the early two thousands.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 2, 2024 17:03:06 GMT
That's because the words 'liberal values' has become distorted out of all recognition to mean something akin to sacrificing your territory and inheritance to invaders. You therefore conclude that people who object to this process are somehow 'illiberal'. This is all quite mental and quite recent. If you naturally continued the thought you started with, rather than plunging off sideways for no reason, you would see that nobody who wanted liberal values to sustain would advocate swamping all liberal societies to extermination. There is no paradox here - an idiotic idea has be forced in to poison and destroy a heap of good ideas. I'm afraid I disagree with your assertion(s).
I think it is a definitely paradoxical for individuals who would roundly condemn 'British' individuals for their failure to recognise, say, equal treatment of women or LBG(factorial) people to then tolerate that behaviour in communities with foreign roots because it's part of their 'culture'. From what I've seen on social media, the reverse appears to apply. But the reverse doesn't really apply to any large extent. Most culturally British people are liberals, even members of 'the right'. However care must be taken here - the tokens you are employing (women' and gay rights) are vary large and interpretations vary . so called 'equal treatment' could just mean equal treatment under the law (liberalism) or it could demand that every economic transaction be investigated and vetted for 'equality' - ie more or or a less central command community (not at all liberal). |
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Jul 2, 2024 17:16:15 GMT
I'm afraid I disagree with your assertion(s).
I think it is a definitely paradoxical for individuals who would roundly condemn 'British' individuals for their failure to recognise, say, equal treatment of women or LBG(factorial) people to then tolerate that behaviour in communities with foreign roots because it's part of their 'culture'. From what I've seen on social media, the reverse appears to apply. But the reverse doesn't really apply to any large extent. Most culturally British people are liberals, even members of 'the right'. However care must be taken here - the tokens you are employing (women' and gay rights) are vary large and interpretations vary . so called 'equal treatment' could just mean equal treatment under the law (liberalism) or it could demand that every economic transaction be investigated and vetted for 'equality' - ie more or or a less central command community (not at all liberal). Yur experence of those most critical of 'foreign' cultures must differ from my own.
I think liberalism means a little more than equal treatment under the law and must, in my opinion, include equal cultural recognition within the community.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 2, 2024 17:55:05 GMT
But the reverse doesn't really apply to any large extent. Most culturally British people are liberals, even members of 'the right'. However care must be taken here - the tokens you are employing (women' and gay rights) are vary large and interpretations vary . so called 'equal treatment' could just mean equal treatment under the law (liberalism) or it could demand that every economic transaction be investigated and vetted for 'equality' - ie more or or a less central command community (not at all liberal). Yur experence of those most critical of 'foreign' cultures must differ from my own.
I think liberalism means a little more than equal treatment under the law and must, in my opinion, include equal cultural recognition within the community.
What you are describing (equal recognition) is vague cobblers designed to destroy liberalism by requiring top-down control at every step. |
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Jul 2, 2024 18:13:01 GMT
Yur experence of those most critical of 'foreign' cultures must differ from my own.
I think liberalism means a little more than equal treatment under the law and must, in my opinion, include equal cultural recognition within the community.
