Multiculturalism Has Failed, Say European Leaders

[Chen019]

@Der_Trihs

Stomping on people for being different isn’t “protecting your culture”, it’s aggression. And an official language is at best pointless, and more often an excuse to indulge in bigotry and exploitation. Nothing good can come from it.

You don’t think the Tibetan’s should have an official language? Why are you against groups maintaining their heritage and identity?

[Der_Trihs]

@Chen019

You don’t think the Tibetan’s should have an official language? Why are you against groups maintaining their heritage and identity?

Having an “official language” doesn’t preserve anything. If anything it has the opposite effect, when people start using more and more foreign terms because what they need to say hasn’t been officially decided by the government yet.

[magellan01]

@Der_Trihs

Having an “official language” doesn’t preserve anything. If anything it has the opposite effect, when people start using more and more foreign terms because what they need to say hasn’t been officially decided by the government yet.

You need to calm down there, amigo. An official language involves no force, no stomping. There are arguments for it and against it. But the picture you’ve been trying to paint is bullshit.

[Der_Trihs]

@magellan01

You need to calm down there, amigo. An official language involves no force, no stomping. There are arguments for it and against it. But the picture you’ve been trying to paint is bullshit.

Stop trying to distort what I’m saying. I’ve already said - more than once - that an official language doesn’t necessarily involve any “stomping”. That will come afterward, when making a language official accomplishes nothing.

[magellan01]

@Der_Trihs

Stop trying to distort what I’m saying. I’ve already said - more than once - that an official language doesn’t necessarily involve any “stomping”. That will come afterward, when making a language official accomplishes nothing.

So, you finally admit that your claim that force would be used was bullshit. Excellent. Progress.

[tagos]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

I think you’re missing my point–but on reread it’s because I left out an important qualifier, so my bad. Lemme try it again:

If, however, they want to practice a brand of private arbitration in an arena of life in which private arbitration is allowed, AND THEY OPERATE IT ACCORDING TO THE REQUIRED STANDARDS OF PRIVATE ARBITRATION, then it’s none of my dang business what their flavor of private arbitration is.

But they don’t so your qualification is irrelevant to what the real world situation is.

And even if they did the gender power imbalance makes your point irrelevant, helpful capitalisation notwithstanding.

[tagos]

@Chen019

The more sensible approach would be to restrict immigration from muslim countries. There are plenty of other places if you need extra people.

I’m totally on board with closing the European Convention on Human Rights Family Life loophole that means one arranged marriage serves as a wide open door for any member of a huge extended family to walk through.

‘Family life’ can mean just your spouse as far as I’m concerned.

[Der_Trihs]

@magellan01

So, you finally admit that your claim that force would be used was bullshit. Excellent. Progress.

Again, stop distorting what i’;m saying.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@tagos

But they don’t so your qualification is irrelevant to what the real world situation is.

And even if they did the gender power imbalance makes your point irrelevant, helpful capitalisation notwithstanding.

Why is it irrelevant? I’m saying that, if they don’t follow guidelines (which include nondiscrimination based on gender), they can’t operate. That’s totally relevant to a discussion of whether they should be allowed to operate.