DT proposed that society can run along peacefully so long as people assimilate to the countries to which they immigrated. My point: millions of people don’t want to assimilate or can’t.
So, I think people who understand that they can’t or don’t want to assimilate anywhere contradict themselves when they expect others to do so.
Also those who offer hefty criticism (referring to other places as shit holes, for example, which isn’t an uncommon term) clearly show they believe their society is superior to others yet meanwhile many of them state they’re not ethnocentric, racist, judgmental, better than anyone else, and so on. That’s also a contradiction.
I can already expect to read something like “No, no. I don’t have a problem with the people. The reason why they’re like that is because of their corrupt government, lack of resources” or some other example of bad luck or misfortune, when the fact is societies are products of the people who inhabit them collectively.
Although I am not egalitarian I have no issue with other people running things the way they wanna run it. This means, if some Muslims want no technological advancement and a theocratic state, that’s fine with me considering I won’t reside there. I don’t want to and I’d find it impossible to assimilate.
Disagreed, tolerance should be excised up to a point. I’m not a racist for claiming our society is unequivocally superior to that of Saudi Arabia. I breach my preaching of tolerance when violence or hatred is incited.
Honour killings, female genital mutilation, blatant human rights violations, terrorism (these groups engage in all sorts of nefarious shit like human trafficking, arms dealing etc), rampant political corruption and hefty dependence on fossil fuels and more are inherent aspects of a society which I can definitively call deeply flawed.
Agreed up to a point. Religion extremism does have some socioculturally engrained roots within Saudi Arabia. But Saudi Arabia is also a monarchy (and not a constitutional monarchy), even if the people wanted change regarding tabled legislature they probably wouldn’t get it. Though Saudi Arabia is notoriously conservative, I doubt there is much in the way regarding a protest/rally for change.
The problem resides within the people (especially suppressed women) who want to break out. For them lacking the funds, ability to travel without a male companion etc makes leaving what may be an abusive hellhole impossible. I tend to agree that if people want to run things a certain way, they should be allowed to… But when a line is crossed regarding mass incitement of violence, hatred or abuse I no longer harbor this body of thought.
That wouldn’t make you racist necessarily. That would make you nationalist or ethnocentric depending on the context. Freedom of thought is fine by me though; hence I don’t run around using these words to insult and smear people.
I think it’s debatable. I don’t necessarily disagree with you here. To fit the definition of ethnocentric I’d have to discriminate upon all cultures I disagree with based upon the standards/cultural values I uphold.
I only discriminate against cultures that embody the incitement of violence or hate preaching. I have no particular issue with mainstream Christianity, Islam, catholicism, indigenous Australians (as a matter of fact I’m a huge proponent for indigenous rights/opportunity and I think they’ve endured a great injustice) etc. Even if I don’t agree with religious ideology I see no reason as to why people shouldn’t be able to practice religion. Certain issues within certain third world societies of which I find unfortunate such as rampant poverty, unemployment, starvation etc have nothing to do with culture either, rather they relate to highly unfortunate circumstances plaguing a society.
I’m certainly not a nationalist, but perhaps some woke college kids might call me ethnocentric for discriminating upon societies with barbaric practices like female genital mutilation
In all seriousness, I don’t disagree with you. I’m not very tolerant of cultures that kill otherwise productive members of society, cultures that respect or normalise terrorism, cultures that view women/members of certain religions/races as second class citizens etc.
Fitting quote for a thread on religion that my friend passed along to me:
“We cannot avoid revising the fundamental definitions of human life and human society. Is it true that man is above everything? Is there no Superior Spirit above him? Is it right that human life and society’s activities have to be determined by material expansion in the first place? Is it permissible to promote such expansion to the detriment of our spiritual integrity?” - Alexander Solzhenitsyn
Someone from anywhere in the world with the qualifications and wants to climb the local corporate ladder will assimilate for this simple reason alone. He’ll make sure his kids assimilate.
I also said in a post i deleted that there must be sufficient INCENTIVES for me to move to a country and assimilate, or at least learn and follow social norms in the absence of discrimination since I’m not young anymore and full assimilation is much harder for me. My kids probably would assimilate.
I’m not going to immigrate to a shithole in the first place unless you force me to. Then it becomes an issue of survival. Then I gotta make the best out of a shitty situation and ensure my kids don’t get fucked with because they’re outsiders.
The original question itself is meaningless. You can’t prove any real point with it.
Shit, I’m never even going to immigrate to the US even though I’m pretty sure I can assimilate there for the simple fact that any temperature under 21 degrees celsius equates to me freezing my balls off lol. I’d freeze to death in Canada.
How about this:
I’ll tell you what I think that can’t be said and go even further.
Non-selective, non-merit based mass immigration should stop. In the past, like the industrial revolution era, this would have been ok because vast amounts of factory workers were needed. This is a different time and you also have a welfare state. The inability for some to assimilate is only one of the many problems you have with your current execution of your immigrant policy.
I’ve criticized a lot of societies, but I always criticize culture, not race unless it’s one race fucking with another. If a certain country equates race with culture and/or religion then that’s on them.
And I’ve never said you can’t be judgmental. This is basic human nature. All I’ve ever said regarding this subject is that one should consciously be willing to keep an open mind because I have, and have known others who have had their views completely changed once they understood another culture more deeply.
You know why Chinese people eat with chopsticks and chop meat up into bite sized pieces for serving? Because we used to consider the use of forks and knives at the dinner table barbaric since these are essentially variations of weapons, hardly appropriate for a meal together which is supposed to symbolize kinship or unity and harmony. This belief lasted till my grandmother’s era.
I’m not eating a steak with a fucking pair of chopsticks, I can tell you that. Although it would be bloody hilarious if I filmed it down and posted it on youtube.
Why thank you. I’d say the same about you. I’m 20+ years ahead of you for experiencing lots of shit. You’ll have your own interesting experiences to tell in the future.
And here we are all online from Asia, US and Australia and other places having a conversation about topics including one regarding shared values.
H makes a good point in regards to how many normal people interpret the Bible. How a scholar will evaluate the Bible is usually a bit different.
An example is Exodus 21. Many scholars will concede that the Bible does indeed lay out the rules and regulations for owning slaves permissibly. A typical Christian will likely not accept it. It is written pretty clearly, and understandable. Yet many people don’t think it says what it does, can’t accept what it says, or make some argument about the context of the times (which doesn’t change the fact it is a passage about how to permissibly own slaves, and there isn’t a context in which that is acceptable).
Well I wasn’t talking about Leviticus but the Bible itself. Which has been changed, altered, and manipulated numerous times throughout it’s existence. Which of course is completely understandable. But to then have people say “this is clear cut on what it means no doubt about it” just doesn’t make sense.
Even if we could say the Bible as written has never been changed we would still have the arguments of what is meant by certain passages which are clear as mud. Even believers will vastly differ on the way to take the words of a book that has been altered and manipulated.
Hard for me to base my life around a book that has been changed and many disputes over meaning. But others come to that conclusion which is fine.
Hm, I’ve never known a Christian to deny it. I certainly haven’t. We read these passages out loud on Sundays… Not sure why anyone would feel the need to.
IMO, it often occurs because it doesn’t match what they think the character of God is. They have a perception of an all loving hippy God, not the God of the old testament.
It happens. I can link you some examples if you are interested.
You are honest and I have assume you have read the Bible. If one is honest, has acceptable reading comprehension, and has read that passage, then one would concede the passage does indeed lay out the rules for permissible slavery.
