Will you condemn “Great Replacement Theory”?

[Twilight Hue]

You are one of those people, who seems the world in black or white, no racism intended. I see the world in black, shades of grey and white.
We will never agree on anything fundamental, because we have contradictory value systems.

That's because I see things transition from point to point. Initiative to objectives.

 

[Stevicus]

Definition of socialism | Dictionary.com
1 a theory or system of social organization that advocates the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, capital, land, etc., by the community as a whole, usually through a centralized government.

Notice how the definition doesn't contain anything about nationalism, racism, anti-semitism, concentration camps, or invading Czechoslovakia.

 

[metis]

Video of Tucker Carlson promoting ‘Great Replacement’ theory surfaces again | The Independent

And here's another: Fox News’ Tucker Carlson under fresh scrutiny after Buffalo mass shooting (yahoo.com)

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Video of Tucker Carlson promoting ‘Great Replacement’ theory surfaces again | The Independent

Please tell me where he misstates facts, where he says anything racist about any ethnicity and where he calls for violence. I am not saying you are wrong, but prove your assertion.

Wanting legal immigration vice this uncontrolled immigration that favors the democrats is not racist no matter what word he uses.

 

[Bathos Logos]

If you have a preference for a cultural environment, why can't other people?

I don't have one. Culture is simply arbitrary and unnecessary. I do somewhat enjoy perusing what others have come up with as their "culture" - but none of it is for me. It is a form of superficiality often paraded as profundity, in my opinion, and again, is also often a cause of division. I have preferences for amounts and types of freedoms, but this is a separate issue entirely.

The blue. I never said anything about people "being the same", but the greater the linguistic and cultural diversity in an area the harder the blue is to achieve.

Ah, I see, now you have switched to focusing on the linguistic diversity. I can understand why.

If you think that your values, worldview and cognitive frames of reference make no more difference than hobbies, it might be that you don't quite understand the issue as well as you think.

These are entirely different from what I would label "culture." Culture is something that is experienced by a group, as some binding observances or adherences. Sure, it might be said to contain certain principles as elements, but what you are referencing here as "values, worldview and cognitive frames of reference" are entirely personal. My values aren't necessarily reflected in those around me that form some type of "culture" I may ultimately be a part of. Think of the term "corporate culture" for example. Do you truly believe that I walk away from my job when the day is done adhering to all of the things my company esteems as their "corporate culture?" Hardly. And so, "culture" is not all-encompassing of the things you listed. Even if I subscribe to a "culture" of some kind, I can still be personally split from any directives the "culture" would like to assume.

I'm a 1st generation immigrant minority where I live. You can't help but notice cultural differences and how they impact thought and behaviour.

Criminal behavior, you mean? I think it pertinent to remember that is where the discussion was at.

There are often points of incompatibility, and in these cases, at least, one party has to adapt. I generally see that as my responsibility as it would be arrogant to expect people to change their actions based on my cultural preferences.

And why, exactly, can't "you do you" and "they do them"? Where is it that these paths are simply forced to cross such that concessions or compromises must be made? Can you give me some examples? Basically - what is it that others are doing with their culture that makes you feel that you cannot freely practice or adhere to your own?

If immigration made 80% of the people share my cultural background this would radically change the society, and I could understand why many people might find the domination of a foreign culture to be disquieting and unpleasant.

I could see this happening, but only because very few people view these things as being as unimportant as they really are. Undue emphasis is placed on them, likely by all parties involved, and therefore the feelings of "dominance" or "being dominated" are even capable of arising. If you are in an environment where you are free to practice your own forms of "culture" then what is the problem you are discussing? What is really going on? And if you do not have such freedoms, then what you are really "fighting" for is freedom. There is a distinction to be made there.

When you are a small minority, you tend to have to adapt to the host culture. When you became a majority (or a sizeable minority) you tend to colonise part of their country for your own culture.

So you become unable to adhere to items of your own culture then? How does this happen? Who is stopping you? Is this just a psychological thing? Whose problem does that make it, in your estimation?

People who advocate your view tend to be advocating the universality of their own values.

