Whatever happened in Cologne never never happened

[shanlung]

.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

Alright, let's see if we can fix that. How would you have me edit the "xenophobic" label on the hidden posts before I reopen that thread? How about "inhumane"? "Misanthropic"? Or... "contemptuous of human life"?

 

Do you have a problem with English that you need to seek advice from me to word whatever you wish to word of me?

 

To help you decide, here was what I advocated doing to Agrabah and pasted here to remind one and all.

 

 

Must be nuked ASAP until the domes glow.

Princess Jasmine can live with me and brew tea and do other things  for me and  before that nuking

 

 

 

NUKE NUKE NUKE!!

 

 

 

Idiotic Taoist all for nuking one and all until they glow and nuke them once more again

 

 

And that this is embedded in my favourite youtube list of songs

 

 

Play that and be terrified at the images that go with that song.

 

The words below will make you even more terrified and  aghast with bloodcurdling rage evoked! Of entrails ripped out from infants and grandmothers.

 

 

Auf der Heide blüht ein kleines Blümelein

und das heißt: Erika.

Heiß von hunderttausend kleinen Bienelein

wird umschwärmt Erika

denn ihr Herz ist voller Süßigkeit,

zarter Duft entströmt dem Blütenkleid.

Auf der Heide blüht ein kleines Blümelein

und das heißt: Erika.

 

In der Heimat wohnt ein kleines Mägdelein

und das heißt: Erika.

Dieses Mädel ist mein treues Schätzelein

und mein Glück, Erika.

Wenn das Heidekraut rot-lila blüht,

singe ich zum Gruß ihr dieses Lied.

Auf der Heide blüht ein kleines Blümelein

und das heißt: Erika.

 

In mein'm Kämmerlein blüht auch ein Blümelein

und das heißt: Erika.

Schon beim Morgengrau'n sowie beim Dämmerschein

schaut's mich an, Erika.

Und dann ist es mir, als spräch' es laut:

"Denkst du auch an deine kleine Braut?"

In der Heimat weint um dich ein Mägdelein

und das heißt: Erika.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Maybe they are in still in place because there are still people who think they are a good idea?

 

I am all too well aware of the horrors of child abuse! Not only have I treated cases, I also had one so close to me that it's too personal to go into this here. Why do you think I would play it down just because I don't agree on those drastic punishments you are suggesting? Do they prevent crimes from happening? And what about the inevitable judicial errors?

 

Am I to agree with all that you like and accept because you are so wise that I got to bow to your edicts and be your mirror image?  Will I go wringing my hands like you moaning some young females close to me got raped and molested?  I much rather that bastard got 20 strokes of the rotan.  And that with 6 strokes, he will be beyond help of Viagra or a ton of rhino horns.

 

Even so, and to show how much I do not like blood flowing.  I will take a very blunt butter knife and removed that bastard nuts and dick and feed that to the chihuahua down the road.  Then I can consider that chapter closed and I will not wring my hands and moan after that.

 

 

Here's the thing... You single out some bad cases, then make a generalization about all refugees, and suggest treating them in inhumane ways. For one thing, there are plenty of families among them. Would you want your children to live where there are bullets flying around them and bombs exploding while they're playing in the sandbox? Do you think those refugees were all just waiting to leave their countries before war broke loose?

 

 

 

If a million Chinese with begging bowls chose to invade Europe so that they can live a better life that they yearned for, I will say very much the same.  To treat those Chinks like invading swarm of bedbugs and bulldoze them into the edge of the Med Sea since bulldozer cannot float them to the middle of the Med Sea.

 

Even if a million Taoist with their tudis and acolytes chose to invade Europe with begging bowls to hijack aid money earmarked to go elsewhere like their own countries pensioners, I will also urge those million Taoist and tudis and acolytes be incinerated like a bunch of cockroaches that they are.  

 

It is a joke that Germans are kicked out of houses they lived in for over 20 years for those refugees.

 

It is a joke that traumatised refugees got fed better than the poor of that country.

 

Fury in Denmark after TV clip shows what asylum seekers are served

 

Perhaps so that they can have their energy up for the Taharrush games that those traumatised refugees showed they can play with flair and vigor.

 

I read with amusement that over 500 reported cases in Koln of unwilling participants of the Taharrush games by estimated 1000 largely traumatised refugees and that 30 odd were caught by police.  

 

Yet when guys of that city went in revenge beatings of 4-6?? dark refugees, 200++  of them were arrested by  very efficient German police.

 

A kind of message send to console those traumatised refugees?  That they will hardly be caught and any vengeance beating of them will be caught so they can remain safe in their Taharrush games.  

 

Which can even be played in swimming pools by 3  15 year old syrians refugees on 17 year old german girl and her 14 year old sister.

 

Played in so many cities across Europe at the same time.  

 

So either it was very well organised.  Or Traumatised Refugees do not need to be organised in stuff like that as that will be so natural for them to do what they do best other than praying 5 time a day, getting free hot meals and warm houses to stay before they wear their kaboom vests and fire off their AKs.

