Well, the statement is Everyone has their rights, but it is better for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind.
It’s not just ethnic diversity that is in question. You talk about different income levels as if that doesn’t refer to “different sorts of people”. However, I would argue that in many cases income is more of a differentiator than race is. IMO a black person and a white person of the same income level are less “different sorts of people” than a rich white person and a rich poor person. The same goes for religous beliefs and regional background.
I’ve got more in common with a hypothetical black neighbor who lives down the street from me in my new hometown of Newburyport, MA then I do with a hypothetical white guy from the deep south who makes a quarter as much money as I do and is a devout christian.
I was surprised to see that I’m not way down towards libertarianism. I vote libertarian often. I favor legalization of drugs. I want the government smaller, and less intrusive. I’m pro-choice. I favor decriminalization of victim free crimes like prostitution and gambling.
However, my answer on this question and on others (like strongly disagreeing that “All authority must be questioned”) get me pegged as a more authoritarian type than I actually am.
Some probably are. But it’s difficult to judge what is intolerance and what is irremediable conflict. As I mentioned in my original post, intellectual diversity is always good, because abstract ideas can and should coexist. But cultural practices often cannot coexist, and intolerance at some level is unavoidable. For example, East African-style female genital cutting could never be permitted in the United States without seriously compromising our concept of women’s rights. One or the other has to give way. Surely there are East African immigrants who will tell you that laws against female genital cutting are intolerant. They are welcome to their opinion, but labeling an action intolerant does not make it necessarily wrong.
(A) Any group can find things that are legal but offensive to them. (B) The notion that the law should be democratically derived is culturally based itself. What would an Islamic fundamentalist say to a law that had majority support but went against the Sharia?
Advocating it is one thing. Wholesale importation of hostile cultures is national suicide. The doors of America are de facto wide open to people who say in so many words, “I despise your culture and hope to weaken it by my very presence in your country.” Reminds me of the Onion headline, “ACLU Defends Right of Nazis to Burn Down ACLU Headquarters”.
That’s great, and I loved Toronto when I visited. As long as everyone’s prosperous and healthy enough to maintain the informal walls that exist between cultures, things can go along fine. But when the chips are down, conflict is inevitable .
Well, Hyper, I think discussing the law in undemocratic cultures is straying off the point somewhat, and disallowing certain practises has little to do with “people keeping to their own kind” since that practise will still happen amongst them.
The best way to combat that? Let them in and show them how robust diversity makes us.
How else can you interpret the “should” in the question? I also noted in my first response that I didn’t want any government interference.
Me too, and I think I’ve pretty much agreed with you on the other questions. Maybe we’re getting hung up on one little word, “should”, but I just don’t see how you can interpret it as anything but an admonishment against people mixing with others who are different.
BTW, answering this question as you did is probably one indication of why your libertarian score was lower than expected. The preamble to the question “everyone has their rights” is a clear indication that the rest of the question is about limitiing those rights.
It’s funny because I see it the exact opposite of how you do. The preamble to the question “everyone has their rights” is a clear indication to me that the rest of the question is not about limiting those rights.
If you took away the “everyone has thier rights” phrase, the statement gets harder to agree with. Then, it can be taken to mean that maybe it’s talking about limiting rights.
I agree that overt cultural conflict such as basic differences of opinion about government and morality are generally rare now, but stay tuned. A culturally divided populace strongly benefits the economic elite. Powerful interests have now bought into relatively radical programs of diversity and immigration. Common-sense limits are being ignored.
I admire your optimism, but many immigrants and especially their “advocates” bring their racism along with them and seem reluctant to let it go.
I don’t see why the tribesman in the suburbs wasn’t a sound enough example. And this zinger was pretty telling:
In that I suspect many of the pro-diversity types have never been long enough in situation diverse enough to make them a minority. I’m glad afformentioned ethnic restaurant cliche got called out; it always struck me a narrow vision of the exotic world as the majority’s amusing yet unimposing garden. Like with like as better for everyone seems to be a no brainer to me - all the suburbanites know that their neighbors will mow their lawns and thus keeping the community up to everyone’s shared standards; all the tribesmen know that - well I don’t know, but they point is they do.
The city where I live is being swamped with emigrants from other parts of the country causing a highly stressful situation for those of us already living here. Not only do they make it a point to disparage the locals, but their garish clothing are eyesores, their foreign nasal accents and slang (what the hell does “dead ass” mean?) cause noise pollution and yet, their sense of entitlement invokes an attitude which suggests that we aren’t living up to their standards. I can’t get along with any of these out-of-towners - they don’t understand a word I say, I don’t understand a word they say. When I go home (in my suburban neighborhood outside of the town, where everyone is local), though, it’s a completely different story. Also, once in a while, I can divine a local in the city by noticing how everything I say will click with him.
Anyway, in my experience, diversity sucks. I like when I know that there’s common ground everyone I’m with can stand on, and that every word said amongst us will be understood the way it’s meant to be.
I have, at home, my answers printed out for reference. Earlier in this series of threads when people were debating how biased the test is, etc, I made the claim that the questions had to be biased because there is no neutral answer, but that such bias was removed from the equation by being roughly equally apportioned.
Last night I received further evidence of this in that the person I had take the test agreed with me on most topics conversationally. When she answered the questions, though, she answered somewhat differently from me. Where I was strong, she might not be; where I merely disagreed, she might have agreed. At first I expected her to score differently from me because of this, but then I remembered my earlier claim and suspected that my faith in the test might be up for review here. She scored almost right where I am: I am a (-4.5, -4.6), she was a (-3.6, -4.5), which is what I would have expected from my knowledge of her, but not would I have expected necessarily from her answers as I heard them.