Incorrect. I have advocated for nothing except the stripping of culture of its importance. That is all. Literally. Please find where I have stated that I even have what I would consider a culture, or where I have tried to force whatever it is on anyone. Is my devaluation of culture what you would call my "culture"? Is that where you are going? Because if you are, please think on the idea that I would also say that everyone should be free to practice or adhere to their own cultures, without anyone thinking that anything is "better" or that freedoms should be curtailed (at least when it cannot be evidenced to be affecting anyone negatively) with respect to that culture. Basically, if everyone viewed their own culture as a hobby, there would be far less contention. When was the last time you complained that your neighbor was a stamp collector?

 

[Bathos Logos]

It is implicitly supremacist and assumes the only reason people could disagree is ignorance and backwardness.

The ignorance I would call out is in assuming that culture is of grave import - enough to get riled up over and even attack someone else over. That's where ignorance comes into play in my opinion. Though I would suppose you don't believe me entitled to my opinion, or that there is some problem in me making my case as I have been doing?

I find it equally juvenile to consider deeply engrained cultural differences to be 'fluff and mundanity'.

That is my opinion... think of me as you will.

Ironically, to integrate diverse people into a cohesive society requires a strong common identity (religious, patriotic, local, etc)

And perhaps this is a weakness rather than a strength of human cognition as it stands now.

Educate people in the superiority of your culturally conditioned outlook apparently.

"Culturally conditioned?" Please inform me what "culture" you feel has conditioned my frame of mind as outlined in the above statements. Please. You are grasping at straws here.

No it's terrible. And where I live, such fears have occasionally broken out into severe violence.

Precisely. Then why are you found to be tacitly defending it as some form of unalterable status quo? Again I feel that you should be ashamed.

No, I just think the one-size-fits-all approach is exactly the wrong way to maximise the benefits and mitigate the problems of living in a diverse, interconnected world.

Again, people should be free to do as they please, and be as different as they please. I just feel that there is an over-abundance of importance placed on the items that make us different. Culture is one of those. It is, plain and simple. And it isn't important. Not in the least. Again - this is my opinion - and of course I am going to believe that others who don't hold it are not looking at things quite correctly. Which is why I make my case. I'm not just going to state it, drop the mic, and walk away.

I love arguments like this made by people who don't actually have to live in the neighbourhoods they talk about.

Here you are, assuming so much. I lived in a large city for the majority of my life. There was loads of diversity, and in the house I most recently lived in there, I was in a house next to a duplex containing an elderly landlord and his alcoholic, warrant-out-for-his-arrest-in-Florida son, and a drug addicted threesome composed of a prostitute, her husband, and some random guy they were letting live with them. It was not uncommon to see them exchanging money for drugs in the driveway. On the other side was an African American woman and her 3 children, who I one day witnessed being beaten unabashedly by what looked like a piece of plastic wall-corner trim, was out all hours of the night with her kids left in the house alone and who bragged often about "beating people's @sses" while laughing about it hysterically with her friends. There was a rash of arsons in the neighborhood the summer before I left, and a dead body turned up less than a block away in an alley that runs behind my house. Did I once look at those around me and think that they were "taking over?" No. They were just doing their part to survive, and sucking at it. Most probably through fault of their own, individually, but again, I don't discount that there were forces working against them at various points in their lives. Point being - they were individuals. Individuals. Not some gang of criminals all hailing from Xanadu.

If you are an 80 year old woman living alone who won't walk the streets at night, have 5 locks on your reinforced door because people keep trying kick it in to rob you, and none of your neighbours speak the same language as you let alone look out for your well-being, getting a lecture about the socio-economic causes of crime from someone who lives in a safe area isn't usually all that great a comfort.

And my argument would ultimately boil down to the idea that all of those people making that area problematic for everyone else there could be found to be putting too much importance on their own trappings. Culture, race, creed, political adherences, etc. Very probably including that 80 year old woman.

You do understand that many immigrant communities are amongst the most chauvinistic, and least likely to embrace progressive, tolerant values?

Again, people placing too much importance on their own superficial trappings. Minds that haven't thought thoroughly enough (or at all) about how important these items really are, and have no education cluing them in to the absolutely arbitrary nature of it all. People who picked up what their parents laid down and ran with it.