 

 

Should fascism and right wingers go on the rise, guess what!  The rescuers and counsellors and welcomers of those refugees will say it is people like me that brought that about.  

 

When in truth, it's those rescuers and counsellors and welcomers of those refugees are the midwives of the birth of fascism and extreme right wingers.

 

The joke to me the trouble just starting.  I thought 5 millions will be coming in 2016.

It seems that German politicians now expect 10 millions more will be coming and they aint Chinks or Taoists among those lot.

 

Germany economy is like the rest of the world now.  Ranging from wobbly to very wobbly.

 

Will the Germany  economy go on to support Greece and Italy and Spain ?

 

Will funds keep growing and growing to provide hot food warm houses and keeping those begging bowls full?

 

Or Germany economy brought down, and have 10 million traumatised refugees at same time within her borders without begging bowls filled or hot soup.

 

 

 

Sternbach thinks so and hope so money will keep expanding to fill the needs.

He an economic genius that must be given red carpet welcome at Davos.  He will get answers from them that I do not care to provide to him 

 

I certainly do not think like him.

 

He need me to provide him not just with names to name me, he wanted sources that spell out to him what I believe is common sense , which is not so common with him.

 

I think I do have enough of him.

 

I do think it will be best to chuck him into my ignore bin and see no more of his requests to me.

 

(ps, I was not allowed to chuck conceige into ignore bin as I just found out.  I think I just use a mental block and not see any stuff he wanted to chuck at me)

 

 

 

You still haven't given me any particular sources which clearly state the connections. There it is again, that gross simplification. In reality, many countries are still suffering from recessions which can't all be blamed on evil refugees.

Edited January 15, 2016 by shanlung

[redcairo]

When most of us think of war refugees, we think of desperate people, terrified parents and children, and I think anybody with even half an ounce of compassion feels moved and wants to help anybody in that situation.

A very large number of so-called refugees are not war refugees. If they were ever even in the war area/s in question it was often years prior. They may be political or economic refugees but often they are literally just people who chose to immigrate.

Many of those people fill the spaces in European countries who are socialist and offer insta-welfare. Many are from cultures where it's not merely that non-islamics and especially women are 'not equal,' they are actually encouraged to be done harm, directly and indirectly. This doesn't end well when those immigrants are in drastically different cultures filled with all the people they've been brought up to despise. And young men - I'd say 15-30 generally -- are the driving impetus-energy of any culture, and if the culture is negative, so is the result. (I read an article recently suggesting that much of historical violence is literally related to sex or lack thereof, which sounded far out at first, but it was a thought provoking idea when explained.)

Just recently it's been found how much of the 'syrian refugee' system (busing and IDs and more) was actually being run by the daesh interests themselves, so at this point, the issue isn't whether we feel obliged to help genuine war refugees, it's our difficulty in figuring out who the genuine war refugees actually are.

Even once we know that, we also know that statistically some tiny percentage are going to eventually do harm and some much larger percentage are going to know about it and do nothing. The FBI has all kinds of info on this and nobody wants to hear it.

Recently, in some European countries it's been discovered the media's been lying to everyone for a long time, suppressing and minimizing or marginalizing stories about immigrant violence, specifically because either police or government interests told them to, for the sake of "not creating bias against the immigrants."

Locals who have been aware of the goings-on, and the surreal conflict with reality that law enforcement and government and media have with it, were already enraged, not surprisingly, and now that some of it's coming out in public to validate what a lot of people already knew, it's getting worse. Some resignations have begun. Today a German politician shipped a whole busload of refugees to the country's leader, as he'd warned he would, because his quota was full and he was unwilling to let the surreal denial from above to take in more people continue and beat down his resources in his area.

In Sweden you can get arrested for talking about the wrong thing publicly, which has got to be the most draconian laws of this century in a first world country. Of course we're talking about a country that actually mandated what you were allowed to name your kids. Some degree of governmental overkill must be tradition. :-)

Nobody learns from history it seems. This is partly because history is not only written by the victors, but unwritten or avoided for hyper-sensitivity reasons. For example in the the US's history, the development of the KKK (a terrorist vigilante group focused against people of color almost entirely African-Americans) was partly a result of a "context situation" of the sort of extreme Sweden seems to be driving. For all the racist lunatics who push those sorts of groups, there are lots of people who seem more reasonable in the middle and who participate for other reasons and whose numbers make these things possible. Much like we see what happened that led to part of WWII following the treaty of Versailles, there are smaller, intense cultural examples that are also worth learning from.

In the founding of the Klan, you had the civil war which had hideous, bitter enmity between the North and South and as the North gradually won, the Southerners lived in a context situation where their law enforcement was helpless, they were automatically wrong and often imprisoned or killed for merely lifting their head above water so to speak, while at the same time a large population of people with no education or jobs were suddenly just "free" which also meant free to starve and be lost because they couldn't just become bankers and welfare didn't exist and the whole south was trashed from the war (even the whites were starving and greatly jobless, the fields were salted, and so on).

