Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

A

[Phmcw]

Which is exactly why I don't want multi culturalism.

[Phmcw]

Which is exactly why I don't want multi culturalism.

You don't want multiculturalism because... it doesn't have an effect on nation states? Doesn't make places nation-states?

Nation state (which are by definition mono-cultural) are more solidaire.

[Phmcw]

So multiculturalism causes countries to form, basically?

I don't know what you mean. I mean basically that country that are not multi-cultural are more likely to implement policies I support such as universal healthcare, unemployment benefits and free education. So I don't want many culture co-existing in a country out of fear that peoples reject each other and refuse to pay the bill for each other (like in America).

I'm fine with culture blending with each other, though ; long life the Dürum with fries.

[Helgoland]

In some class - don't know which one - I learned the distinction between culture-nations and state-nations, the former defining itself by a shared culture (classic example is pre-1871 Germany) and the latter by shared governmental structures (England and France were created this way).
I think this terminology is rather suited for the topic at hand.

[Phmcw]

I mean basically that country that are not multi-cultural are more likely to implement policies I support such as universal healthcare, unemployment benefits and free education.

Evidence?

Britain's pretty multicultural, and nearly everyone (except the government, but they're a bunch of tossers) wants all these things.

The three big, comparable European countries are France, Germany and England. Of the bunch, Britain is the one where those policies are the least implemented. The reasoning is based on basic social experiments. If peoples feel someone belong to a different group, they are less empathic to each other, and I think it get important during elections.

I also notice that group that try to push adverce policies love to play on cultural divide (now that racial and religious divide don't work anymore).

[WarRoot]

I mean basically that country that are not multi-cultural are more likely to implement policies I support such as universal healthcare, unemployment benefits and free education.

Evidence?

Britain's pretty multicultural, and nearly everyone (except the government, but they're a bunch of tossers) wants all these things.

Scotland wants it so much that they are trying to break away based on their own cultural distinctions. So not really a good example.

[scrdest]

I mean basically that country that are not multi-cultural are more likely to implement policies I support such as universal healthcare, unemployment benefits and free education.

Evidence?

Britain's pretty multicultural, and nearly everyone (except the government, but they're a bunch of tossers) wants all these things.

The three big, comparable European countries are France, Germany and England. Of the bunch, Britain is the one where those policies are the least implemented. The reasoning is based on basic social experiments. If peoples feel someone belong to a different group, they are less empathic to each other, and I think it get important during elections.

I also notice that group that try to push adverce policies love to play on cultural divide (now that racial and religious divide don't work anymore).

People don't, generally, base their political decisions based on empathy alone. And even then, it seems to me that your research about the ingroup/outgroup dynamics stopped at the moment you've found something supporting your pre-existing position, so you missed the particulars of that.

[Phmcw]

People don't, generally, base their political decisions based on empathy alone. And even then, it seems to me that your research about the ingroup/outgroup dynamics stopped at the moment you've found something supporting your pre-existing position, so you missed the particulars of that.

I'm not expecting a price for the political theroy of the year, but at the same time, I don't see many contradicting evidence, and enough supporting one to make my mind up.

Without writing a PhD what obvious flaw are you seing?

[scrdest]

People don't, generally, base their political decisions based on empathy alone. And even then, it seems to me that your research about the ingroup/outgroup dynamics stopped at the moment you've found something supporting your pre-existing position, so you missed the particulars of that.

I'm not expecting a price for the political theroy of the year, but at the same time, I don't see many contradicting evidence, and enough supporting one to make my mind up.

Without writing a PhD what obvious flaw are you seing?

For starters, it is not set in stone. You can alter the way the group borders are placed in the members' perception. To use a classical example, by introducing a third-party threat to both groups. Or just a general 'other' group. Or make them interdependent. Culture only plays a factor in group differentiation as long as people think it does. People form groups based on any commonalities, not just culture.

You claim that the rejection of the policies is due to, essentially, dislike for other groups, but seeing as all of them are, by definition, universal, so they don't favor any specific group.

[Phmcw]

People don't, generally, base their political decisions based on empathy alone. And even then, it seems to me that your research about the ingroup/outgroup dynamics stopped at the moment you've found something supporting your pre-existing position, so you missed the particulars of that.

I'm not expecting a price for the political theroy of the year, but at the same time, I don't see many contradicting evidence, and enough supporting one to make my mind up.

Without writing a PhD what obvious flaw are you seing?

For starters, it is not set in stone. You can alter the way the group borders are placed in the members' perception. To use a classical example, by introducing a third-party threat to both groups. Or just a general 'other' group. Or make them interdependent. Culture only plays a factor in group differentiation as long as people think it does. People form groups based on any commonalities, not just culture.

Oh I do agree with that. For me the difference between multi-culturalism and assimilation is tenuous at best, but it's kind of always the case when you don't talk about very abstract concepts.

I think that there is a way for peoples to see all European cultures and migrant melting pots as facet of one European culture, and it'll all be into people's head. But I also think it will be the difference between a successful union and eclatement or even civil war.

You claim that the rejection of the policies is due to, essentially, dislike for other groups, but seeing as all of them are, by definition, universal, so they don't favor any specific group.

With that however I do not. Corporate shills always use that way to twart left wing policies, and it worked very well.

[burningpet]

If we are speaking mainly about immigration issues, i think Phmcw has a point. everyone wants social benefits, so long as it doesn't get spent on immigrants that take advantage of the system.

[burningpet]

If by "them" you first mean Immigrants and then mean "Healthcare", then i am not entirely sure there is a strong connection between the two.

Japan comes to mind as having a pretty good social benefits system despite strict immigration policies.

Its extremely possible that scandinavian countries are also about to see stricter immigration policies in the near future without necessarily completely privatizing their healthcare system.

[burningpet]

Again, Japan does both of these.

Restricting healthcare for immigrants can only be partially successful since studies show that native born offspring to immigrants in most of the OECD countries are higher than natives born to natives on the unemployment list and those you cannot restrict because its no longer an immigration issue, but a culture/religion/race issue.

[XXSockXX]

Yeah, maybe the connection between privatising healthcare and restricting immigration is a thing in the UK, but not necessarily everywhere else. For example many European far-right parties are not at all for privatising healthcare. Here in Germany, the party that favours privatization the most (the Liberals) are not big advocates of restrictive immigration policies. The Christian Democrats tend towards a slightly more restrictive immigration policy than others, and they favor privatization more than the left, but they wouldn't go very far in attempts to privatize healthcare.

[Dutchling]

The PVV (Dutch anti-immigrant party) shares most of it's social values with the Socialist Party, especially when it comes to the elderly.