International Riot in Sweden.

[The ScorpioN]

Haha, in defense of the BLM riots, which are of course still wrong, I am more sympathetic to riots triggered by police brutality, real or perceived, where people die or are beaten and maimed by agents of the state than knuckleheads playing right into their antagonist's hands.


Yeah bro, we're out here waging jihad on Sherdog and we would've gotten away with it too if it wasn't for those meddling kids like The_ScorpioN and Bald1!

Well if anyone is going to maybe Muslims should first. Breaking property is against Sharia...

Sure but by rioting you're playing right into their hands.

You're an '04 account and you didn't know about the ignore feature? Well, the more ya know.

Preferably a hot tub time machine @Fox by the Sea

Subconscious jihad due to severe tribalism. Many such cases.
On British TV there are tons of you after yet another terror attack making sure no islamophobia is being said.

 

[The ScorpioN]

And that's exactly where I'm coming from. In absence of a shared history, Americans are expected to adopt an idea. The constitution, the rebellious nature borne of rugged individualism, and the American enterprising spirit is what I think filled the void.

I haven't fleshed out this little theory of mine, but to say America is a land without its own distinct culture sounds wrong to me.

Lmao of course it's wrong. This nonsense is applied all over the West because they decided part of Western culture is dat dere "inclusivity and diversity".
They want to be treated according to your standards, but treat you according to theirs. But if you call out their standards as the dogshit that they are, you're a bigot. Only a brainlet falls for it, and we churning out many brainlets from schools and universities.

 

[Yehudim]

Multiculturalism just doesn't work. Never has, never will.

When in Rome, and all that.

The local Swedes share the blame in all of this as they allowed the problem to fester. Should have set ground rules and enforced them, or never allowed people from a polar opposite culture from their own to take root. You just can't let a religion with an expansionist history in if you don't have safeguards or want things to stay the same.

People have conflated multi-ethnic or multi-racialism with multiculturalism and think that being anti-multicultural is the same as being racist.

Switzerland is probably the only truly multicultural country that works well, in the sense that is it made up distinct people, languages, and culture, and there is no attempt to blend them.

 

[Bald1]

People have conflated multi-ethnic or multi-racialism with multiculturalism and think that being anti-multicultural is the same as being racist.

Switzerland is probably the only truly multicultural country that works well, in the sense that is it made up distinct people, languages, and culture, and there is no attempt to blend them.

80% like. I've only spent 4 days in Switzerland so can't really speak to how multicultural they are or how well it works.

Completely agree with the first paragraph though. Some cultures can coexist. As long as one of them isn't a supremacist one that tries to impose their values on the others.

 

[Yehudim]

80% like. I've only spent 4 days in Switzerland so can't really speak to how multicultural they are or how well it works.

Completely agree with the first paragraph though. Some cultures can coexist. As long as one of them isn't a supremacist one that tries to impose their values on the others.

Switzerland is made up mainly of Germans, French, and then Italians. There is also a 4th group I don’t remember.

For years they tried to make German the lingua franca, because they’re by far the largest ethnic group, but the French and Italians weren’t having it.

English has finally become that lingua Franca that is neutral, but the country is basically like if you pulled out a piece of Germany, Italy, and France, and made them live together.

Even Canada has had a headache with the tiny minority of French people living there, that’s another example of multiculturalism, people practicing their own cultures independently of their countrymen.

India and a lot of the former colonial countries are multicultural, they’re just a bunch of different ethnic groups being forced to live together.

Look at the pushback of the EU. They love the economic benefits of the EU, but hate giving up sovereignty and immigration with certain populations, and that’s not a real multicultural nation

 

[The ScorpioN]

People have conflated multi-ethnic or multi-racialism with multiculturalism and think that being anti-multicultural is the same as being racist.

Switzerland is probably the only truly multicultural country that works well, in the sense that is it made up distinct people, languages, and culture, and there is no attempt to blend them.

The Swiss have North Italians, French and Germans. I have a theory why these people can coexist but I'm on yellows.

 

[Islam Imamate]

And that's exactly where I'm coming from. In absence of a shared history, Americans are expected to adopt an idea. The constitution, the rebellious nature borne of rugged individualism, and the American enterprising spirit is what I think filled the void.

I haven't fleshed out this little theory of mine, but to say America is a land without its own distinct culture sounds wrong to me.