 

Some of them had a lot of rage, which most of us would say was justifiable, but regardless of reason, it was what it was, and there was a good deal of crime against whites especially the more helpless who were traveling or in somewhat outlier areas (this often meant women). But due to the Northern soldiers' presence pretty much nothing could be done and in their own bias they sometimes encouraged if not carefully looked away for a lot of this.

So people who might not otherwise have ever gone this direction, eventually reacted to the sense of helpless rage and fear and they in fact supported the literal 'terrorism' -- not like today's terrorism where you just blow up everyone just to create chaos, but a targeted terrorism to strike fear into the hearts via vigilante-ism, to say: you're not safe. You commit a crime against our people and we will get you -- not formally, but we will. When you least expect it. And an otherwise respectable banker and baker and sheriff would don a sheet and go kill someone because that person was believed to be guilty of a crime.

Which likely led to a lot of people being killed who were not guilty of anything, and true racists hate everybody so that expanded, and I assume anybody part of such groups today is a genuine sociopath of some kind, that's crazy. (The victors and media would have you believe nobody ever did anything bad and that group founded solely because some crazies couldn't stand that blacks weren't slaves. Much like the larger political question of federalism taking over state autonomy, today's version is polarized and ridiculous.) AT THE TIME and IN THE CONTEXT in which it occurred, I believe that many of the people who were part of the early org thought they had reason, caused dominantly by the surreal disconnect between the need of the common people to defend themselves, and their legitimate fear about "the other" which was posing a genuine threat authorities would not address and even protected.

We are taught by media and history's victors now. Allegedly the US civil war was entirely about slavery (despite few people had them, and blacks even fought on the south side, and that all the early literature was about federalism -- a bigger issue today than then, but too late to fix -- and that Lincoln himself said he'd continue slavery if it would help win the war to keep the federal government in control of all the states (rather than them being independent nation-states who as such had the right to secede). So now people can't talk about things like the Klan - which still exists today as what I wildly guess is a lunatic's club - for political correctness reasons.

But that keeps us from learning from history. And one thing we learn is that if people are scared of repeat violence that authorities will not address, and authorities not only prevent addressing directly but even speaking out against it makes you a target or criminal -- eventually that is going to lead to vigilante-ism and reverse terrorism and drastically more bias than merely being honest about the situation from the start would have resulted in. Lying and suppression never ends well.

In the USA, what I think many of our own people just don't think about is that we already let in a million people a year and there are very careful and strict numbers for all of this. There are many people who are waiting, hoping for a "special exemption" from the waiting lists. One group, for example, from the middle east in fact, are the people who have fought with our soldiers. These people have often had family members killed for their involvement, they often die while still waiting for us to get around to letting them immigrated. They risked their life often daily and often for years and if there is any obvious example of people who, of all the people in that region, should be best trusted as likely on our side of things -- given they were even under the worst most dangerous conditions over there -- it should be them. If we're going to make an exception and let some "war refugees" in, I think starting with that group would actually be good.

We don't have any kind of 'requirement' that says we must let in yet more immigrants than we already do, from any region for any reason. Wars and people wanting to come to the US have been going on for the last couple centuries. Granted we're helping far too much with those wars now which implies a greater responsibility I suspect, but that separate ethos issue is probably not going to be part of this.

Bottom line is, we are not "rejecting muslims" by not taking in syrian refugees; rather, we are simply not agreeing to make a "special exception" and take in MORE people from that part of the world or situation than our existing quotas already plan for.

But I suspect the truly desperate, most people including me would like to help. But when I think of truly desperate, I think of for example, frightened people, parents holding children, grateful for anything that actually lets them NOT DIE.

I don't think of bad attitude immigrants angry because their welfare isn't enough, their shelters don't have enough TVs, and who take their religion of Some Bad Ideas into the public and hurt the very people who are helping them.

I would like to help the former group. I just don't know how anyone can weed out and find those people in the big mess of alleged refugees -- and intentionally planned daesh setup 'refugees' -- that we are presented with.

Edited January 15, 2016 by redcairo

[redcairo]

Maybe I should add one thing. Regarding immigration in general, this reminds me a bit of the situation with Mexico.

 

I have worked when younger around a lot of illegals. These people -- mostly men -- worked 16 hour days, 7 day weeks, making almost nothing -- literally slaves, living a dozen to a room in a house I wouldn't put a dog in -- to make a little bit of money they could send home to their wives and children. Because in Mexico the primary job is, or leads shortly to, a bullet in your head. There are just so few options.

 

One guy says to me, when I said, but you never even get to see your wife and kids! He says, but what do I do? Stay with them and we all starve together? Watch them suffer? Here at least I can make a little, it's not much but it's worth more there, and they can live.

 

I swear, I had more respect for many of those men than anybody I have ever met. 

 

But then in the border areas, there are lots of immigrants who are nothing but bad attitudes, who abuse everything offered. You see them in pictures that of course make the media -- grabbing their crotch, flipping off the cameras, trashing the flag, and so on. These jerks really are jerks and we should send 'em home. Hard.

 

But they really wreck it for a lot of people who are good people and who, as genuine hard workers, are frankly the very kind of people that built this country and who I think are worth having as citizens.

