Multiculturalism is ruining equality before the law.

[Ultimatum]

People should have the right to offend. And this implies that there are no limits.
It's hypocritical that the media are able to show a picture of Jesus, but are scared and weak at the knees when it comes to showing a depiction of Mohammed.

Thoughts and comments?

 

[sandandfoam]

If Farage says it it is likely to be wrong..
On the specific point. I do not agree that people have an automatic right to offend.
Moreover, other than inciting conflict, I don't think that causing offence is useful.
I think that in a similar way to how support for Palestine is often a thin veneer for something a lot more objectionable (i.e. old fashioned antisemitism) I think a lot of this blather about free speech is about simple xenophobia.
If those who did the murdering at Charlie Hebdo can incite us to be as offensive as possible to the Muslim community at large I think they would have achieved their aim. That would not be an outcome that I desire.

 

[Thruve]

hmm...

 

[Ultimatum]

If Farage says it it is likely to be wrong..

People are entitled to their own opinions and if you so wish to believe in your heart that Nigel Farage says the wrong things, then that is fine. But to spout nonsense such as this just goes to show how politically and economically illiterate you really are.

On the specific point. I do not agree that people have an automatic right to offend.

Do you feel that it is right to prosecute people just because they said something offensive?

Moreover, other than inciting conflict, I don't think that causing offence is useful.

Of course it is not useful. And I certainly do not think that people should offend all the time. But the fact of the matter is that if you do offend, then there should be no problem at all.

I think that in a similar way to how support for Palestine is often a thin veneer for something a lot more objectionable (i.e. old fashioned antisemitism) I think a lot of this blather about free speech is about simple xenophobia.

No, it's about the basic human right of saying what you want. If one does not find favour in what a person says, then they can simply not listen or not take notice of the issue at hand.

If those who did the murdering at Charlie Hebdo can incite us to be as offensive as possible to the Muslim community at large I think they would have achieved their aim. That would not be an outcome that I desire.

It's not an outcome that anyone desires. Also, you typed an irrelevant point: it is not offensive to the Muslim community. Depicting Mohammed is not disallowed in the Quran's teachings. Therefore, one should not find it offensive.

It's like calling an American dumb. It's not true. All it shows is that the person who said it has no idea what they are talking about and it is a laughable statement.

 

[sandandfoam]

People are entitled to their own opinions and if you so wish to believe in your heart that Nigel Farage says the wrong things, then that is fine. But to spout nonsense such as this just goes to show how politically and economically illiterate you really are.



Do you feel that it is right to prosecute people just because they said something offensive?



Of course it is not useful. And I certainly do not think that people should offend all the time. But the fact of the matter is that if you do offend, then there should be no problem at all.



No, it's about the basic human right of saying what you want. If one does not find favour in what a person says, then they can simply not listen or not take notice of the issue at hand.



It's not an outcome that anyone desires. Also, you typed an irrelevant point: it is not offensive to the Muslim community. Depicting Mohammed is not disallowed in the Quran's teachings. Therefore, one should not find it offensive.

It's like calling an American dumb. It's not true. All it shows is that the person who said it has no idea what they are talking about and it is a laughable statement.

Meh, I couldn't be bothered.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It's hypocritical that the media are able to show a picture of Jesus, but are scared and weak at the knees when it comes to showing a depiction of Mohammed.

How is it hypocritical? Images of Jesus typically don't provoke savages into attacking people. And how is multiculturalism to blame?

But the fact of the matter is that if you do offend, then there should be no problem at all.

I generally do not support censorship (advocating for violence and discrimination is where I tend to draw the line), but when you play with fire you will get burned.

 

[Ultimatum]

How is it hypocritical? Images of Jesus typically don't provoke savages into attacking people. And how is multiculturalism to blame?

They aren't not showing the images for no reason. They are scared of offending people. And we should not be scared of offending people. And of course multiculturalism is to blame: what culture do you think these savages come from/learn from? Because it certainly is not from a free, liberal, Western culture.

I generally do not support censorship (advocating for violence and discrimination is where I tend to draw the line), but when you play with fire you will get burned.

Not if you play with it safely.
Freedom of speech is a basic human right, whether that be to offend or express opinion.

 

[Drolefille]

Right to do it, responsibility not to. IMO.

But no, I don't think it's "Multiculturalism's" fault.