Tbh those are hollow words, not really the basis of a culture. I'm not saying there is no distinct American culture but to the extent that there is something you can call American culture its what Huntington mentioned, an Anglo-Protestant culture. Specifically one that has become defined by its unique experience in North America like the culture of the Frontier and the post WWII hegemony. But again even within that there's lots of variation since our culture was defined by dissident Protestantism that was only similar to the extent that they wanted space from orthodox continental Protestantism. Beyond that they could be very different from one another, hence the emergence of the idea of freedom of religion to allow them to create a modus vivendi with one another.

Subconscious jihad due to severe tribalism. Many such cases.
On British TV there are tons of you after yet another terror attack making sure no islamophobia is being said.

Subconscious jihad, I guess that makes you a subconscious crusader? Well, actually not very subconscious at all it seems in your case, more like open and proud tribalism really.

80% like. I've only spent 4 days in Switzerland so can't really speak to how multicultural they are or how well it works.

Completely agree with the first paragraph though. Some cultures can coexist. As long as one of them isn't a supremacist one that tries to impose their values on the others.

Ah so basically in Locke's terms you don't think Islam should be included within religious freedom? Yes to atheists and Papists but no to Muslims?

 

[Yehudim]

The Swiss have North Italians, French and Germans. I have a theory why these people can coexist but I'm on yellows.

If you were aware of the constant warfare between those 3 groups over land, you’d see that Switzerland is a special case.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Switzerland is made up mainly of Germans, French, and then Italians. There is also a 4th group I don’t remember.

For years they tried to make German the lingua franca, because they’re by far the largest ethnic group, but the French and Italians weren’t having it.

English has finally become that lingua Franca that is neutral, but the country is basically like if you pulled out a piece of Germany, Italy, and France, and made them live together.

Even Canada has had a headache with the tiny minority of French people living there, that’s another example of multiculturalism, people practicing their own cultures independently of their countrymen.

India and a lot of the former colonial countries are multicultural, they’re just a bunch of different ethnic groups being forced to live together.

Look at the pushback of the EU. They love the economic benefits of the EU, but hate giving up sovereignty and immigration with certain populations, and that’s not a real multicultural nation

How do you define multiculturalism then? Not saying you're wrong necessarily but I'm wondering what the operational definition here is.

 

[ElKarlo]

The "moderates", although while not rioting themselves, tacitly carry water for them. Excusing and justifying it at every turn. If you haven't noticed from reading this forum, the more educated Westernized muslims wage dat dere "struggle" in different ways. The end result is the same though, that's why they're called out and when cornered retreat to nitpicking language.

Like. They are water carriers and always paint it all as a struggle and give justification for awful behavior

 

[Islam Imamate]

The Swiss have North Italians, French and Germans. I have a theory why these people can coexist but I'm on yellows.

No please, go on and say it. We're all friends here after all...

 

[The ScorpioN]

Tbh those are hollow words, not really the basis of a culture. I'm not saying there is no distinct American culture but to the extent that there is something you can call American culture its what Huntington mentioned, an Anglo-Protestant culture. Specifically one that has become defined by its unique experience in North America like the culture of the Frontier and the post WWII hegemony. But again even within that there's lots of variation since our culture was defined by dissident Protestantism that was only similar to the extent that they wanted space from orthodox continental Protestantism. Beyond that they could be very different from one another, hence the emergence of the idea of freedom of religion to allow them to create a modus vivendi with one another.

Subconscious jihad, I guess that makes you a subconscious crusader? Well, actually not very subconscious at all it seems in your case, more like open and proud tribalism really.

Ah so basically in Locke's terms you don't think Islam should be included within religious freedom? Yes to atheists and Papists but no to Muslims?

Y'all pushed me to it, and I'm not alone. I was a happy go lucky college student until I entered the real world, you can check my postings here years ago.
If you think you can make a group of people operate on principles while you take advantage of them according to your interests, you need to study some biological principles a bit closer.

 

[Bald1]

Switzerland is made up mainly of Germans, French, and then Italians. There is also a 4th group I am not aware of.

For years they tried to make German the lingua franca, because they’re by far the largest ethnic group, but the French and Italians weren’t having it.

English has finally become that lingua Franca that is neutral, but the country is basically like if you pulled out a piece of Germany, Italy, and France, and made them live together.

Even Canada has had a headache with the tiny minority of French people living there, that’s another example of multiculturalism, people practicing their own cultures independently of their countrymen

All things considered the French and ze Germans have much more in common with each other than European countries east of Austria. Not do with culturally Islamic countries which have irreconcilable differences with most of Europe. No wonder it can work.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Y'all pushed me to it, and I'm not alone. I was a happy go lucky college student until I entered the real world, you can check my postings here years ago.
If you think you can make a group of people operate on principles while you advantage of them according to your interests, you need to study some biological principles a bit closer.