What you are describing (equal recognition) is vague cobblers designed to destroy liberalism by requiring top-down control at every step. Nonsense. The very core of a liberal society is the equal recognition of the potential of its members - including women and gays. Equal treatment under the law is only part of a liberal society. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 3, 2024 7:47:22 GMT
What you are describing (equal recognition) is vague cobblers designed to destroy liberalism by requiring top-down control at every step. Nonsense. The very core of a liberal society is the equal recognition of the potential of its members - including women and gays. Equal treatment under the law is only part of a liberal society. If liberalism had started with that notion, it would have been discarded as idiotic and unworkable. All people have some potential (unless we examine real extremes), but is clear this potential is not equal. We may be talking about sliding scales of likelihood, but however you measure it, it's clear that it isn't equal. The infamous "all men are created equal" was composed as a counter to the notion of official station being mandated, or designed, by god. Whatever our station may be it is an earthly and shifting matter and not ORDERED by a single act of god (for instance in the fact of our birth or collecting a sword from a lake). As far as liberalism is concerned, all men are equal in the sense that, all men should be afforded the same law. The notion that all men are equal in the sense that they should (must?) be treated by everyone as the same person is so idiotic i doubt it would have crossed anyone's mind until the current lunatic era. There is more - i feel you are mixing things up and putting the cart before the horse. Liberalism can only work in a society with 'good neighborliness' - a society in which basic values are relatively un-contended. However, this is the soil on which a a liberal society can exist, not an explicit official feature of liberalism itself. The more contested values are, the more balkanised the population is, the less likely liberalism can create order and so the less likely it is to exist. This is the hidden (subtle) side to the destruction wrought by immigration. |
|
Steve
Hero Protagonist
Posts: 3,367
|
Post by Steve on Jul 3, 2024 8:33:38 GMT
Not how I read Equivocal's post. Maybe you should read it again, equal recognition is not saying make everyone equal
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 3, 2024 8:39:21 GMT
Not how I read Equivocal's post. Maybe you should read it again, equal recognition is not saying make everyone equal Th term is vague. My notion was that it meant that everyone must treat everyone else as if they are the same person. Of course, this is how you create an insane asylum rather than a functioning society. |
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Jul 3, 2024 11:23:41 GMT
Nonsense. The very core of a liberal society is the equal recognition of the potential of its members - including women and gays. Equal treatment under the law is only part of a liberal society. If liberalism had started with that notion, it would have been discarded as idiotic and unworkable. All people have some potential (unless we examine real extremes), but is clear this potential is not equal. We may be talking about sliding scales of likelihood, but however you measure it, it's clear that it isn't equal. The infamous "all men are created equal" was composed as a counter to the notion of official station being mandated, or designed, by god. Whatever our station may be it is an earthly and shifting matter and not ORDERED by a single act of god (for instance in the fact of our birth or collecting a sword from a lake). As far as liberalism is concerned, all men are equal in the sense that, all men should be afforded the same law. The notion that all men are equal in the sense that they should (must?) be treated by everyone as the same person is so idiotic i doubt it would have crossed anyone's mind until the current lunatic era. There is more - i feel you are mixing things up and putting the cart before the horse. Liberalism can only work in a society with 'good neighborliness' - a society in which basic values are relatively un-contended. However, this is the soil on which a a liberal society can exist, not an explicit official feature of liberalism itself. The more contested values are, the more balkanised the population is, the less likely liberalism can create order and so the less likely it is to exist. This is the hidden (subtle) side to the destruction wrought by immigration. The law sets the outer boundaries of behaviour beyond which an actor may be held liable either criminally or civilly. Liberal (small l) or illiberal cultures/communities can exist and be treated equally under the law. As you correctly point out, these cultures/communities share basic uncontested values. A basic, uncontested value within a liberal community must be the equal recognition/perception/judgement of each member's potential irrespective of their sex, sexuality, race or national origin.
As I have already pointed out, illiberal values should not be acceptable in liberal societies and you'll therefore not be surprised to find I agree your balkanisation point. It is one of the reasons I prefer the idea of acculturation over uncritical multiculturism.
