"The results contradict almost every benefit claimed for campus diversity. Students, faculty members and administrators all responded to increasing racial diversity by registering increased dissatisfaction with the quality of education and the work ethic of their peers. Students also increasingly complained about discrimination."
and
"A higher level of diversity is associated with somewhat less educational satisfaction and worse race relations among students."
Multiculturalism/Multiracialism = constant tension and conflict between the various groups.
. Naturally, people with abrasive opinions ("Group X is the devil. Fuck 'em all to Hell.") will cause issues no matter what the government.
No. But, because of human nature, just because we're in a democracy doesn't mean everyone will be all happy and loving. We're still using humans, so human nature will STILL apply, no matter what government.
We're still using humans, so human nature will STILL apply, no matter what government.
I agree with that. People are people regardless of the government. Your example still didn't seem appropriate. Naturally, people with abrasive opinions ("Group X is the devil. Fuck 'em all to Hell.") will cause issues no matter what the government. People with complementary, non-abrasive opinions ("I have no opinions regarding group X. Group X is not different from my group.") will not cause issues, whether they live in a democracy or a fascist dictatorship.
Quote: from kidd rune at 5:20 pm on Aug. 30, 2008 If I walked outside into a group of negroes and yelled "White Power!!!" do you think they wouldn't harm me? Even IN a democracy, would they just shrug it off? If you walked into a group of people pronouncing your contempt for them, yes you could expect reprisals. What about the white man who has no issue with blacks, and the blacks that take no issue with the white man? You suggest it's their nature to hate on people they have no issue with?
If I walked outside into a group of negroes and yelled "White Power!!!" do you think they wouldn't harm me? Even IN a democracy, would they just shrug it off?
If you walked into a group of people pronouncing your contempt for them, yes you could expect reprisals. What about the white man who has no issue with blacks, and the blacks that take no issue with the white man? You suggest it's their nature to hate on people they have no issue with?
they didn't "hate" him. they just hoped he wasn't as insane and a mass murderer. Most ppl dont want to think the leader in charge is a crazy asshole thats gonna go on a total rampage and that the whole country is gonna follow like little sheep.
He told them to leave, and they didn't.
They CONSTANTLY tried to deport the Jews, but Chaim Weitzman, the first 'Jewish statesman' said "The most valuable part of the Jewish nation is already in Palestine, and those Jews living outside Palestine are not too important"
I DO want it, but it can't happen.
If they hated him, why didn't they leave, he told them to?
And if a negro comes among some skinheads he prolly would get harmed too. That don't change the fact that you CAN have peace if YOU want.
oh yeah thats right Hitler's Germany was so FULL of FREEDOM of SPEECH for communists, jews, gays, hell anyone that hated Hitler...
And about freedom of speech: We don't really have that either. If you want a good government, one better than Democracy, you're looking at National Socialism
Sieg Heil!
But thats what a DEMOCRACY is all about. People who belive DIFFERENT things even radically and still LIVE together PEACEFULLY! Its more than free speech. Its freddom of thought. And give others the freedom to thnk what they want SO LONG as they dont attack others based on that. We have the KKK here and neo-nazis. Most ppl hate what they think and what they believe and it goes against what a peaceful society is about even. But SO LONG as they DONT harm anyone we have to allow them freedom to speak and think. In a democracy you have to do that. Thats why even if you have ppl who believe totally different things on every single issue they still CAN live together peacefully. And still you can live with others and NOT try to shove your beliefs or way of life on them or get upset when they don't follow yours. I dont say democracy in practice is perfect but that what its about at the core. And that type of society CAN be pretty happy. Sure you have protests and meetings and heated discussions. But its still can be peaceful.
We have the KKK here and neo-nazis. Most ppl hate what they think and what they believe and it goes against what a peaceful society is about even. But SO LONG as they DONT harm anyone we have to allow them freedom to speak and think. In a democracy you have to do that.
Thats why even if you have ppl who believe totally different things on every single issue they still CAN live together peacefully.
