4 ms·

It is not racism or xenophobia to want to preserve what is good about a nation's culture, and limit the import of other nations' and culture's problems. Could

It is not racism or xenophobia to want to preserve what is good about a nation's culture, and limit the import of other nations' and culture's problems. Could you please answer the following questions: 1. Is there a limit at which you believe mass migration into France would be undesirable? 2. If you believe that there is such a limit; what would a legitimate movement to argue for limiting mass migration look like, such that you would not be accusing them of xenophobia and racism? How would their arguments differ from core-questions'?

claudiawerner 7y ago
>1. Is there a limit at which you believe mass migration into France would be undesirable? Too much mass immigration to anywhere would be undesirable, but for economic and population density reasons. I am skeptical of the idea of the idea that culture is fixed and immutable. > what would a legitimate movement to argue for limiting mass migration look like It would exist in a time where mass immigration is causing the problems I mentioned above.
- remarkEon 7y ago
  >I am skeptical of the idea of the idea that culture is fixed and immutable. It's absolutely not fixed and immutable. That's what this whole discussion is about: whether there should be policies directed at preserving culture as it exists. >It would exist in a time where mass immigration is causing the problems I mentioned above. That the Far Right has gained power in Germany, Austria, Poland, Hungary, Italy, etc etc (not to mention the US) today is all the evidence I need that we live in that time already.
- douglasmurray12 7y ago
  > Too much mass immigration to anywhere would be undesirable, but for economic and population density reasons. I am skeptical of the idea of the idea that culture is fixed and immutable. There is clearly more to it than just economic and population density reasons. Culture matters. Consider, for example, that female genital mutilation is now a European problem. Or that Europe today has de facto implemented Islamic blasphemy laws - where people are afraid to criticize Islam publicly for fear of being murdered. Or that the number of rapes has gone up significantly in Sweden, with more than 80% of rape assaults being carried out by foreign-born individuals? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden) Or that 52% of British muslims believe that homosexuality should be illegal, and that close to half of British muslims believe that wives should always obey their husbands? (https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/publication/documents/2018-03/a-review-of-survey-research-on-muslims-in-great-britain-ipsos-mori_0.pdf https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/publication/doc...) So mass immigration can clearly change society for the worse outside of simply economic and population density reasons.
  - arvinsim 7y ago
    > So mass immigration can clearly change society for the worse outside of simply economic and population density reasons. But it can also change for the better. His point is that culture is not fixed and immutable. Whether it changes for better or worse depends on circumstances.
    - douglasmurray12 7y ago
      But suppose that it is perceived by the public that the net benefit from mass immigration is negative. How should they organize into a political movement or even voice their concerns, such that they do not get accused of being racist, xenophobic, populist, fascist, far-right?
  - jdietrich 7y ago
    You may wish to reflect for a moment on why Africa has 430 million French speakers.
- core-questions 7y ago
  > Too much mass immigration to anywhere would be undesirable, but for economic and population density reasons. This seems like a very... austere, perhaps even autistic lens to use on the problem. It sounds like if we were just able to pack people in as perfectly as possible, like apples in a box, and somehow still maintain an average tax profitability from them, you'd be okay with whatever was happening inside the apple box. Clearly that's a mis-characterization of you or any other reasonable person's viewpoint. The welfare of individuals, their life experience, their safety, their freedom, their ability to express themselves and find their niche... all of this matters. > I am skeptical of the idea of the idea that culture is fixed and immutable. Of course not. However, it moves slowly! There's a viscosity to it, and part of that resistance to change is something like an implicit Chesterton's Fence: > Chesterton's fence is the principle that reforms should not be made until the reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is understood. Just because you _can_ change a culture (in this case by force, by changing the cultural makeup of a region, often by fiat) does not mean that it is a moral act, or that the result you get out the other side is some predictable good. It is too complicated, too reactionary, too slippery of a concept to deal with in any way other than the purely speculative. Trends don't always continue - and conversely, pretending a trend or other demographic factor doesn't exist can be just as bad. There are far too many inconvenient truths to learn that illustrate the fallibility of humanity in every form, _particularly_ in terms of how we collectively get along with one another. > It would exist in a time where mass immigration is causing the problems I mentioned above. A compelling argument that this is already the case is being made by many. The solution thus far has been to remove them from the public square so we can go on pretending there are no problems.
  - throwmeaway13 7y ago
    > The solution thus far has been to remove them from the public square so we can go on pretending there are no problems. Clearly, this is what is happening with your contributions to this discussion. No matter how carefully written, your original contribution is nowhere to be found now. This only goes to show that these matters can not be debated.
- pnako 7y ago
  No one is saying that culture is fixed and immutable. If you put X million people of <Y> origin somewhere, you'll end up with <Y> culture there. That's precisely the problem. Do you support mass immigration of European or Chinese people to Africa until population density becomes a problem?

