Adrienne Prickly Mars wrote: » None of that makes an iota of sense. As for Muslims, I'm not getting into another immigration bashing thread. Suffice to say, in the other thread you had two groups - Europeans and Muslims. One a geographic group and the other a religion. Many Europeans are Muslims too. They are not mutually exclusive concepts. You want a national vision that is restrictive, oppressive, stunted, stagnant, and obviously favouring one designated national religion. Good luck with that. I'm out, as this is a road to nowhere.
Pithythefool wrote: » In writing, yes, you are correct it wouldn't be a great premise. But that's not the reality of the actual world, from what I see anecdotally, and socially empirically. I've mentioned muslimsa couple times here. They just happen to be easily understood references in the current climate. Take for example large parts of Birmingham in the UK. You can very well say that the british "shared" their culture with muslim culture. It has resulted, in reality, in very large parts of that city becoming muslim only, run on muslim ideals, even laws etc etc. In other words, the "sharing" has resulted in the british having less, and those communities having more. Can you pick a similar example from a muslim country, where significant parts of their cities have been culturally appropriated by the brits? (you could argue history here, but the present is always more important). Even where you do have large-ish amounts of Europeans working and living in those countries, they have a tendency to be literally walled off into "camps". That's all I'm getting at, the complete imbalance. Probably pointless to say it, but I'd happily replace "muslim" with "American" in my criticisms, its just unfortunately a much clearer analogy.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » I think you should dispence with the analogies altogether, to be fair. You're not very good at it, if I'm to be honest - sorry! Muslims aren't a country and American culture or lack thereof is not relevant to your thread title. Sub-cultures are cultures. And far more accurate of the term.
Pithythefool wrote: » But what do you have to say about my example, what you can say cultural sharing has resulted in Birmingham? Or even more to the point, do you think its balanced?
I cant break it down any simpler than that. Is cultural "sharing, as you put it, balanced in your opinion?
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » I don't have any thing to say. I didn't read it because it's not relevant to the opening post I read. Suggest you start a second thread about it? Culture is sharing of ideas, customs and interests. Different cultures will share on different levels.
Pithythefool wrote: » If your culture is based on every culture.....that's the exact same as having no culture. And as I said above, if everyone bought into this idealistic thought process at the EXACT same time, to the EXACT same degree, we wouldn't have any problems. Its like one person taking all the money out of their account and distributing it to every person they meet along the way. But you wouldn't do that and expect other people to reciprocate, right? No, what will happen in that hypothetical is that you'll end up broke in no time, while others who weren't stupid enough to do it end up better off with your money. Replace "money" with "culture", "identity", "country", whatever. its the same principle. It can all be boiled down to idealism versus reality. One is hypothetical and built on goodwill and fanciful notions, the other is what actually happens in real life. You posted in my thread on muslim population growth (the thread that was brushed off into a dead-end on the site, what a shocker). Do you think muslims (generally speaking) are going to set up shop in Europe with your same idealistic notions? We're going to find out, and I'll hazard a guess that they generally see us as soft-headed eejits ripe for taking advantage of. And I don't blame them for it, no more than I'd blame someone for taking your money if you threw it in their face. It's people like you that bear the burden of cultural appropriation/decimation, whatever way you want to phrase it. Theres no balance anymore. Theres nothing wrong with different nations/groups getting along together. There is a serious problem when one side bends over backwards for the other while the other does nothing to reciprocate. All take, no give.
Pithythefool wrote: » Look, if someone has defeated me in an argument, or I have to concede a point, fair enough, I'll do it. But this is the internet, so very little like that actually happens. What I'm reading (and I could be wrong) is that yes....you DO agree that cultural "sharing" is imbalanced. Theres nothing wrong with just admitting that instead of trying to hide it in some sidewards talk. You say that cultural sharing is imbalanced. So how about this then, do you think it is a PROBLEM that it is imbalanced? (or another way to put it, do you think its wrong if one person is always giving more while another is always taking more?) Jut keeping it simple.
Atoms for Peace wrote: » 10000maniacs wrote: » Up to 1:00 today we were heading for a united Ireland. But the DUP have since sunk that. How did Theresa May think the DUP were ever going to go with single market and customs union rules? Because the NI economy will go down the tubes unless they get a deal to maintain open trade to their biggest market.
10000maniacs wrote: » Up to 1:00 today we were heading for a united Ireland. But the DUP have since sunk that. How did Theresa May think the DUP were ever going to go with single market and customs union rules?
