4 ms·

The trend is not toward blame - it is toward cultural and economic locality. It's ok to have a preference to live in a place where you can drink and stay out at

The trend is not toward blame - it is toward cultural and economic locality. It's ok to have a preference to live in a place where you can drink and stay out at clubs all night, and it's ok to have a preference toward living in a place where you can't drink or socialize with the opposite sex at all. Some places will choose to allow bottles of olive oil on table. Others will will consider it unhygienic ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10076201/EU-drops-olive-oil-jug-ban-after-public-outcry.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10076201... ). The problem comes from trying to merge all cultures instead of considering that there can be different cultures for different places. That would be a better multiculturalism than what we currently call multiculturalism.

adwf 10y ago
I apologise if I took your words out context. I'm just so fed up with dog-whistle politics, of which anti-globalisation is one. ie. You mentioned Trump in the first sentence and then talked about globalisation being the problem, which is usually just a dog-whistle politics talking point for blaming foreigners for everything. Likewise with multi-culturalism. Usually when people bring that up in a debate, it's followed by some sort of "We must pull up the drawbridge" kind of xenophobia. I absolutely agree that there are some incompatible cultures out there. The middle east refugee crisis is highlighting quite a few of them. We should absolutely do more to integrate people into our culture when they arrive on our shores. But the solution isn't to say, "your culture, in your place", because as with the refugee crisis, they don't always stay in their place. The solution is to get tougher on regimes and people that still think these barbaric practices are acceptable.
- golemotron 10y ago
  I hope you see the issue with seeing things in terms of "dog-whistle politics." It washes over legitimate concerns and narrows the Overton Window. Some (not all) people who call out dog-whistles are conscious of that effect and they use it as a weapon. Ideally we could have a debate about whether it is acceptable for small groups of people to create and enforce local cultures provided people can make choices about whether to participate in those cultures or not. I don't think we are mature enough to do that yet.
  - adwf 10y ago
    Yeah I agree with your second point. Society isn't ready for consenting multi-culturalism, the idea that someone might actually like something you find barbaric is a difficult one. As to your first point, calling out dog whistles may be extreme, but it's only a response to the extreme absolutism of public figures calling for "No muslims allowed. No Mexicans allowed. No Chinese goods. Build a wall, etc.". They could propose sensible options like cultural integration courses. Limited immigration from acceptably similar countries. Maybe even remember the foundational concept of freedom of religion... But while they're still pandering to the extremes, I'll still call it dog whistling.

adwf 10y ago

I apologise if I took your words out context. I'm just so fed up with dog-whistle politics, of which anti-globalisation is one. ie. You mentioned Trump in the first sentence and then talked about globalisation being the problem, which is usually just a dog-whistle politics talking point for blaming foreigners for everything. Likewise with multi-culturalism. Usually when people bring that up in a debate, it's followed by some sort of "We must pull up the drawbridge" kind of xenophobia. I absolutely agree that there are some incompatible cultures out there. The middle east refugee crisis is highlighting quite a few of them. We should absolutely do more to integrate people into our culture when they arrive on our shores. But the solution isn't to say, "your culture, in your place", because as with the refugee crisis, they don't always stay in their place. The solution is to get tougher on regimes and people that still think these barbaric practices are acceptable.

golemotron 10y ago
I hope you see the issue with seeing things in terms of "dog-whistle politics." It washes over legitimate concerns and narrows the Overton Window. Some (not all) people who call out dog-whistles are conscious of that effect and they use it as a weapon. Ideally we could have a debate about whether it is acceptable for small groups of people to create and enforce local cultures provided people can make choices about whether to participate in those cultures or not. I don't think we are mature enough to do that yet.
- adwf 10y ago
  Yeah I agree with your second point. Society isn't ready for consenting multi-culturalism, the idea that someone might actually like something you find barbaric is a difficult one. As to your first point, calling out dog whistles may be extreme, but it's only a response to the extreme absolutism of public figures calling for "No muslims allowed. No Mexicans allowed. No Chinese goods. Build a wall, etc.". They could propose sensible options like cultural integration courses. Limited immigration from acceptably similar countries. Maybe even remember the foundational concept of freedom of religion... But while they're still pandering to the extremes, I'll still call it dog whistling.