Another victim of War Room radicalization eh? Or are you talking about a different y'all here?

 

[The ScorpioN]

Another victim of War Room radicalization eh? Or are you talking about a different y'all here?

I'm very inclusive with my y'all, as per our culture.

 

[MMA Time Soldier]

If you were aware of the constant warfare between those 3 groups over land, you’d see that Switzerland is a special case.

Switzerland is really just a buffer state like Belgium (Spanish Netherlands), Uruguay, North Korea/Korea.
They all seem to manage different groups of people because I think they benefit from the higher power states that want to keep the buffer state going.

 

[Yehudim]

How do you define multiculturalism then? Not saying you're wrong necessarily but I'm wondering what the operational definition here is.

Multiple people practicing distinct cultures in one country with no attempt to blend I guess is a simple way.

In this thread we have you, some sort of South Asian Muslim mutt, Scorpion, a White-Russian, and me. We all have different backgrounds but we’re all Murikans and speak the same language, like the same shit, have the same basic core values

Then you have Canada, with the French people, who practice their own language and culture next to the English speaking Canadians. and look at how contentious language is over there.

It’s easier to point out multicultural societies like Canada, Switzerland, India, Nigeria, etc. than to make a textbook definition, because there will always be overlaps and grey areas, and I’m not an academic who is trying to spend 1000+ hours trying to define a word.

 

[MMA Time Soldier]

But even Huntington points out the Protestant culture of America was a dissident one, made up of Protestant minorities looking for religious freedom from Europe. So even under his framework we had a sort of multiculturalism of dissident Protestant sects that created their own independent communities and had to find a modus vivendi with one another.

Those sects weren't what I would call exhibiting multi cultural behavior though.

You have to remember at the time the Americas had plenty of land and so the Puritans could go in and develop their own colony to have strict puritanical behavior and religion, the Quakers could establish a colony and do their own peace loving thing, the Mormons could practice their beliefs in polygamy and abstinence from alcohol/drugs/coffee in their own bubble. So that's a little different than the idea of multi multiculturalism where everyone is grouped together in close proximity.

The other thing is the colonies and states were their own bubble as well but that's gradually eroded over time due to federalism and a weakening of states rights.

 

[Yehudim]

Switzerland is really just a buffer state like Belgium (Spanish Netherlands), Uruguay, North Korea/Korea.
They all seem to manage different groups of people because I think they benefit from the higher power states that want to keep the buffer state going.

That is how I feel, but I don’t know enough to about Swiss history to say that with confidence.

 

[Bald1]

Tbh those are hollow words, not really the basis of a culture. I'm not saying there is no distinct American culture but to the extent that there is something you can call American culture its what Huntington mentioned, an Anglo-Protestant culture. Specifically one that has become defined by its unique experience in North America like the culture of the Frontier and the post WWII hegemony. But again even within that there's lots of variation since our culture was defined by dissident Protestantism that was only similar to the extent that they wanted space from orthodox continental Protestantism. Beyond that they could be very different from one another, hence the emergence of the idea of freedom of religion to allow them to create a modus vivendi with one another.

Subconscious jihad, I guess that makes you a subconscious crusader? Well, actually not very subconscious at all it seems in your case, more like open and proud tribalism really.

Ah so basically in Locke's terms you don't think Islam should be included within religious freedom? Yes to atheists and Papists but no to Muslims?

All words are hollow unless you buy into them. I've sat in church not buying whatever they were selling while those same words tied others together into a single entity.

As for your last paragraph? If a freedom leads to others freedoms being eroded how do you deal with it? Islam has a long track record of imposing its will, on its membership as well as others, so what sorts of safeguards can be put in place when tolerance leads to the intolerant having their way?

You've tried this line of argumentation with me before and I'll reply much the same way. A freedom of religion clause is a misguided pie in the sky idea without an equally robust freedom from religion stipulation. The rioting in Sweden over the burning of books is a perfect illustration of this. If you're so married to your ideas that you can't tolerate other viewpoints you don't belong in a free society. Full stop.

Religion is an idea, after all, and there are all sorts of terrible ideas out there along with good ones. Texts be damned, implementation and behaviour of adherents are what matters.

And no, not all, not even most Muslims, but more willing and active than other religious folks.