 

[Midnight Rain]

They aren't not showing the images for no reason. They are scared of offending people. And we should not be scared of offending people. And of course multiculturalism is to blame: what culture do you think these savages come from/learn from? Because it certainly is not from a free, liberal, Western culture.

Neither does Christianity. Multicultrualism isn't to blame for inequality and is largely a fundamental driving force behind our current ethical decisions on equality. Equality requires individuals to put themselves in shoes that are far different than their own and make decisions from both places. Monocultralism is terrible at equality as it tends to favor (un-equally so) a particular division.

 

[Ultimatum]

Neither does Christianity. Multicultrualism isn't to blame for inequality

I have got to disagree with you on this point as this is not the case in the United Kingdom.
Over here our doors are open to an unlimited number of immigrants (this is multiculturalism) at a time when large sectors of our market towns and cities are non-English speaking areas, we have a huge oversupply in the unskilled labour market, and also at a time where 1,000,000 British youths cannot get a job. And now we are extending this hand of "come on over" every day.

Monocultralism is terrible at equality as it tends to favor (un-equally so) a particular division.

This is not about monoculturalism--we are not fascist who wish to purge our countries of other cultures. But we must, however, make sure that there is one law of the land that everyone converses, works, and lives under.

 

[Father Heathen]

If Farage says it it is likely to be wrong..
On the specific point. I do not agree that people have an automatic right to offend.
Moreover, other than inciting conflict, I don't think that causing offence is useful.
I think that in a similar way to how support for Palestine is often a thin veneer for something a lot more objectionable (i.e. old fashioned antisemitism) I think a lot of this blather about free speech is about simple xenophobia.
If those who did the murdering at Charlie Hebdo can incite us to be as offensive as possible to the Muslim community at large I think they would have achieved their aim. That would not be an outcome that I desire.

You know, those who take their freedom for granted tend to be naive and sheltered, and those who would give up their freedom in exchange for a false sense of peace and security tend to be cowardly and servile.

I would never ask you to do so, but wouldn't you be obligated by your own convictions to delete your post if I told you that I considered it to be offensive?

 

[Midnight Rain]

I have got to disagree with you on this point as this is not the case in the United Kingdom.
Over here our doors are open to an unlimited number of immigrants (this is multiculturalism) at a time when large sectors of our market towns and cities are non-English speaking areas, we have a huge oversupply in the unskilled labour market, and also at a time where 1,000,000 British youths cannot get a job. And now we are extending this hand of "come on over" every day.

Don't confuse multiculturalism with free and open immigration laws. They are not the same. The high number of unemployed and unskilled workers doesn't actually have anything to do with multiculturalism. If you wish to re-phrase the argument with immigration rather than multiculturalism then I might be more inclined to agere.

This is not about monoculturalism--we are not fascist who wish to purge our countries of other cultures. But we must, however, make sure that there is one law of the land that everyone converses, works, and lives under.

And this stands in opposition to multiculturalism how in you mind?

 

[Laika]

I think the conflict between political correctness and freedom of speech is a difficult one. As an individual, I believe that my freedoms come with responsibilities; so I would endeavor to cause offense, to try to be open to new and different ideas. If everyone felt that way, it would be more reasonable- but forcing people to be like that is not going to make them free.

I do not believe that the right to cause offense is unlimited and to be honest, I generally wouldn't exercise it. However, I'm in a tricky position as I'm bisexual and would therefore have to defend my right to practice my sexuality freely in spite of homophobia/biphobia which is given a religious guise and considered "offensive". Yet, Free Speech also entails the right to homophobia, racism, sexism, etc.

I wouldn't call it multiculturalism because I think that is a separate issue, as it is not having multiple cultures in a society- but responding to how they clash. When Farage said "inter-culturalism" made me smile because it sounds like "separate but equal" which will only perpetuate and deepen problems.

Political Correctness is ultimately a patch-up job, that tries to cover-up societies problems with the illusion of equality. In the long-term, the solution is to promote social mobility so that members of different cultures can be accepted into a society, without the socioeconomic and cultural segregation that goes on and therefore cause conflict and misunderstanding. in the short-term however, I'm not sure, but I agree making it illegal to cause "offense" is a slippery slope.