|
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 3, 2024 13:00:07 GMT
Nonsense. The very core of a liberal society is the equal recognition of the potential of its members - including women and gays. Equal treatment under the law is only part of a liberal society. If liberalism had started with that notion, it would have been discarded as idiotic and unworkable. All people have some potential (unless we examine real extremes), but is clear this potential is not equal. We may be talking about sliding scales of likelihood, but however you measure it, it's clear that it isn't equal. The infamous "all men are created equal" was composed as a counter to the notion of official station being mandated, or designed, by god. Whatever our station may be it is an earthly and shifting matter and not ORDERED by a single act of god (for instance in the fact of our birth or collecting a sword from a lake). As far as liberalism is concerned, all men are equal in the sense that, all men should be afforded the same law. The notion that all men are equal in the sense that they should (must?) be treated by everyone as the same person is so idiotic i doubt it would have crossed anyone's mind until the current lunatic era. There is more - i feel you are mixing things up and putting the cart before the horse. Liberalism can only work in a society with 'good neighborliness' - a society in which basic values are relatively un-contended. However, this is the soil on which a a liberal society can exist, not an explicit official feature of liberalism itself. The more contested values are, the more balkanised the population is, the less likely liberalism can create order and so the less likely it is to exist. This is the hidden (subtle) side to the destruction wrought by immigration. Not sure if I agree with all of this, but its very well laid out. |
|
|
|
Post by Zany on Jul 3, 2024 13:06:26 GMT
If liberalism had started with that notion, it would have been discarded as idiotic and unworkable. All people have some potential (unless we examine real extremes), but is clear this potential is not equal. We may be talking about sliding scales of likelihood, but however you measure it, it's clear that it isn't equal. The infamous "all men are created equal" was composed as a counter to the notion of official station being mandated, or designed, by god. Whatever our station may be it is an earthly and shifting matter and not ORDERED by a single act of god (for instance in the fact of our birth or collecting a sword from a lake). As far as liberalism is concerned, all men are equal in the sense that, all men should be afforded the same law. The notion that all men are equal in the sense that they should (must?) be treated by everyone as the same person is so idiotic i doubt it would have crossed anyone's mind until the current lunatic era. There is more - i feel you are mixing things up and putting the cart before the horse. Liberalism can only work in a society with 'good neighborliness' - a society in which basic values are relatively un-contended. However, this is the soil on which a a liberal society can exist, not an explicit official feature of liberalism itself. The more contested values are, the more balkanised the population is, the less likely liberalism can create order and so the less likely it is to exist. This is the hidden (subtle) side to the destruction wrought by immigration. The law sets the outer boundaries of behaviour beyond which an actor may be held liable either criminally or civilly. Liberal (small l) or illiberal cultures/communities can exist and be treated equally under the law. As you correctly point out, these cultures/communities share basic uncontested values. A basic, uncontested value within a liberal community must be the equal recognition/perception/judgement of each member's potential irrespective of their sex, sexuality, race or national origin.
As I have already pointed out, illiberal values should not be acceptable in liberal societies and you'll therefore not be surprised to find I agree your balkanisation point. It is one of the reasons I prefer the idea of acculturation over uncritical multiculturism.
For me the problem comes with what's acceptable. One society might say murdering an unfaithful partner is acceptable. Another that marriage aged 12 or older is acceptable. Yet another may say you are not fit to drive until you are 21. If you move to a new society you have no choice but to accept their acceptable. But if you move whole communities from on society to another they often bring what's acceptable with them and its quite a job to change that. |
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 3, 2024 13:26:49 GMT