 

I had a friend who was a illegal, her family spent years, a whole extended family, to buy her passage with a coyote over the border. She was literally a slave in a house in L.A. as a maid. I mean everything you hear about forced slavery, it's real. She barely escaped. I adored her, and when she decided to go home (her mother was ill and she had six young brothers and no father) (Gods! my life which seemed hard was so easy comparatively...) I gave her nearly everything I owned, shipped in big boxes via UPS, because anything she couldn't use she could sell. I have nothing but respect for her.

 

If I were Mexican, I'd probably be cleaning houses in L.A. too. How can I resent anybody for doing what I would do in their situation?

 

But the incoming numbers of illegal (not counting legal, those are fine) are too massive. And now, the issue of terrorism is genuine and our borders are like a gaping door. Nearly every decent-economy country in the world has a very clear and guarded border on their territory, and I don't see anything injust about protecting our people by arranging for this. It's overdue.

 

But it isn't racial. It isn't even about immigrants. It's just about what seems reasonable to me. Yet to hear most people tell it, you'd think that makes me some kind of right wing lunatic who just hates people with browner skin. (Ironic since I am about 15 nationalities myself. I just look generically super-light-olive aka white. Ish.)

 

We have to get past the knee-jerk political emotion and drama in order to have reasonable conversations about anything.

[Karl]

Think how cautious we are to let someone enter our personal homes. I am always alert the first time even if I know them pretty well outside. Yet, no one questions letting thousands of people into our country just because they are refugees. I wouldn't take one person into my house without knowing if they were good people, so why are our governments doing so ?

 

Of course everyone wants to come to Europe, why wouldn't they ? It's like staying in a 5 star hotel with full room service compared to an open prison. Yet we didn't get it this way by having the values of these immigrants. We got rid of the state/ church link and floated religion as separate and as a choice. We don't seem to see that Muslims-even the mildest-are connected to a completely different religious value system. It's why they carry on doing what they have always done and want sharia law in their communities. They really do religion seriously as a way of life, not like us. Their religious culture is incompatible with the West, they don't share our values except where it allows them to get on with their values. They have to give up those values and ideas voluntarily. Not by force, or change management, but that they see that it has caused brutality and war in their own countries and realise the pointlessness of retaining that exact same ideology in yet another country.

Edited January 15, 2016 by Karl

[Michael Sternbach]

http://thedaobums.com/topic/40256-shanlung/#entry667682

[Marblehead]

 

The Liberals and Champagne Socialists can deny that this is so but sooner or later the truth of the matter will come to bite them on the backside.

And then the people, not the politicians, will have to pay for it.

[Chang]

And then the people, not the politicians, will have to pay for it.

 

I fear so.

 

At the moment in the U.K. we have various Lawyers pursuing British troops for alleged war crimes in various theatres of action.

 

It will very much be a case of persecution of the Dogs of War whilst those who unleashed them carry on as before. Nothing at all new in this.

 

1917

They shall not return to us, the resolute, the young,

    The eager and whole-hearted whom we gave:

But the men who left them thriftily to die in their own dung,

    Shall they come with years and honour to the grave?

They shall not return to us, the strong men coldly slain

    In sight of help denied from day to day:

But the men who edged their agonies and chid them in their pain,

    Are they too strong and wise to put away?

Our dead shall not return to us while Day and Night divide—

    Never while the bars of sunset hold.

But the idle-minded overlings who quibbled while they died,

    Shall they thrust for high employments as of old?

Shall we only threaten and be angry for an hour?

    When the storm is ended shall we find

How softly but how swiftly they have sidled back to power

    By the favour and contrivance of their kind?

Even while they soothe us, while they promise large amends,

    Even while they make a show of fear,

Do they call upon their debtors, and take counsel with their friends,

    To conform and re-establish each career?

Their lives cannot repay us—their death could not undo—

    The shame that they have laid upon our race.

But the slothfulness that wasted and the arrogance that slew,

    Shall we leave it unabated in its place?

[Marblehead]

1917

 

Seems we haven't learned anything yet.  The ways were fought for the politicians who were too cowardly to do the dirty work themselves.

 

Europe would not be having these problems if we, the West, had not inserted ourselves into their affairs.

 

The military man is praised by the politicians while doing the dirty work but disgraced after the mission has been accomplished or lost. 

 

If the population of the world were decreased by 6 billion people we wouldn't be having these problems.  China had the right idea but even they had to back-track on their policy.

 

Don't expect conditions to get any better if we do not correct what is causing the wrongs.  Einstein said something similar to that.  Why do we always listen to bullshit instead of the words of wisdom?

[Karl]

1917

 

Seems we haven't learned anything yet.  The ways were fought for the politicians who were too cowardly to do the dirty work themselves.

 

Europe would not be having these problems if we, the West, had not inserted ourselves into their affairs.

 

The military man is praised by the politicians while doing the dirty work but disgraced after the mission has been accomplished or lost. 

 

If the population of the world were decreased by 6 billion people we wouldn't be having these problems.  China had the right idea but even they had to back-track on their policy.