 

[Ultimatum]

Don't confuse multiculturalism with free and open immigration laws. They are not the same. The high number of unemployed and unskilled workers doesn't actually have anything to do with multiculturalism. If you wish to re-phrase the argument with immigration rather than multiculturalism then I might be more inclined to agere.

adj. multicultural: of, relating to, or representing several different cultures or cultural elements:
n. culture: a particular form of civilization

And how does a country welcome other cultures? Through teleportation? Through magically inducing other cultural manners?

It may surprise you that culture comes through in the form of immigration. And the larger the net numbers for a certain group of a people (and therefore a certain culture), the more influence and presence this culture has on a society.

 

[Estro Felino]

I do not believe that the right to cause offense is unlimited and to be honest, I generally wouldn't exercise it. However, I'm in a tricky position as I'm bisexual and would therefore have to defend my right to practice my sexuality freely in spite of homophobia/biphobia which is given a religious guise and considered "offensive". Yet, Free Speech also entails the right to homophobia, racism, sexism, etc.

.

If you are an Economist, you certainl studied some law subjects at college. Your speech is not juridic.
You can't speak about laws without using a juridic way of reasoning.

Laws are made on the basis of scientific reasoning. Law is a science: it doesn't care about people's emotions.
Religions are not living beings. Historical characters are dead.
so anyone can express their opinion about religions and\or historical characters.
because they will not feel insulted.

so in this case, the freedom of speech is

Third parties have no rights. It's like someone insulted you and you decided not to report them.
do I have the right to report them? I don't. I don't have any rights

 

[Midnight Rain]

adj. multicultural: of, relating to, or representing several different cultures or cultural elements:
n. culture: a particular form of civilization

And how does a country welcome other cultures? Through teleportation? Through magically inducing other cultural manners?

It may surprise you that culture comes through in the form of immigration. And the larger the net numbers for a certain group of a people (and therefore a certain culture), the more influence and presence this culture has on a society.

Or perhaps multiculturalism isn't the problem at all and that the fact they are of different "cultures" is not actually evidenced as being negative but your complaints however are based in immigration issues about the skill status of workers immigrating. It isn't inherently about the culture. The fact they are Muslim often has nothing to do with it.

Unless there is something you would like to link directly to multiculturalism I still don't see your point. Having immigration usually means you must ave some degree of multiculturalism that you tolerate as a country but immigration causes the multiculturalism not vice versa.

 

[Drolefille]

One could have no immigration at all and still have many cultures in one small island like Great Britain. Just as an example.

 

[Ultimatum]

Or perhaps multiculturalism isn't the problem at all and that the fact they are of different "cultures" is not actually evidenced as being negative but your complaints however are based in immigration issues about the skill status of workers immigrating. It isn't inherently about the culture. The fact they are Muslim often has nothing to do with it.



Unless there is something you would like to link directly to multiculturalism I still don't see your point. Having immigration usually means you must ave some degree of multiculturalism that you tolerate as a country but immigration causes the multiculturalism not vice versa.

Any country that allows people from other countries into that country, the host country (as it were) now has some form of multiculturalism--that is how it works.
Now, don't you question the encouraged division in society for the sake of multiculturalism?
In the UK, certainly, we have a crumbling health service due to high levels of immigration. There is no way in hell we can keep up with the demand in housing. The ordinary British worker has seen his wages compressed because of these levels of immigration.
I, certainly, don't want to live in a devised country.

 

[Ultimatum]

One could have no immigration at all and still have many cultures in one small island like Great Britain. Just as an example.

I absolutely agree with this point.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Any country that allows people from other countries into that country, the host country (as it were) now has some form of multiculturalism--that is how it works.
Now, don't you question the encouraged division in society for the sake of multiculturalism?
In the UK, certainly, we have a crumbling health service due to high levels of immigration. There is no way in hell we can keep up with the demand in housing. The ordinary British worker has seen his wages compressed because of these levels of immigration.
I, certainly, don't want to live in a devised country.

Great. And none of that actually has to do with multiculturalism. It has to do with immigration policy. To have immigration policy you must first have multiculturalism to a degree but multiculturalism is simply a culture that has several cultures within it. Different religions, languages, foods, dress, ect. You might as well say that you are irritated at boats for allowing them to come across on them.

All of your problems are not with multiculturalism but with other problems. That is why I don't understand your anti-multicultrualism.