Mee stated: source post
I think that as far as baby making goes, drastically differing races shouldn't mix with each other
why do you think that?
"Speaking of Muslim culture and misogyny, there's been a debate in Sweden recently about a Muslim politician (for a non-Muslim party) that refused to shake a female reporter's hand. He claimed it was too intimate according to his religion/culture and that he'd rather greet women differently (a hand on his chest and a slight bow). Would this be an acceptable infringement on the current standard culture (Swedes greet by shaking hands), do you think? Or should he not impose this cultural deviancy on a non-Muslim country?"
I actually was thinking of just this incident when i was writing my previous post. I know about it. And what i think is that yes, he should of shaken the hand... if you go to some Arabic country, you will bow and maybe kiss the hand of some ruler if you met him and thats their customs. Thats showing respect to their culture, as you are in their nation.
"My spontaneous reaction was that he should adopt the mainstream cultural norm in this case. If I were to live in a southern European country however I'm not sure I'd feel comfortable kissing strangers on the cheek as a form of greeting, so I'd probably try to avoid doing that. That'd be just as 'wrong' though, wouldn't it?"
There are limits to this and like i said, some cultures are better then others. Another arabic custom in some places, is killing women who got raped. Thats not a custom you should do out of respect to a culture. While your example is much less severe, a kiss on the face is a lot more intimate then normal and the other culture should acknowledge that. These things are indeed subjective at some point. And the best objective merit is your own nations culture. Compare to it, or to the culture you think is best. That way the best cultures(ideas) will win, as they will either be more powerful, or in a greater majority of people, or both.
"In general I agree with you, but I can't decide where I think the line between 'cultural standard' and 'cultural deviancy' should be drawn."
Its subjective and cultural deviancy needs to integrate from the shadows, slowly. If it can't, then the cultural standard is better, as its more resilient. For example, again, i to believe that given enough time the Muslim culture will eventually fix themselves. Its just that the rest of the world doesn't have to tolerate them till they do.
"Nationalism (and 'correct' borders) does not truly unite us, it only dampens the risk for cultural conflicts. Instead we need more education, because that teaches people the value of respect and tolerance. But I agree that this probably is an utopian vision."
I think that once all nations have managed to be powerful and united, they can be looked at as one entity. And then you have a bunch of entities on the planet, that can slowly start to work with each other on whatever. They can slowly integrate cultural ideas into each other, weeding out the bad ideas from each side. And eventually the cultures will be similar enough for some nations to unite into one. And then the next 2 nations do the same and so on and on. And yes, education is key. I see that as the main path to progress in each direction, including cultural evolution.
I've watched a part of a video of Stefan Molyneux and he was talking non sense. But i only ever saw that.
Life may be more nuanced, but Islam is not. Islam only seems to have a nuance in how radical one is, ranging from moderate to extreme.
And a moderate Islamist still holds the believes of an extremists, he just doesn't go out of his way to enforce it. But many will also not condole it.
Ofc there is a tiny minority of Islamists, mostly in western countries(until the immigrants came anyway), that are like today Christians, but for Islam. They stick to their faith for no reason, as they do not even follow their religion. Which is good, but i find it stupid, either believe and follow or don't, its a religion, you have no other real choice, or you are lying to yourself.
Islam is stuck in the past, its how Christianity was in the middle/dark ages. Islam is not a religion of peace and it never was. The entire purpose of Islam is to conquer, it was made back in the nomadic days of the middle easy and it was made to motivate the soldiers to fight and give them justification to pillage/steal/rape/enslave. Thats its real purpose. The education in Islamic countries is shit and its full of propaganda. They will remain like this for many years to come. The west not only destroys its own nations by tolerating this, but they also enable the retarded ideas of a religion to continue their existence. If the west was to say, fuck you and your shit culture, the countries with these ideals will have to change eventually, because of the pressure the world gives them(sanctions, wars, diplomacy, trade, etc, all forms of relations).
The nuance is not only small is Islam, but its also irrelevant. Because no one filters it. Its just accept all islam, accept everything and ignore all the bad things. That is not a filter, thats denial and leads to death of people and culture and freedoms. If it was filtered, there would be almost no acceptance, because there is almost nothing worth of anything in an ancient religion of war.
edit: in addition to the list in this vid^, how many more Islamic attacks are there since the vid was made and how many more other religion attacks are there?
ThenFuckit stated: source post
The nuance is not only small is Islam, but its also irrelevant. Because no one filters it. Its just accept all islam, accept everything and ignore all the bad things. That is not a filter, thats denial and leads to death of people and culture and freedoms. If it was filtered, there would be almost no acceptance, because there is almost nothing worth of anything in an ancient religion of war.
Islam as a religion, if committed to fully, is pretty bad. But apart from being a religion it is also the basis of a culture and these cultural traits do not have to be bad per se, at least not categorically so. However, they may clash with other cultures. The hand-shaking is one such example, and it may or may not be considered 'bad' depending on how you choose to look at it.