 

Don't expect conditions to get any better if we do not correct what is causing the wrongs.  Einstein said something similar to that.  Why do we always listen to bullshit instead of the words of wisdom?

 

Europe would still be having these problems, it's only that our intervention has increased them significantly. We have been intervening rather than going to war. The West has lost its philosophic base that was once sustained by the Catholic Church- it certainly needed to be split, but we have in a sense thrown out the baby with the bath water.

 

We have entirely lost our sense of objectivity and moral code. It's like a club that starts off being very selective and codified, but later just throws open its doors and thinks things can just sort themselves out as long as the management have a flexible attitude.

 

So, instead of fighting wars against potential aggressors, we have been trying to convert them to our flexible way of thinking. The problem is that these people are ingrained with thousands of years of religious dogma. What's more, our own people are all over the shop, like schitzoid maniacs that are alternatively hippy happy airheads or narcissistic sociopaths that have no sense of a philosophical identity. It's just 'yeah whatever works'.

[Marblehead]

Excellent response.  So many ways I could respond but all of them would just take this thread away for the opening post and concept of the thread thought I think I will just remain silent.

[liminal_luke]

Compared to say Saudi Arabia, Europe is a place where people value openness, tolerance, diversity. It is these values that make Europe such a great part of the world to live. It´s also these values that have led some European countries to welcome refugees -- for better or for worse.

[Karl]

Compared to say Saudi Arabia, Europe is a place where people value openness, tolerance, diversity. It is these values that make Europe such a great part of the world to live. It´s also these values that have led some European countries to welcome refugees -- for better or for worse.

I think it might be commercially driven rather than egalitarian values. Those values are false and the result is false action.

 

Have you tried to define: openness, tolerance, diversity as they apply to yourself. Don't you really value privacy, justice and stability ?

Openess is the absence of any resistance to state in any aspect including ideas and personal privacy.

Tolerance is that which the state decrees you must accept no matter how bizarre.

Diversity is multiculturalism as being good for the sake of itself.

 

One cannot have Laissez Faire moral values. Values are fixed not flexible. Being open, is to hold no moral values as sacrosanct; being tolerant is to accept no moral values of justice; To see diversity as a moral value means the acceptance of the diverse for being the diverse, to have no discretion in value.

 

These aren't values, they are anti-values. If I believed in a God, then these would be the values of the Devil.

Edited January 16, 2016 by Karl

[redcairo]

Have you tried to define: openness, tolerance, diversity as they apply to yourself. Don't you really value privacy, justice and stability ?

 

So openness and privacy are opposites in this model; but I don't see why it would need to be one extreme or the other. One can be open within certain limits. I allow that my neighbors are pagan on one side, christian on the other side, atheist behind me, and I'm a mystic, and that's ok, and I want all of us to be able to be open about what we do and are and engage in and think and so on. Only at certain limits when some neighbor decides we all need to be punished sooner than their idea of hell for not meeting up to their standards do I reach the "privacy" point of wanting me and their ideas to stay safely in the confines of our heads or at least our own properties.

 

Tolerance and justice are opposites in this model you have; but that implies that inherently one thing is right and everything else should be adjusted, and only our "tolerance" will 'allow' the 'violation' of whatever-it-is. Much like the above, I'd say tolerance comes with a certain 'tolerance' range itself.

 

And diversity and stability are opposites in your model, but in the cultural context we're not talking about one person changing their mind daily we're talking about a lot of people each of whom have their own thang - 'diversity' is spread across the group -- there might in fact be lots of stability present at the individual and family level.

 

Actually, when I think of "comparing" the group of ideas "privacy-justice-stability vs. openness-tolerance-diversity" it sounds a lot like the old Church... culture did move on from that. Well in most places.

 

> Openess is the absence of any resistance to state in any aspect including ideas and personal privacy.

 

How did a cultural 'ideal' which can be understated depending on implementation, end up at the full extreme of thought police totalitarianism here? Though I can't argue that any country that outlaws freedom of speech has pretty much left the building of any kind of citizen rights.

 

> Tolerance is that which the state decrees you must accept no matter how bizarre.

 

Well in some cases perhaps it is, but I think growing up in a culture where you learn to be 'tolerant' for example of other ideas and religions (such as for example my hometown was) versus where you don't (e.g. much of the middle east) seems like a better thing, not a bad thing.

 

> Diversity is multiculturalism as being good for the sake of itself.

 

Multiculturalism failed hard, but I think that's partly for the same reason forced school bussing is such a fail. A city of diverse cultural habits is one thing -- you have chinatown here, and the italian sector there, and the french quarter over there, it works out. But when you try to force them all to blend, it's totally "destabilizing" because like generally needs like to establish a sense of security and tradition which humans need.

 

But I wouldn't say that means a culture cannot be somewhat 'open, tolerant and diverse' if it's done right. It's just that like any government I suppose, those attempting to force it, are doing it horribly wrong.

[dust]

I think it might be commercially driven rather than egalitarian values. Those values are false and the result is false action.

 

False for some. Some people actually care about others.

 

 

Have you tried to define: openness, tolerance, diversity as they apply to yourself. Don't you really value privacy, justice and stability ?