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » This would be a lot simpler if you stayed on topic and asked relevant questions. Based on my intial point that cultures based on common interests are more binding and beneficial than nationality then my answers would be: Yes, culture is based on sharing. Yes, I'd imagine that it's imbalanced as people get involved to different levels. I've never said anything to the contrary. Do I think it's a problem that it's imbalanced? No. As I said - people indulge in cultures to different levels and are interested at different levels. Do I think it's wrong that one person is always giving while another is always taking? Not at all. Experienced people will always give more and gladly so. New people will always take more which is to be expected and encouraged.
Pithythefool wrote: » Well at least we boiled it down and have some common understanding. The reality that we both agree upon is that cultural sharing is indeed imbalanced. Personally, I think it is severely imbalanced to the point of hilarity. Our interpretation of the reality is different. You don't see any problem with imbalance, or one person taking all the time versus another person giving all the time. I think its completely whacked out. So on that we differ! At least we talked through to some common understanding, unlike some.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » It enhances and helps the sharing and learning experience and enriches everyone's experience. Surprised you'd be against this.
Pithythefool wrote: » I just cant agree with that, not wholesale anyway. Seeing as I used it already, the example of Birmingham is not anywhere close to enriching anyone but the people who have settled there and essentially (whether through their own prejudices, English prejudices or both at the same time) gained a pre-made city in which they largely continue their own beliefs unchanged. As I said before, compared to the camps that Europeans are walled into when working in their respective countries......that's not enriching. The problem comes completely from the imbalance. We agreed on that, we just don't interpret the RESULT of it the same way.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » Your definition of culture and nationality are very similar. See the two paragraphs in my post above yours for my responce to this (admittedly, I added as them as you were posting, so apologies about that)
Pithythefool wrote: » I agree with what you say. Its not that I think people should be walled off from each other. I suppose its a matter of mutual respect, or just mutuality in general. Its good to share, it is enriching culturally. But it still comes down to the same sticking point for me, the imbalance of it. If as many europeans were moving to asia as vice-versa, then its not such a big deal. But you wont find any place in asia such as Birmingham, where it is street upon street of, say, German shops, german people, under effectually german law, where you wont really see any Asian people. It sounds mad when you put it that way, very hard to imagine that happening. But that IS what is happening here. There comes a point where being treated unfairly rises to the fore. And I think its very evident across large parts of Europe, that people are completely unhappy with this situation. And the more it happens, naturally, the less tolerant and content people will become. Its so bloody basic of a problem, and so visible, that ignoring it is downright dangerous. To go off on a slight tangent, if these population changes continue, what do you think the reaction would be if Irelands population becomes 40% non-irish? What about 50%? Surely its not hard to imagine a drastic reaction to such a thing. America is a perfect example of this already in motion. The majority population is going down while immigration is going up. Trump is the tip of the iceberg of the retaliation against the imbalance. Can you actually imagine a realistic scenario where this all blows over? This imbalance is not a good thing, for anyone, anywhere. My solution, in a nutshell, is that all our efforts should be placed on COOPERATION, not (obviously) unwanted INTEGRATION. And besides that, the more of a certain demographic moves to an area, the less integration even means, such as Birmingham. Theres nothing to integrate into if everyone around you is the same.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » That's not even lose to what you were talking about in your opening post, or the challenge I made about the last paragraph in said post.
Pithythefool wrote: » Well have a look at the last post I made below. It all sounds ideal, but while certain countries are succumbing to this ideal of non-nationality, there are other countries that are the complete opposite, ready to take full advantage of that apathy.
Deleted User wrote: » Which countries?
Pithythefool wrote: » That last post of mine was a natural extension of what we were both talking about. It has gone a bit off the original post, but its more closely related than you think. I started the thread talking about what defines us as a people. Simple enough. Then I was talking about why its important to recognise out own culture....an then (naturally enough) it got to comparisons between our culture and others, and the effect of the one on the other, one overtaking the other etc. More or less! But as I said above anyway, current trends wont last. And any of the benefits of sharing cultures will ultimately be thrown out of the window with the bad. There are big problems here, and nobody wants to admit it, never mind do anything about it. Sleep-walking into some eventual big show down at the OK corral! Maybe the thread is finished at this point, but if it makes you feel any better, this isn't JUST hypothetical. We are both going to find out eventually, I'd wager sooner than later!