In many European cities, a gay person is most likely to face homophobic abuse in areas with high levels of immigration. Would such a person be a "bigot" if they were wary about mass immigration from countries that, on average, have far less progressive attitudes towards homosexuality?

In my view, you give people a chance, individually. That's what I do. Those druggie neighbors I had with the prostitute wife? We played outdoor games in my side yard. They were over for my kid's birthday. That African American family on the other side? We were out doing s'mores one evening and they were standing at the fence, staring at us (almost salivating), so I made them some. Turns out they had never even heard of the concept. And what happened? Did I die? Or did those people, perhaps just a little, have a better day that day? Did those people maybe inch their way toward respect of my person, family or property? Well... I sure didn't die, in case you are wondering.

Again, you are saying others should live by your cultural values, and expressing a hostility towards those who think differently to you. You seem to find your culture precious, just not extend that courtesy to others.

I don't have what I would consider to be "cultural" values. I have values, period. "Culture" is a word like "spiritual". It doesn't mean much, really, because it is entirely too ambiguous and attempts to use it are often all-encompassing (as you have proven here with your equating of my holding principles and values to be my "culture" - as if someone can't have principles and values without calling it "culture" - even when it has nothing to do with some broader identity within a group!), Besides this, is "hostility" really what you would call the discussion we've been having? Am I being hostile? Sure, I called your ideas juvenile - but that's because it is my honest opinion. You haven't thought very deeply about this stuff, or if you have, I am of the opinion that you landed on the wrong side. Am I not allowed that opinion, in your estimation? Do you think I would find you "hostile" for disagreeing with me, or holding an opinion that differs from mine?

No, that's you making things up based on your own prejudices. You clearly understand very little about my views.

Perception is reality. Perhaps you can convince me that I was wrong. I see no honest attempt to do that here.

 

[Revoltingest]

Notice how the definition doesn't contain anything about nationalism, racism, anti-semitism, concentration camps, or invading Czechoslovakia.

Is it upsetting the the definition is broader
than the examples you want it limited to?

 

[Stevicus]

Is it upsetting the the definition is broader
than the examples you want it limited to?

"Upsetting"? I don't know what gave you that idea. It's not a question of examples, but more a matter of the flawed implied logic you're attempting to use.

"Hitler was bad. Hitler was a socialist. Therefore, all socialists are just as bad as Hitler." That's the basis of your argument, in a nutshell. It reeks of desperation to resort to this kind of intellectual tomfoolery.

 

[Revoltingest]

"Hitler was bad. Hitler was a socialist. Therefore, all socialists are just as bad as Hitler."

There's the reason it's upsetting.
You infer something I didn't claim.

 

[pearl]

Wanting legal immigration vice this uncontrolled immigration that favors the democrats is not racist no matter what word he uses.

Since only a 'legal' immigrant is allowed to vote....
Fox News suddenly goes quiet on ‘great replacement’ theory after Buffalo shooting

Suspect was allegedly motivated by the theory, but network has barely mentioned gunman’s reasoning, even after Tucker Carlson pushed the concept in more than 400 of his shows

Tucker Carlson has arguably done more than anyone in the US to popularize the racist conspiracy.

Tue 17 May 2022 02.00 EDT

As details of the Buffalo mass shooting emerged over the weekend, much of the media focussed on the shooter’s self-stated motivation: his racist belief that white Americans are being deliberately replaced through immigration in a “great replacement” theory.

Over at Fox News, however, there was barely any mention of the white gunman’s alleged reasoning for opening fire at a supermarket, killing 10 people and wounding three more, in a predominantly Black area.The absence of coverage of the motive was revealing, given Fox News’s most popular host, Tucker Carlson, has pushed the concept of replacement theory in more than 400 of his shows – and has arguably done more than anyone in the US to popularize the racist conspiracy.
Laura Ingraham, who hosts an hour-long show at 10pm, has told her viewers that Democrats “want to replace you, the American voters, with newly amnestied citizens and an ever increasing number of chain migrants”, while Jeanine Pirro claimed on a radio show that liberals were engaged in “a plot to remake America, to replace American citizens with illegals who will vote for the Democrats”.