 

You are using personal definitions to create personally acceptable antonyms. I can't speak for Luke, but the openness, tolerance, and diversity I 'liked' his comment for are absolutely not the opposites of privacy, justice, and stability.

 

 

Openess is the absence of any resistance to state in any aspect including ideas and personal privacy.

 

Don't bring the state into it. No, openness is simply about being open to things -- ideas, methods, cultures, humans -- that one is not intimately acquainted with already. Everyone must live with a certain amount of openness, or nothing -- literally nothing -- can ever happen to them.

 

Openness and privacy are not antonyms, and absolutely not mutually exclusive.

 

 

Tolerance is that which the state decrees you must accept no matter how bizarre.

 

Again, the state. No, tolerance is about tolerating those who differ from you in belief, method, culture, 'ethnicity', etc. The opposite of tolerance is intolerance, not justice.

 

An Islamic or other religious state must surrender openness and tolerance for being closed-off and intolerant. A free state in which people believe in and are entitled to equality, privacy, 'justice', etc, must be one in which openness and tolerance are embraced -- to a far greater degree than they are in a religious state, anyway.

 

 

Diversity is multiculturalism as being good for the sake of itself.

 

Diversity and multiculturalism are not the same thing. But, sure... not everyone loves diversity.

 

But creativity, intellectual curiosity, a taste for variety, awareness of the world around... these are all, in my opinion, markers of a superior intellect, and a culture that values these things is a superior culture.

 

 

One cannot have Laissez Faire moral values. Values are fixed not flexible. Being open, is to hold no moral values as sacrosanct; being tolerant is to accept no moral values of justice; To see diversity as a moral value means the acceptance of the diverse for being the diverse, to have no discretion in value.

 

These aren't values, they are anti-values. If I believed in a God, then these would be the values of the Devil.

 

Wow.

Edited January 16, 2016 by dustybeijing

[Karl]

 

So openness and privacy are opposites in this model; but I don't see why it would need to be one extreme or the other. One can be open within certain limits. I allow that my neighbors are pagan on one side, christian on the other side, atheist behind me, and I'm a mystic, and that's ok, and I want all of us to be able to be open about what we do and are and engage in and think and so on. Only at certain limits when some neighbor decides we all need to be punished sooner than their idea of hell for not meeting up to their standards do I reach the "privacy" point of wanting me and their ideas to stay safely in the confines of our heads or at least our own properties.

 

Tolerance and justice are opposites in this model you have; but that implies that inherently one thing is right and everything else should be adjusted, and only our "tolerance" will 'allow' the 'violation' of whatever-it-is. Much like the above, I'd say tolerance comes with a certain 'tolerance' range itself.

 

And diversity and stability are opposites in your model, but in the cultural context we're not talking about one person changing their mind daily we're talking about a lot of people each of whom have their own thang - 'diversity' is spread across the group -- there might in fact be lots of stability present at the individual and family level.

 

Actually, when I think of "comparing" the group of ideas "privacy-justice-stability vs. openness-tolerance-diversity" it sounds a lot like the old Church... culture did move on from that. Well in most places.

 

> Openess is the absence of any resistance to state in any aspect including ideas and personal privacy.

 

How did a cultural 'ideal' which can be understated depending on implementation, end up at the full extreme of thought police totalitarianism here? Though I can't argue that any country that outlaws freedom of speech has pretty much left the building of any kind of citizen rights.

 

> Tolerance is that which the state decrees you must accept no matter how bizarre.

 

Well in some cases perhaps it is, but I think growing up in a culture where you learn to be 'tolerant' for example of other ideas and religions (such as for example my hometown was) versus where you don't (e.g. much of the middle east) seems like a better thing, not a bad thing.

 

> Diversity is multiculturalism as being good for the sake of itself.

 

Multiculturalism failed hard, but I think that's partly for the same reason forced school bussing is such a fail. A city of diverse cultural habits is one thing -- you have chinatown here, and the italian sector there, and the french quarter over there, it works out. But when you try to force them all to blend, it's totally "destabilizing" because like generally needs like to establish a sense of security and tradition which humans need.

 

But I wouldn't say that means a culture cannot be somewhat 'open, tolerant and diverse' if it's done right. It's just that like any government I suppose, those attempting to force it, are doing it horribly wrong.

 

Let's look at one aspect and discover what is actually meant by the term 'tolerance'. How is it used and what does it apply:

 

You said that you believe tolerance is the acceptance of other people's rights to hold differing views to your own. I would agree.

 

However, let's look at what it actually means in practice. Take a group such as homosexuals who demand 'tolerance'. They are not asking for tolerance at all, they are asking for an affirmation of their lifestyles and by doing so they are practising an intolerance of anybody else's right to disagree with their lifestyle.

 

We end up with a ridiculous situation in which tolerance is really intolerance. If there were no disagreements at all then there would be no requirement for tolerance in the first place. What we have done is create a casualty of truth. We have substituted relativism for rationality and to allow 'error' to become a floating subjective concept. There is no way to draw a line. What is tolerance for one group is intolerance of another. So, tolerance isn't a value precisely because it is subjective in that respect.