If liberalism had started with that notion, it would have been discarded as idiotic and unworkable. All people have some potential (unless we examine real extremes), but is clear this potential is not equal. We may be talking about sliding scales of likelihood, but however you measure it, it's clear that it isn't equal. The infamous "all men are created equal" was composed as a counter to the notion of official station being mandated, or designed, by god. Whatever our station may be it is an earthly and shifting matter and not ORDERED by a single act of god (for instance in the fact of our birth or collecting a sword from a lake). As far as liberalism is concerned, all men are equal in the sense that, all men should be afforded the same law. The notion that all men are equal in the sense that they should (must?) be treated by everyone as the same person is so idiotic i doubt it would have crossed anyone's mind until the current lunatic era. There is more - i feel you are mixing things up and putting the cart before the horse. Liberalism can only work in a society with 'good neighborliness' - a society in which basic values are relatively un-contended. However, this is the soil on which a a liberal society can exist, not an explicit official feature of liberalism itself. The more contested values are, the more balkanised the population is, the less likely liberalism can create order and so the less likely it is to exist. This is the hidden (subtle) side to the destruction wrought by immigration. The law sets the outer boundaries of behaviour beyond which an actor may be held liable either criminally or civilly. Liberal (small l) or illiberal cultures/communities can exist and be treated equally under the law. As you correctly point out, these cultures/communities share basic uncontested values. A basic, uncontested value within a liberal community must be the equal recognition/perception/judgement of each member's potential irrespective of their sex, sexuality, race or national origin. No. You are mixing up two different things. A liberal society doesn't / shouldn't insist that we all ignore the evidence of my eyes and pretend that everyone is the same and deserves a similar 'recognition'. A liberal society will treat people equally under the law and also allow people come to whatever conclusions about others they wish. Insisting the people must 'recognise' things is entirely illiberal. |
|
|
|
Post by equivocal on Jul 3, 2024 13:54:41 GMT
The law sets the outer boundaries of behaviour beyond which an actor may be held liable either criminally or civilly. Liberal (small l) or illiberal cultures/communities can exist and be treated equally under the law. As you correctly point out, these cultures/communities share basic uncontested values. A basic, uncontested value within a liberal community must be the equal recognition/perception/judgement of each member's potential irrespective of their sex, sexuality, race or national origin. No. You are mixing up two different things. A liberal society doesn't / shouldn't insist that we all ignore the evidence of my eyes and pretend that everyone is the same and deserves a similar 'recognition'. A liberal society will treat people equally under the law and also allow people come to whatever conclusions about others they wish. Insisting the people must 'recognise' things is entirely illiberal. I am not suggesting a liberal community 'pretends that everyone is the same' but that their abilities should be fairly assessed without reference to their sex, sexuality, race or national origin. To suggest that these attributes (physical requirements excepted) should form part of their assessment is distinctly illiberal and should have no standing in a liberal society.
What you appear to be suggesting, although this may be a semantic misunderstanding, is that everyone should form their own views on the weight to be given to immutable personal characteristics, above, provided they do no direct harm. That would be more in line with a quasi libertarian community where, beyond the do no harm principle, there are no particular shared uncontested values.
|
|
|
|
Post by Orac on Jul 3, 2024 14:11:04 GMT
No. You are mixing up two different things. A liberal society doesn't / shouldn't insist that we all ignore the evidence of my eyes and pretend that everyone is the same and deserves a similar 'recognition'. A liberal society will treat people equally under the law and also allow people come to whatever conclusions about others they wish. Insisting the people must 'recognise' things is entirely illiberal. I am not suggesting a liberal community 'pretends that everyone is the same' but that their abilities should be fairly assessed without reference to their sex, sexuality, race or national origin. To suggest that these attributes (physical requirements excepted) should form part of their assessment is distinctly illiberal and should have no standing in a liberal society.
What you appear to be suggesting, although this may be a semantic misunderstanding, is that everyone should form their own views on the weight to be given to immutable personal characteristics, above, provided they do no direct harm. That would be more in line with a quasi libertarian community where, beyond the do no harm principle, there are no particular shared uncontested values.
No. The government is required to treat people equally under the law (or treat people as if they are equals) but everyone else is free to come to whatever conclusions they wish and to act on those conclusions (within the law). This has to be the case unless you are suggesting that government mandated opinions and judgments is some necessary part of liberalism - which it isn't. Liberalism is the precise opposite of this - ie people are free to come to conclusions, communicate those conclusions to others and act within the law.. As i have suggested at the beginning of the conversation, you have been convinced to emply a an understanding of liberalism which more or less erases / inverts its meaning. Don't you find it odd that your version of liberalism allows for people to act differently, ie to maintain separate cultures - but also forbids others from holding a mere opinion on the matter and acting legally on that opinion? |
|