“Tucker Carlson is doing his job. He is providing the content that the Fox News brass, the Murdochs, want out of their 8pm slot.“If they didn’t want him to do this, they could make him stop – but they’ve decided not to. And they have decided not to do that because he is still profitable for them.”
Fox News suddenly goes quiet on ‘great replacement’ theory after Buffalo shooting
Carlson has flirted with openly embracing the theory for years—even after a mass shooter in New Zealand killed more than 50 in events after espousing similar views. Last year, Carlson openly began pushing the idea, saying that “the Democratic Party is trying to replace the current electorate, the voters now casting ballots, with new people, more obedient voters from the Third World.”

 

[Stevicus]

There's the reason it's upsetting.
You infer something I didn't claim.

Just reading between the lines and seeing an implied claim.

 

[fantome profane]

Please tell me where he misstates facts, where he says anything racist about any ethnicity and where he calls for violence. I am not saying you are wrong, but prove your assertion.

Wanting legal immigration vice this uncontrolled immigration that favors the democrats is not racist no matter what word he uses.

Please explain how illegal immigration favours democrats?

This is total nonsense. Way beyond just a misstated fact. Tucker is deliberately spreading this replacement nonsense that he knows is garbage to enflame his base. It is nonsense, it is dangerous, it is bigoted, and it is incredibly stupid.

 

[Revoltingest]

Just reading between the lines and seeing an implied claim.

Try reading the lines I posted.

It's no secret that I find socialism to be a bad
system. But Hitler's brand of evil is multi-faceted,
& not something I'd use as evidence to decry
your favorite economic system.

 

[Stevicus]

Try reading the lines I posted.

It's no secret that I find socialism to be a bad
system. But Hitler's brand of evil is multi-faceted,
& not something I'd use as evidence to decry
your favorite economic system.

Okay, but I still wonder why make that kind of association at all?

Even the point about being "socialistic," that's the direction which Germany and other European countries started to take in the latter part of the 19th century. Bismarck and Napoleon III might be early examples, yet they were also nationalists. The political etymology of Hitler's alleged "socialism" would more likely come from those sources, not from being a devotee of Karl Marx's philosophy.

 

[Revoltingest]

Okay, but I still wonder why make that kind of association at all?

I don't remember how the subject came up.
What interested me was the economic structure
he imposed, which was a mix of capitalism,
socialism, & violent conquest. That latter part
is his defining trait (IMO). But to ignore his
socialistic aspects is to bury one's head in sand.

 

[Augustus]

I don't have one. Culture is simply arbitrary and unnecessary. I do somewhat enjoy perusing what others have come up with as their "culture" - but none of it is for me. It is a form of superficiality often paraded as profundity, in my opinion, and again, is also often a cause of division.

That's just conceit. You aren't that independent in thought and action.

Culture is neither arbitrary (it is socially conditioned and environmentally influenced) or unnecessary (some commonality in values, norm, social conventions, etc. are essential for a functioning society or group).

Diogenes the Cynic lived in a jar, shat in the theatre, pissed on people who annoyed him and wanked himself off in public to show his disregard for social conventions.

In most culture, such behaviour is frowned upon and folk might be slightly miffed if you took a dump in the aisle halfway through Spiderman, or started wanking yourself off while they are trying to enjoy a family picnic.

Maybe you could just tell them they are being divisive and that wanking off in front of their kids is no different from collecting stamps though

have preferences for amounts and types of freedoms, but this is a separate issue entirely.

No it isn't.

Culture (/ˈkʌltʃər/) is an umbrella term which encompasses the social behavior, institutions, and norms found in human societies, as well as the knowledge, beliefs, arts, laws, customs, capabilities, and habits of the individuals in these groups.

I don't have what I would consider to be "cultural" values. I have values, period. "Culture" is a word like "spiritual". It doesn't mean much, really, because it is entirely too ambiguous and attempts to use it are often all-encompassing (as you have proven here with your equating of my holding principles and values to be my "culture" - as if someone can't have principles and values without calling it "culture" - even when it has nothing to do with some broader identity within a group!),

I'm just using it the standard way to mean norms, behaviours, values, etc. typical to a society or group.