These are the things that I find interesting debating and not whether Islam, at its core, is a religion of peace or not (it's not). How much respect should one show the dominant culture? What common ground do we have to judge cultures on (ie. who is more right, what is 'good' and what is 'bad')? Etc.
moonshine stated: source post
"Fear"?? My sweet hairy arse.
The only fear i see is the irrational superstitious fear of being called a "racist", "islamophobe", "xenophobe" & any of those meaningless faddy terms, made up by the irrationals to intimidate the insecure & mentally infirm.
I wouldn't even call it a 'fear', i call it cowardice.
I take it you never even checked out the articles i linked (two out of hundreds). They are FACTS. (Statistics, science, whatever you call it.)
I did read them. What we are discussing is a sensitive issue all over Europe Wooster, you get bombarded with info and stats for and against your stance all the time. What I said about conservatives having issues with fear has some basis too, I heard talk about this on various media. A simple google returned this, and links to studies are in the articles if you want to bother with them...
Conservatives Big on Fear, Brain Study Finds
"Peering inside the brain with MRI scans, researchers at University College London found that self-described conservative students had a larger amygdala than liberals. The amygdala is an almond-shaped structure deep in the brain that is active during states of fear and anxiety. Liberals had more gray matter at least in the anterior cingulate cortex, a region of the brain that helps people cope with complexity."
"The conservative party is big on national defense and magnifies our perception of threat, whether of foreign aggressors, immigrants, terrorists, or invading ideologies like Communism. To a conservative, the world really is a frightening place."
"The paper advances three successive waves of evidence, which combine to show that conservatives differ from liberals by having stronger, more intense reactions to negative aspects of the environment — such as physical threats, or potential sources of disease — which are ultimately physiological. "
The conclusion of one study
"Thus, it is reasonable to hypothesize that individuals who are physiologically and psychologically responsive to negative stimuli will tend to endorse public policies that minimize tangible threats by giving prominence to past, traditional solutions, by limiting human discretion (or endorsing institutions, such as the free market, that do not require generosity, discretion, and altruism), by being protective, by promoting ingroups relative to out-groups, and by embracing strong, unifying policies and authority figures"
"Conservatives Big on Fear, Brain Study Finds"
i like this study
very interesting
thought it was done on very few subjects, it still brings a good case.
However conservative =/= racist
and its possible someone became more fearful AFTER he became a conservative.
In any case thought, for america, a conservative wants traditions, nationality and has a good deal of xenophobia. This obviously means fear of change and the unknown. And knowing how gay people make me feel physical disgust, it makes sense that conservatives that hate gays would be sensitive to disgust. They probably see any change in tradition as an attack.
Note: i do not hate gays, but that doesn't help me feel better, i do not control my physical disgust.
"Secrets of the right-wing brain: New study proves it — conservatives see a different, hostile world" paper requires money => i dont give a fuck
Oh for fuck’s sake Ed, i (everybody) have seen those two articles you linked like 2 years ago or whenever they turned up, plastered all over the boulevard media.
“Conservatives�? - who the hell is a conservative here? Or do you think i am a “conservative� You’re even more imbecile then than i ever credited you with.
Lest you haven't got the memo, we don't live in 1972 anymore. Since quite a long while.
That piece you linked - already in the first paragraph there’s the muddled-up statement:
“the supporters of innovation and reform, sometimes referred to as liberalsâ€
^
In the clinical, dictionary-definition sense “liberal†may have originally referred to ’supporters of innovation and reform’, but in practice ‘liberal’ means the polar opposite of all that, since a long time. The correct term for “supporter of innovation and reform†would be ‘libertarian’ (of the so-called “right wing†kind). Since ‘liberalism’ fully aligned itself with the socialist / leftist line of ideology, liberalism has become the most regressive, retrograde, illiberal force since state-communism collapsed.
So i find it difficult to give credit to that study, unless it clears up the terminology - i see it even mentions the cavaliers vs roundheads in the intro, a good example of socialist illiberacy but i doubt the author meant it that way. Haven't read it though, just glimpsed thru the beginning.
ThenFuckit stated: source post
a good deal of xenophobia. This obviously means fear of change and the unknown.
“Xenophobia†(aka ‘involuntary, visceral repulsion of foreign-ness’) - is probably the most misused, misinterpreted, incorrect buzzword of the time. Sure it is an existing condition affecting an extremely small number of the population (the true xenophobes) - but i have to come across yet someone who would feel repulsed by the mere idea of someone else being French, Icelandic, Japanese, Australian, Croat, Flemish, Welsh, etc. etc. If that was the case, people would never leave their own countries - not even for a holiday.
‘Xenophobia’ is simply a meaningless term employed by the bigots to shoot down any rational, factual discussion. Of course it always pops up when legitimate issues are being discussed, such as the effects of 3rd-world mass-migration on resources etc.