Multiracism not Multiculturalism?

[The Architect Of Fate]

I think this is the point Igno is trying to grasp at:



Here's an old post I made a while ago:

In 1945, Karl Popper wrote a book called The Open Society and Its Enemies, about the basic contradiction inherent in tolerance, and this is what he ended up concluding:


In practice, I think there is one important limit to where the line should go: To quote the old adage, "“My right to swing my arm ends where your nose begins.” Admittedly, things have to be judged by several factors (mostly the basis of your concerns and whether or not they're rooted in facts and/or observable reality, and their effects on the world around you) for them to mean anything [especially since the phrase in question seems to have originated in Prohibitionist circles and their definition of where one person's nose begins is kind of nebulous and the effects were/are not all that helpful], but, without taking all that into account, not only tolerance, but ethics in general, just ends up boiling down to the question of "How dare you worry about your selfish desires when you should be worrying about my selfish desires?"

And bear in mind, the reason the cartoonist chose Nazis is not just because of the rise of far-right groups that may or may not have a layer of traditionalism so thin it has to be applied by the static electricity of a squirrel-hair brush to keep them from being obvious Neo-Nazis over the past couple years. Karl Popper published The Open Society and its Enemies in 1945, was Jewish, and had the good fortune to get a position in New Zealand so he could leave Austria in 1937. You can do the math here.

And with the remarks about Islam, well, let me put it simply from what I've noticed in my first 30 years: There are certainly some Muslims whose values are antithetical to the sort of modern values we should be striving for. There are also some Muslims who just want to live in peace and not antagonise people (and of course, some are just dicks and would be the dicks in the exact same way if they were WASPs). And there are also some white people whose values are antithetical to the modern values we should be striving for. And because the values they espouse are usually far less alien to the population at large than the ones those Muslims preach, they're more dangerous because people are actually likely to buy into their bullshit. You can argue Islam is inherently the sort of intolerant ideology that puts it on par with the Nazis, but the problem is that you can argue the exact same thing about Christianity, and odds are, where you live, Christians have far more power, and your local conservative parties (in Australia's case, the National Liberal party) are far more likely to undermine modern values and use Christianity to justify it. If you're not going to put Christianity on that exact level (or even higher), singling out Islam is, to say the least, really fucking dodgy.

And may i add the Extreme right have done an excellent job recently rebranding themselves and their hateful views to try and palatable to the mainstream . Radical Islam has not .