So, I've heard this notion quite a few times in politics in this ear of anti-immigration populism. So I'd like to delve into exactly what it means. What is meant by multiculturalism anyway? The basic definition of multiculturalism is rather simple. Google defines it as: "the presence of, or support for the presence of, several distinct cultural or ethnic groups within a society." Dictionary. com defines it as: he view that the various cultures in a society merit equal respect and scholarly interest. The federal social services department of Australia defines it as "cultural and ethnic diversity". So other than some minor elements of encouragement policies it's mostly just literally have different ethnic groups and their cultures. Taken very literally and without charity, opposing multiculturalism would essentially imply genocide. I don't suppose that's exactly what we're talking about here. So what exactly is the often rather vague notion referring to?
It seems to be used to refer to three things. The first is permissive immigration. Since it is most commonly occurring as a phrase in relation to Muslim immigration and the fear of terrorism, it's only natural that one of the primary things this phrase is used to mean is that right-wing supposed flaws of such policies are causing significant. So in this sense "multiculturalism has failed" means "Muslim immigrants are causing significant damages". Which as we can see by comparison isn't particularly good use of the definition. This is a specific and very policy-related notion that refers to specifics religious groups among an also select group.
The second meaning that seems to be inferred is to do with diversity encouraging policies like quotes. Now again, this isn't really the failing of multiculturalism. It's the failing of specific policies. While some definitions do include a meaning that is specific to encouragement policies; it's not always clear that people are actually all of these which would be "multiculturalism" instead of merely elements of a specific multiculturalism. Indeed in some cases it's readily apparent they aren't really opposing all.
And thirdly is the notion identified that people shouldn't have "distinct separated cultures" within the same country. This seems like a thin line of thinking. Either you are saying something blindingly obvious and portraying it as something more left-leaning people don't understand; that obvious being that people should accept some of the basic rights and principles of a liberal democracy when they exist in it. Or, you're saying that is at best way too close to outright white nationalism; if you take it to mean broader and less pivotal cultural ideas as well. In either case, there is no way you can even get close to screening for such ideas in people's heads as refugees or enforcing people's thoughts once they're here. And I thought trying to control people's thinking was what right-wing people hated about leftwing social justice supposedly. Neither is it sensible to talk about more action-based crackdowns on those issues; because such activities already happen. At worst; you're talking about somewhat lacking solutions. Nobody does not accept the notion of rejecting known terrorists or stopping their terrorist actions. There's no general philosophical notion of "multiculturalism" where people oppose such obvious enforcement of moral and legal standards we already posses. At worse you've got a hodgepodge of idiotic left-wing extremists who are permissive but when they do gain undue influence over leftwing governments the symptom if we want to complain about Europe is incompetence. Sweden's main problem with refugees is that the government has done a comparatively terrible job managing and integrating the refugees but all of the most ideological stuff has nothing to do with an ideological goal of" multiculturalism" it's about fear of being called racists and perception of racism in others. No left-wingers believes Muslims should be allowed to rape women. They are simply afraid that people saying there's a Muslim rape epidemic are racist, and some people clearly are. Simply naming multiculturalism when discussing these issues does a great disservice to their complexity and does a great disservice to a much more general word.
In conclusion, why exactly is this phrase so popular when it connects with such a general and very basic concept? Why would Angela Merkel, who has notably positioned themselves as moderates in comparison with the nationalist populist movement, use a term in a way that makes her sound like white nationalist? When did a word that in my upbringing in Australia has always been a symbol of our modern identity and not being racist become a hated buzzword? And why is it being used in ways that make it sound like a much more extreme concept than it is?
We got anyone here who can provide some insight? Some sort of argument from that position?
So with all the anti-PC movement stuff I thought it would be good to ground what gay people's problems actually are anymore. Trans is kinda obvious since it's this newer weirder thing and raises all kinds of medical rights debates. But what do the LGB bit still have going? Why with gay marriage is anyone still complaining except about people who want to reverse?
Well obviously that is a problem in of itself and the statistics on bullying, homelessness, suicide and murder are still troubling because of homophobic people's effects. But is there really any problem with the existing rights? Yes, there is. And more than people talk about.
So to start adoption is banned or limited for same sex couples in a number of states (a pattern here that emerges is state independence acts much as it did during segregation). Access to conjungal visits (visists from a partner to the prisoner) are severely limited with only four states recognising same sex partners. Hate crimes are also recognised unequally meaning in 18 states the federal law is the only recognition of orientation based crime. Access to guaranteed hospital visits is only protected via Obamacare rules which limits it to Medicare and Medicaid and this protection is threatened by repealing Obamacare on the Republican agenda.
State employees are protected from being fired for their orientation in only about half the states. All employment about a quarter. About half the states have no laws that affect employment around sexual orientation. These include Texas, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Georgia, both Dakotas, Florida and Wyoming. Considering Texas, Georgia and Florida are in the top ten populated states that's scary. Less than half have any state housing protections. Luckily Obama had federal employees and federal housing ban discriminatory practises on this subject.
In some states the age of consenst for "sodomy", has an unequal age of consent. This is because sodomy laws banning homosexual sex where repealed with unequal age and the law has yet to be changed since then. Blood and tissue donations from MSM (Men who have Sex with Men) have to wait one year deferral or even be permanently refused on the basis of stereotypes about STDs, despite the fact they test for that and sexual practices are the defining factor not orientation, the correlation exists because of practices which would surely be the more useful factor.