Pithythefool wrote: » Well I made a thread on tis earlier, then it was sent to a different section. I think it would highlight a lot of countries for you. Its an interesting bit of research, definitely gets you thinking.https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057816458 Sweden is a standout example.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » The definition of culture is what's changing: people are choosing the cultures they belong to rather than accepting the cultures they're born into and promoting the idea that being defined by your nationality (or religion, or other circumstances of birth) is pretty meaningless. The imbalance you speak of is that traditionally middle eastern cultures are less inclined to do this, whereas western cultures are more inclined. Rather than try and encourage those cultures to branch out and integrate, people are trying to stigmatise them as being insular. Thus, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Your approach seems to be to want to promote a similar insularity within western culture in order to combat this, and I don't see how this works. It just promotes a "them against us" mentality. The reason (I feel) that you decry the micro groups/sub-cultures is because this is a massive obstacle to your plan. These are groups of people who don't sign up to your theory and it for what it is: antagonistic and repressive. But, in a free society, these groups are stronger than you are and, I'm sorry to say it, more intelligent. As such, your only retort is to call them names like "apathetic zombies". And maybe you know these terms are bull****, maybe you actually even believe them to be true, but the reality is that these groups have far more culture, vibrance and life to them than a restrictive nationally-imposed culture will ever have. And the reason for that is simple: They choose who they are. They choose what they do. It inspires them. And inspired people are always going to grow more.
Deleted User wrote: » but while certain countries are succumbing to this ideal of non-nationality Your research simply relates to the spread of Islam and Islamic population growth in Europe. Nothing to do with "succumbing to this ideal of non-nationality"... Misleading statement.
Pithythefool wrote: » Right, I'll make the earth-shattering leap of logic for you
. The countries that accept and allow extremely large populations of non-indigenous people to live in their homes COULD be the same countries that are embattled with national identity and identity politics.
Sweden, you ever hear that country come up in any conversations about national identity? Germany? Merkel? AFD? and on and on. You cant link those things together? Did you genuinely need me to state the obvious, or was it a backhanded way of just disagreeing for the sake of it?
How about an honest conversation?
Pithythefool wrote: » We'll disagree again! The reality is that certain cultures ARE unchanging, and that certain cultures ARE absorbing those same unchanging cultures. Its present tense. Not hypothetical, not self-fulfilling. It IS happening. And there is nothing regressive when I state that voluntary cooperation is far more ideal AND practical AND mutually beneficial than forced integration. You have just accepted the current political message a bit too much, failing to see any alternative.Thanks for the dig about my intelligence by the way, that's really becoming of you, thanks. As I said before, there is reality versus idealism. I am realistic, you are idealistic. You talk about what can be, I talk about what IS. Remember, tomorrow never comes.
Pithythefool wrote: » Right, I'll make the earth-shattering leap of logic for you. The countries that accept and allow extremely large populations of non-indigenous people to live in their homes COULD be the same countries that are embattled with national identity and identity politics. Sweden, you ever hear that country come up in any conversations about national identity? Germany? Merkel? AFD? and on and on. You cant link those things together? Did you genuinely need me to state the obvious, or was it a backhanded way of just disagreeing for the sake of it? How about an honest conversation?
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » I was going to apologise for that, but based on the post below I think it's warranted to be fair. Also, it's nothing to do with reality and idealism. If you're intelligent, you'll know this. What it is, is nothing more than a very long-winded and thinly-veiled anti-Islamic rant. How about an honest conversation?
Deleted User wrote: » Lol. You're going to try talking down to me now? Okie dokie. This should be amusing. Western culture has been struggling with issues of identity for decades, long before any major shift in Islamic immigration or drastic islamic population growth. It's born out of the apathy of Democracy, the corruption of our own political systems, and the misplaced trust in Capitalism/modern economic theory. However, you have still to prove any of this theory of 'succumbing to this ideal of non-nationality'... So. Prove it. I can certainly link political and cultural changes in Europe... but your vague hints are pretty useless. Look. Leave out the snide attitude and deal with the subject at hand. You have made various statements. I'd like you to expand and elaborate on them. You provided a link to research related to Islamic populations in Europe which doesn't have any obvious connection with your statement. Simple. How about not being so insultingly superior and debate like a normal person? :rolleyes:
Pithythefool wrote: » So where are we now? Youre asking me the same question, basically, no? .
Deleted User wrote: » Yup. You still haven't moved beyond my question. But, that in itself, is an answer.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » Yeah, but you'd also have to change the education system in the south to drop the fetish-like idea of compulsory Irish.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w9.vanillicon.com/v2/9c6ef39403f5dc93bd4b9e77a11c1821.svg)