And still you can live with others and NOT try to shove your beliefs or way of life on them or get upset when they don't follow yours.
I dont say democracy in practice is perfect but that what its about at the core. And that type of society CAN be pretty happy. Sure you have protests and meetings and heated discussions. But its still can be peaceful.
Are you SERIOUS? You think that, just because of a change in government, humans change? We will still be humans, and we will ALWAYS be humans. With that in mind, this 'perfect world' can NOT exist. It's human nature. If I walked outside into a group of negroes and yelled "White Power!!!" do you think they wouldn't harm me? Even IN a democracy, would they just shrug it off?
And about freedom of speech: We don't really have that either. If you want a good government, one better than Democracy, you're looking at National Socialism.
The National Socialists believed that the State, as the representative of the organic national population as a whole, had an obligation to regulate what media and academic ideas were fed into the population. It did not specify these must be banned, only that illusory concepts not be taught or spread through mass media. This is parallel to Socrates' questioning in The Republic of what a government should tolerate, knowing that most of its citizens could not fully understand the consequences of the ideas shown to them only as a promise of better consequences.
While we in liberal democracies are reared, and repeatedly told by our mass media, that any such government action takes away our "freedom," we also see the results every day of children seeing mass media and acting out its sexual, social, drug-related and violence-related ideals to disastrous consequences. We see how newspapers and television dilute culture with fast easy promises that turn out to be empty, and how our academics fill our children's heads with unworkable but emotive solutions, luring them away from the lives they will find most fulfilling. This is a difficult moral question that should be tackled elsewhere, yet what we must remember is that the NSDAP did not say "ban these ideas" but "do not teach them as fact, whether through academia or the media."
It is obvious that all of us here cherish our freedom of speech, and we would never want to be under a government that took that away from us. I think the ultimate freedom of speech was achieved under Hitler; where science, race, nation, and economics could be discussed in a truthful way without reprisal.
Now, as long as we live in this multicultural democratic piece of shit we call a country, freedom of speech can't really exist, and violence will continue to be the easiest option out.
The idea of Democracy may be a nice thought, but once humans are involved, it will fail.
Quote: from kidd rune at 3:08 pm on Aug. 28, 2008 Yes. Since asking that I think I might've come to understand your position better. All of this issue of yours is really about illegals, right? Not normal immigrants, but illegal Hispanic immigrants. They really comprise two distinct issues.
Yes.
Since asking that I think I might've come to understand your position better.
All of this issue of yours is really about illegals, right? Not normal immigrants, but illegal Hispanic immigrants. They really comprise two distinct issues.
Not if you want a happy society, no. You don't see an issue with one group accepting womens' suffrage and another steadfastly maintaining that women must be in the home?
Sure, on a person to person basis, to each his own but on a larger scale, on every issue, when every group has a fundamentally different opinion?
And those can be different right?
Not if you want a happy society, no. You don't see an issue with one group accepting womens' suffrage and another steadfastly maintaining that women must be in the home? Sure, on a person to person basis, to each his own but on a larger scale, on every issue, when every group has a fundamentally different opinion?
From my previous post: The important aspects of culture need to be the same. How you interact with others, what's appropriate, what isn't, etc.
And to detail: culture comprises your fundamental way of viewing the world. Everything you feel, the way you think, your way of doing things, these all come from your culture.
If thats what you meant i agree. your examples were a bit off the top though like you were just speaking of totally insane intolerants dickheads which would make trouble in ANY culture.
Ok which aspects HAVE to be the same in your view?
And to detail: culture comprises your fundamental way of viewing the world. Everything you feel, the way you think, your way of doing things, these all come from your culture. Culture is much more than Saints days, festivals, distinct imagery/superstition, etc.
There are aspects of culture that can be maintained and aspects which must be the same.
709 users online 
222868 members 1305 active today Advertise Here
709 users online 222868 members 1305 active today Advertise Here
You have 1 new message.