Other issues include unequal Romeo and Juliet laws (laws lenient to teenage sex e.g. in Aus 16 and 17 are allowed a self-contained bubble of consent) and also deportations to countries with a sodomy death penalty e.g. Iran.
Source for further detail; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_the_United_States#
Thank you for your time! Have a beautiful day!
Okay, so I really think this whole SJW thing needs to be addressed. Both in the sense of further discouraging them and blocking them, and in the sense of it being a problematic talking point. The problem with this talking point is that inevitablely becomes associated with the whole group,because people talk about it too much. For the same reason the stereotypes of flaming Christian homophobe or racist redneck Trump voter should be dealt with equally carefully to avoid that same problem. If there's one thing pissing me off recently it's people who seem unwilling to respectfully and rationally discuss a nuance view of politics. It's far too often like a war, and you just hate on whatever is other. And like a war you are taught to see the worst in the enemy. It's not about authoritarian SjWs or angry unyielding bigots, these are just versions of extremity. Have you ever noticed that the most authoritarian political situations ended up more comparable than their more fair counterparts? Because you start taking on qualities of extremity; drawing on over-tribalism and sheer irrationality. Let's try to avoid this more shall we? I think recent political ideas and events show that this kind of thinking is becoming invasive. We have to dismantle the character assassination and address specific points and people as their own and with respect for the complicated and ultimately somewhat subjective nature of the discussion. Because remember: there is no right answer in politics. Not entirely. Only in lucky examples.
Peace! Thank you for your time! Have a beautiful day!
Okay, so an interesting thing for me is to question things. It's an important value. "Question everything" as they say. Now, I've been looking at this site recently one or two times, because I like to look at the other side of things. Now, this site is on the Southern Poverty Law Center hate group list. And it's not hard to see why since there's so confident and relentless. (Though I notice most of the articles are written by the leader, I suspect there's not that many members in this group, especially given all the competing groups) Something interesting they bring up however, that I've seen before and always wondered about, is the explicitness involved in some pride events. You get images like this;
Displaying nudity and language. Now, language isn't too bad, but considering some people wear revealing costumes or do what's depicted above, isn't there a legal concern about public indecency laws? And how often does this stuff show up? Since I haven't been to one myself because I am kind of shy about it, (weirdly) I'd love to hear from people who have to better understand these events.
(P.S if you've had bad experiences with these kinds of people, don't read their site. It might really hurt your feelings because they are quite disdainful. I am mostly just amused but I'm not you, I'm very comfortable and happy and a bit innocent)
Thank you for your time! Hope you have a good day!
Okay, so I promised I would do the sequel and here it is! Now that we've done something to address the notion of Australian being full of dangerous animals, let's talk about what some of what actually is. These, you should be afraid of. Though, they are just animals, don't think of them as evil. And as a pacifist and animal rights believer, I must stress killing these animals in revenge hunts adds nothing but more death.
The Inland Taipan is the most venomous snake in the world. It is probably one of the biggest contributors to fears about Australian wildlife. ""OMG, Australia has the most venomous snake in the world!"But the Inland Taipan is also one of the less aggressive snakes. It's quite shy and prefers to run. It uses it's venom to kill prey and to deter predators. So you'll be fine unless you piss it off, the main risk is accidentally stepping on one, which is luckily uncommon since they like the arid places.
The Coastal Taipan is the third most venomous snake. Unlike the Inland, it is quite territorial and bitey, and tends closer to the more populated coasts. This includes the most populated region, NSW, although snakes avoid humans generally. It is larger than the Inland too. So, the Coastal is actually more lethal to humans. Don't think people just get killed all the time though, you can still just give it a safe berth and it will leave you.
The Stonefish is one of the most venomous fish. It is also exceptionally camoflaged, when in the ground it looks much like a rock. And it uses this to catch fish. But it's poisonous spines that protect are also easily stepped on by unsuspecting divers. And when this happens it can be fatal. The main relief is that this animal isn't usually encountered by humans, so it doesn't cause much damage.
The Blue-Ringed Octopus is one of a small list of venomous octopi. It is quite small, and so uses it's venom to kill prey and defend itself. It is quite venomous, so should be taken seriously. However, like many animals here, with one exception, it has no reason to attack humans outside of defense, and this one isn't very aggressive. Just don't bug it when you see one.
The Blue Bottle (Portuguese Man of War) is a colony of jellyfish relatives. It has a very painful sting, that can be fatal. In case it isn't obvious, these things don't attack you so much as touch you accidentally. It has a nasty tendency to end up beached, where it can be stepped on. Fortunately, it is relatively easy to spot, most incidents occur at night with drunken idiots who go swimming after having some stag night or whatever.
Okay, so those are all dangerous, but they don't freak me out really. Not like this does. To me at least, this is the scariest, though actually not the most fatal, Australian animal.
The Saltwater Crocodile is the largest crocodilian in the world. It has a tremendous bite force, and is also territorial and doesn't mind the taste of human at all. They are most common in the Northern Territory where they have this handy guide if you want to go swimming; https://nt.gov.au/emergency/community-safety/crocodile-safety-be-crocwise/introduction. Don't worry, they're not super common and even they aren't THAT aggressive. They can even be kept safely in zoos, and handled by professional keepers.
But, just look at that face. Imagine it swimming slowly towards you at night, unseen, ready for an ambush...
Again please don't hate any of these animals for having defense systems and/or predatory behaviour! It's not like humans don't kill other animals (and each other) back! Just be safe!
Thank you for your time! Have a beautiful day!
Separate names with a comma.