claudiawerner 7y ago

>1. Is there a limit at which you believe mass migration into France would be undesirable? Too much mass immigration to anywhere would be undesirable, but for economic and population density reasons. I am skeptical of the idea of the idea that culture is fixed and immutable. > what would a legitimate movement to argue for limiting mass migration look like It would exist in a time where mass immigration is causing the problems I mentioned above.

remarkEon 7y ago
>I am skeptical of the idea of the idea that culture is fixed and immutable. It's absolutely not fixed and immutable. That's what this whole discussion is about: whether there should be policies directed at preserving culture as it exists. >It would exist in a time where mass immigration is causing the problems I mentioned above. That the Far Right has gained power in Germany, Austria, Poland, Hungary, Italy, etc etc (not to mention the US) today is all the evidence I need that we live in that time already.
douglasmurray12 7y ago
> Too much mass immigration to anywhere would be undesirable, but for economic and population density reasons. I am skeptical of the idea of the idea that culture is fixed and immutable. There is clearly more to it than just economic and population density reasons. Culture matters. Consider, for example, that female genital mutilation is now a European problem. Or that Europe today has de facto implemented Islamic blasphemy laws - where people are afraid to criticize Islam publicly for fear of being murdered. Or that the number of rapes has gone up significantly in Sweden, with more than 80% of rape assaults being carried out by foreign-born individuals? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden) Or that 52% of British muslims believe that homosexuality should be illegal, and that close to half of British muslims believe that wives should always obey their husbands? (https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/publication/documents/2018-03/a-review-of-survey-research-on-muslims-in-great-britain-ipsos-mori_0.pdf https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/publication/doc...) So mass immigration can clearly change society for the worse outside of simply economic and population density reasons.
- arvinsim 7y ago
  > So mass immigration can clearly change society for the worse outside of simply economic and population density reasons. But it can also change for the better. His point is that culture is not fixed and immutable. Whether it changes for better or worse depends on circumstances.
  - douglasmurray12 7y ago
    But suppose that it is perceived by the public that the net benefit from mass immigration is negative. How should they organize into a political movement or even voice their concerns, such that they do not get accused of being racist, xenophobic, populist, fascist, far-right?
- jdietrich 7y ago
  You may wish to reflect for a moment on why Africa has 430 million French speakers.
core-questions 7y ago
> Too much mass immigration to anywhere would be undesirable, but for economic and population density reasons. This seems like a very... austere, perhaps even autistic lens to use on the problem. It sounds like if we were just able to pack people in as perfectly as possible, like apples in a box, and somehow still maintain an average tax profitability from them, you'd be okay with whatever was happening inside the apple box. Clearly that's a mis-characterization of you or any other reasonable person's viewpoint. The welfare of individuals, their life experience, their safety, their freedom, their ability to express themselves and find their niche... all of this matters. > I am skeptical of the idea of the idea that culture is fixed and immutable. Of course not. However, it moves slowly! There's a viscosity to it, and part of that resistance to change is something like an implicit Chesterton's Fence: > Chesterton's fence is the principle that reforms should not be made until the reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is understood. Just because you _can_ change a culture (in this case by force, by changing the cultural makeup of a region, often by fiat) does not mean that it is a moral act, or that the result you get out the other side is some predictable good. It is too complicated, too reactionary, too slippery of a concept to deal with in any way other than the purely speculative. Trends don't always continue - and conversely, pretending a trend or other demographic factor doesn't exist can be just as bad. There are far too many inconvenient truths to learn that illustrate the fallibility of humanity in every form, _particularly_ in terms of how we collectively get along with one another. > It would exist in a time where mass immigration is causing the problems I mentioned above. A compelling argument that this is already the case is being made by many. The solution thus far has been to remove them from the public square so we can go on pretending there are no problems.
- throwmeaway13 7y ago
  > The solution thus far has been to remove them from the public square so we can go on pretending there are no problems. Clearly, this is what is happening with your contributions to this discussion. No matter how carefully written, your original contribution is nowhere to be found now. This only goes to show that these matters can not be debated.
pnako 7y ago
No one is saying that culture is fixed and immutable. If you put X million people of <Y> origin somewhere, you'll end up with <Y> culture there. That's precisely the problem. Do you support mass immigration of European or Chinese people to Africa until population density becomes a problem?