 

Ones right to hold ones ideas does not require anything at all. If this is what you mean by tolerance then I'm all for it. Disagreement demands tolerance on both sides. This is not a value in any sense, it is a voluntary transaction that must occur without the initiation of force on either side of that disagreement.

 

Tolerance is therefore not the right of homosexuals to demand that others affirm their lifestyles or be punished. That is clearly intolerance of the right for the other side to disagree. It is the homosexuals that have initiated force. Similarly, previously it was those that disagreed with homosexuality that outlawed it who were intolerant of it and wanted those they disagreed with to be punished.

 

If we look around we see that Europe is not practising tolerance at all. It is practising relativism. 'What is right for you is not necessarily right for me'. This is to discard truth and make tolerance whatever anyone says it is. Tolerance is the right to hold an opposing view and not to be the subject of force to make them act contrary to that view. This applies equally to both sides of any disagreement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Karl]

False for some. Some people actually care about others.

 

 

 

 

You are using personal definitions to create personally acceptable antonyms. I can't speak for Luke, but the openness, tolerance, and diversity I 'liked' his comment for are absolutely not the opposites of privacy, justice, and stability.

 

 

 

 

Don't bring the state into it. No, openness is simply about being open to things -- ideas, methods, cultures, humans -- that one is not intimately acquainted with already. Everyone must live with a certain amount of openness, or nothing -- literally nothing -- can ever happen to them.

 

Openness and privacy are not antonyms, and absolutely not mutually exclusive.

 

 

 

 

Again, the state. No, tolerance is about tolerating those who differ from you in belief, method, culture, 'ethnicity', etc. The opposite of tolerance is intolerance, not justice.

 

An Islamic or other religious state must surrender openness and tolerance for being closed-off and intolerant. A free state in which people believe in and are entitled to equality, privacy, 'justice', etc, must be one in which openness and tolerance are embraced -- to a far greater degree than they are in a religious state, anyway.

 

 

 

 

Diversity and multiculturalism are not the same thing. But, sure... not everyone loves diversity.

 

But creativity, intellectual curiosity, a taste for variety, awareness of the world around... these are all, in my opinion, markers of a superior intellect, and a culture that values these things is a superior culture.

 

 

 

 

Wow.

 

You are picking and choosing what you think these words mean. If these words simply mean anything anyone thinks they mean, then they have no value at all. Murder might as well be mercy, stealing is charity, violence is love. If we cannot establish a fixed definition we shouldn't use the words at all. This is Orwellian double think.

 

To be open does not mean to be infinitely flexible of every idea. In effect openness and tolerance are in complete contradiction. If someone is open about their own disagreement with the ideas of another, then they are considered 'intolerant' of those ideas. To be open minded does not imply one should throw away ones own values, rationality, principles and ethics and accept anything at all. Disagreement is a part of life. That's what needs embracing. Tolerance is to allow disagreement without coming to blows. Justice is that which is applied to those who initiates force against another because they peacefully, but vehemently disagree.

[liminal_luke]

Karl,

 

You say you´re against openness, tolerance, and diversity (if I understand correctly), and yet here you are on Daobums -- a fairly open, tolerant, and diverse place. You seem willing to engage in a discussion with me, although we´ve disagreed on several occasions, which surely requires some minimal exercise of the values you claim to disavow.

 

Don´t worry. I won´t be nominating you for the "Most Open Daobum of the Year Award", but until your goons come to throw me off a building (as they might in Saudi Arabia --I¨m gay) I´ll continue to imagine that you are somewhat open to and tolerant of the diversity of opinion here on Daobums.

 

And that´s a good thing.

 

Liminal

Edited January 16, 2016 by liminal_luke

[Karl]

Karl,You say you´re against openness, tolerance, and diversity (if I understand correctly), and yet here you are on Daobums -- a fairly open, tolerant, and diverse place. You seem willing to engage in a discussion with me, although we´ve disagreed on several occasions, which surely requires some minimal exercise of the values you claim to disavow.Don´t worry. I won´t be nominating you for the "Most Open Daobum of the Year Award", but until your goons come to throw me off a building (as they might in Saudi Arabia --I¨m gay) I´ll continue to imagine that you are somewhat open to and tolerant of the diversity of opinion here on Daobums.Liminal

 

 

No, I'm not against any of those things if the principle is restricted to personal, individual action. So, I'm tolerant of your beliefs even if I totally disagree with them, as long as your beliefs don't impinge on mine. Same goes for openness and diversity-both words that have little meaning anyway from the perspective of social interaction. People want privacy and prefer choice to forcing.

 

We are in an open discussion forum with a specific set of rules. This entirely a voluntary transaction and an agreement to abide by those rules in what amounts to a private club. I am not forced to affirm your lifestyle, or you mine. As far as I'm concerned it's live and let live until one party engages in the application of force. An example of that is throwing someone off a building because of their sexual preferences.

 

I don't call diversity a value, it's axiomatic to any natural system. That diversity is the same diversity that bids everyone the right to think and practice whatever they want as long as it doesn't aggress in some way against others.

