Quote:


What? The philosophical suggestion that there are "no universal truths" (aka moral relativism) is typically part of the argumentative repertoire of most modern intellectuals, and is a "logical" cornerstone of most people trying to justify support of multiculturalism. I "find" this "drivel" mainly from multiculturalists. Perhaps if you find it drivel you should not espouse it.

Quote:


Ah, I see. The old "accuse your opponent of making unfounded accusations without actually having any founding for the accusation of a lack of foundation" trick. Could you explain to me what part of my (as you described) harangue you found particularly unfounded?

Quote:


Yes, you're basically suggesting here that if you don't want to be shut down you should not make any sort of criticism of multiculturalism, because all criticisms of multiculturalism are immediately racist, and therefore must be shut down at any cost. If this is indeed what you are saying, then you must explain to me further what part of my post you found especially "unfounded", because such an attitude completely coincides with my description of the behavior of doctrinaire multiculturalists. And even if the people making such arguments were "racist", and even if their arguments were "racist" (which they usually aren't), would this make their arguments right or wrong? The truth has no interest in copying the politically correct vogue. It transcends all things and can come from all places.

Quote:


Explain to me what was wrong with the reasoning in my post and how it was expressed then.

So what is good about Multiculturalism as it exists in the real world Mozz?
Please list in point form and with anecdotal evidence if you can
Thanks.

Quote:


Multiculturalism is not "evil", neither are those who advocate it. It is just an extremely misguided ideology that potentially threatens Western Civilization as we know it. Its supporters tend to fall into three different camps, which I will elaborate on now and rank in order of prevalence.

The Ambivalent

The ambivalent is technically not really, vocally, a supporter of multiculturalism, but for all intents and purposes he is the lifeblood of the entire movement. Without his mild approval, multiculturalism would not exist at all. Not really interested in politics, he has not given his support for multiculturalism much thought, tending to associate it entirely with such pleasantries like ethnic restaurants and Chinese New Years. His support for multiculturalism is about as devoted as his stances on everything else political-- easily swayed of course, and ripe for opportunism. However, despite his halfheartedness, he will usually become mildly aggrieved at anything he detects to be even slightly "racist" (which includes criticisms of multiculturalism itself); but of course, he'll usually be the first out the door when his neighbourhood is becoming majority brown or black.

The Rank and File

The second line of defense. The rank and file are a fairly homogeneous group marked by a myriad of shared characteristics that distinguish them from the Ambivalents. Firstly, they all tend to be drawn from middle to upper middle class backgrounds. Secondly, they are overwhelmingly college educated, often possessing one or two degrees from frequently prestigious institutions of higher education. And finally their interest in politics runs far deeper than most, often partaking in demonstrations, rallies and so forth. The Rank and File frequently fancy themselves consummate critical thinkers, often snidely making fun of individuals who they believe to lack a possession of such faculties,  but the depth of their critical acumen runs about as far as the opinions crammed into them by their professors while they were attending school. Claiming to be "open to new opinions and world views", any criticism of multiculturalism to them is what a denial of the existence of god would be to the most dyed-in-the-wool fundamentalist  baptist, invariably prompting them to enter into lengthy tirades laced with ad-hominem (indeed, their college educations did not impart in theml an ability to understand even basic logical fallacies at all) accusations of "racist" and pleas for "tolerance" and "understanding". Their interactions with minorities tend to be restricted to a handful of experiences that they have had on campus; these experiences leading them rather fallaciously to believe that everybody coming into the country is exactly like the people that they interacted with while they were at school.

The Marxists/Cultural Marxists/Anarchists

The final group and smallest group. Unlike the rank and file, who typically are guided by a mild to moderate dislike of Western Civilization (but primarily good intentions; these aren't bad people at all) the final group is characterized from the Rank and File by its sheer animus of white people, capitalism and as a result, Western Civilization in general. These normally aren't people people; they champion working class values, but haven't spent a fraction of a second among people of the working class (indeed, if they actually did, they would inevitably end up despising them). Nor are they particularly interested in the new cultures that will be arriving on our shores; multiculturalism to them is a means to the end of destroying what they perceive as the ultimate evil and source of everything bad that has ever existed in the world; "white male privilege".

Quote:


I don't think this is it at all. A more mobile global population maybe, but multiculturalism is not in anyway the inevitable result of such a development; hell, nor is a more open border policy. Take Japan for instance-- or South Korea. I don't think you can find a nation that is not more integrated into the global economy than these two, but the attitudes of their denizens towards foreigners are almost the same as they were four hundred years ago. The suggestion that multiculturalism is simply an inevitable result of globalism and in an increasingly interconnected world the nation state is becoming more and more irrelevant, is, to put it frankly, a baffling one. The nation state is only becoming more and more important; this is well evidenced by the complete resurgence of nationalist movements over all of Europe, obviously in large part caused by a visceral reaction to multiculturalism and en-masse immigration from the Middle East. And anyway, even if your point was valid, multiculturalism is not in anyway necessary as a response to such changing conditions. (Can we PLEASE  increase the character limit for individual posts at this place? I'm making a second reply now)

mozzaok wrote on Jun 21^st, 2009 at 2:14pm:


I know things for real that you would consider conspiranut paranoia. Not about multiculti. But other things, that are absolutely 100% true, and if I could tell people, they would either laugh at me and say ridiculous, or, run away with their hands over their ears shouting LA LA LA LA.

Truth is much, much stranger than fiction.  There are policy papers all over the place with the great social changes that multiculti was supposed to bring. It's just being bothered enough to collate them all. I had to read and learn them all at uni, you could stack them from hear to the moon.

Quote:


Ah yes... The Bollinger Bolsheviks.

Oh Moooooooozzzzzzzzzzzaaaaaaa...

So what is good about Multiculturalism as it exists in the real world Mozz?
Please list in point form and with anecdotal evidence if you can
Thanks.

Still waiting Mozz...  i'm beginning to think you can't think of anything.  

"because aussies more than most, know the value of giving the new guy a fair go."

and what is wrong to expect the new guy to be fair to his hosts?

Don't ever expect Multiculturalists to defend their policy when prompted. They're so accustomed to people cowering at the first accusation of racist that they've never bothered to actually come up with some cogent, legitimate arguments in its favor.