You seem to have very standard, liberal western values, so I'm not seeing any reason to believe your values owe nothing to your cultural environment.

But we seem to use the word to mean completely different things which makes discussion on this pretty pointless as we'll just talk past each other.

You think culture is basically nothing, and I think it encompasses your entire value system, worldview, social expectations, ethics and acts as a framework for how you perceive and interpret the world around you.

All successful groups, be it families, friends, teams, companies, towns, states or nations need sufficient cultural commonality to be functional.

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Since only a 'legal' immigrant is allowed to vote....
Fox News suddenly goes quiet on ‘great replacement’ theory after Buffalo shooting

Suspect was allegedly motivated by the theory, but network has barely mentioned gunman’s reasoning, even after Tucker Carlson pushed the concept in more than 400 of his shows

Tucker Carlson has arguably done more than anyone in the US to popularize the racist conspiracy.

Tue 17 May 2022 02.00 EDT

As details of the Buffalo mass shooting emerged over the weekend, much of the media focussed on the shooter’s self-stated motivation: his racist belief that white Americans are being deliberately replaced through immigration in a “great replacement” theory.

Over at Fox News, however, there was barely any mention of the white gunman’s alleged reasoning for opening fire at a supermarket, killing 10 people and wounding three more, in a predominantly Black area.The absence of coverage of the motive was revealing, given Fox News’s most popular host, Tucker Carlson, has pushed the concept of replacement theory in more than 400 of his shows – and has arguably done more than anyone in the US to popularize the racist conspiracy.
Laura Ingraham, who hosts an hour-long show at 10pm, has told her viewers that Democrats “want to replace you, the American voters, with newly amnestied citizens and an ever increasing number of chain migrants”, while Jeanine Pirro claimed on a radio show that liberals were engaged in “a plot to remake America, to replace American citizens with illegals who will vote for the Democrats”.

“Tucker Carlson is doing his job. He is providing the content that the Fox News brass, the Murdochs, want out of their 8pm slot.“If they didn’t want him to do this, they could make him stop – but they’ve decided not to. And they have decided not to do that because he is still profitable for them.”
Fox News suddenly goes quiet on ‘great replacement’ theory after Buffalo shooting
Carlson has flirted with openly embracing the theory for years—even after a mass shooter in New Zealand killed more than 50 in events after espousing similar views. Last year, Carlson openly began pushing the idea, saying that “the Democratic Party is trying to replace the current electorate, the voters now casting ballots, with new people, more obedient voters from the Third World.”

Again, how is stating that the electorate is changing with immigration policies that favor the dems is racist or a call for violence?

Many democrats celebrated the change in the electorate in the past and openly said that is a plan for their party to win in the future. So how is it a right wing conspiracy?

Supporting real immigration reform that contains a pathway to citizenship for our nation's 11 million undocumented immigrants is the only way to maintain electoral strength in the future.”
Immigration Is Changing the Political Landscape in Key States

Hispanic voters played a pivotal role in this election. If current trends continue, they may turn other parts of the country as blue as they just turned New Mexico.
A permanent Democratic majority?

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

Please explain how illegal immigration favours democrats?

This is total nonsense. Way beyond just a misstated fact. Tucker is deliberately spreading this replacement nonsense that he knows is garbage to enflame his base. It is nonsense, it is dangerous, it is bigoted, and it is incredibly stupid.

The statistics support the demographics are changing. This is a fact. Even democrats acknowledge the changing demographics favor them.

Brown Is the New White | The New Press

Is this book racist?

 

[metis]

The statistics support the demographics are changing. This is a fact. Even democrats acknowledge the changing demographics favor them.

So?

The electorate ratio by party has always been in a state of flux and all parties have tried to put the odds more in their favor since this country was founded. But racism is not called for, but it's not the Dems that are mostly doing it. I left the Pub party many years ago because of the rampant racism found within it.

 

[tytlyf]

Even democrats acknowledge the changing demographics favor them.

Well duh. The majority of the country supports Democrats.
Democrats put forth policies that cater to the working class, not corporations.