 

All that is required for any group of people is a set of defined, rational rules and an arbitrator with the monopoly of force. We can chuck faux values like tolerance, diversity and openness away. As far as values go I may take and keep any value that I earn without imposing my ethics, values, lifestyle on you.

 

It should not concern you if I agree with your lifestyle or not. You do not live by my behest nor I live by yours. Our individual lifestyles are private (as opposed to open), our lifestyles are axiomatically different (diverse) and we should be free to disagree with what each other does without either of us engaging in aggression against the other (tolerance).

 

If you come onto my property and force me to accept your practices, or If I come onto your property and force you to cease your practices, then this is simply aggression. It is intolerance, closed minded tyranny and the complete antithesis of diversity.

 

Just for reference I'm not a homophobe, but that entirely beside the point. I accept that there are homophobes and that they have a right to be homophobes, justvas there are homosexuals and they have a right to be homosexuals. Building greater understanding is not done by force of arms, but by discussion in which neither party has the right to use force to get its way.

[liminal_luke]

That´s great Karl. Extend the live-and-let-live principles you seem to be OK with here on Taobums to the level of government and what do we get? Ummm...Europe. People are not "forced" to accept anyone else, but aren´t allowed to interfere with the freedom of others to carry on with their own lives. That, in my opinion, is how it should be.

[Karl]

That´s great Karl. Extend the live-and-let-live principles you seem to be OK with here on Taobums to the level of government and what do we get? Ummm...Europe. People are not "forced" to accept anyone else, but aren´t allowed to interfere with the freedom of others to carry on with their own lives. That, in my opinion, is how it should be.

 

Except that isn't how it is. It is not acceptable to be homophobic, sexist, racist or anything the Government deems is intolerance, which is, in fact the practice of Government intolerance towards those groups. This isn't live and let live. It is the practice of oppression of one group by another and is spun into a lie that this is 'tolerance'. It is Orwellian double speak in which intolerance is practised as tolerance. Where diversity is stamped out for homogeneity and openness is a privilege for one group but not another.

 

If I cannot discriminate against whom so ever I like. If I cannot decide who I want to trade with, support or associate with then I am not free. I am in fact being discriminated against by the intolerant and those who preach diversity but fear it.

[Marblehead]

If I cannot discriminate against whom so ever I like. If I cannot decide who I want to trade with, support or associate with then I am not free. I am in fact being discriminated against by the intolerant and those who preach diversity but fear it.

This is a deep concept and I agree with it.  We are free to select our friends.  The government has no right to tell me how to live my life as long as I am not in violation of any of its laws.

[Karl]

This is a deep concept and I agree with it.  We are free to select our friends.  The government has no right to tell me how to live my life as long as I am not in violation of any of its laws.

 

The problem is-in Europe at least-the laws don't allow for the values they purport to.

[liminal_luke]

This is a deep concept and I agree with it.  We are free to select our friends.  The government has no right to tell me how to live my life as long as I am not in violation of any of its laws.

Of course. Nobody has to be friends with anybody they don´t care to be friends with. But suppose you own a restaurant and you don´t like blacks. I believe Karl thinks (and correct me if I´m wrong here Karl) that a person ought not be "forced" to serve black people. That being forced to serve black people is actually a form of discrimination against him.

 

This is where we differ. I think that everybody should be free to think whatever they want about whoever they want, to choose their friendships and so on as they like. But here´s the kicker -- you should not be free to discriminate against people as a business owner or government entity in a way that interferes with the essential freedoms of that other person. Black people should be free to eat at whatever restaurants they like. Gay people should be free to marry. Women should be free to pursue employment, at wages commensurate with their abilities, anywhere they choose.

 

Nobody is forcing anyone to like blacks or gays or women. Feel free to hate as much as you like. But you can´t make anybody sit at the back of the bus when offering a public service, etc.

 

Liminal

Edited January 16, 2016 by liminal_luke

[Marblehead]

Your last two words "public service" are very important.

 

I liked your entire post and basically agree with what you have said.  If I am to offer a public service it is, im my mind, a given that I am going to serve the public as long as they are not violating any laws in order to be served.

 

Money from the hands of Blacks or Arabs is just as good as money from Whites or any other grouping of people.  It has no bearing on me if two guys enter my place and appear to be gay.  None of my business.  And it has nothing to do with my business.

 

However, if you come in and demand to be fed but you have no many I will call the law and have you escorted to the Salvation Army.  (Of course, most Muslims wouldn't go inside as it is a Christian organization.)

[liminal_luke]

Your last two words "public service" are very important.

 

Exactly. Individuals as individuals ought to be free to act as they please with the bare minimum of government interference for public safety, etc. Nobody can legislate away racism, homophobia, sexism etc. If I had my druthers everybody would love gay people. Of course that´s not the case, and I wouldn´t support a law to make people (as individuals) act or believe the way I´d like. But if you´re a business owner or a federal judge or a clerk in charge of marriage licenses -- well then, that´s different.

Edited January 16, 2016 by liminal_luke