User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 105

Thread: Consideration

  1. #1
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default Consideration

    Okay this is coming up in discussion more and more where I am and I'm interested in getting a wider sample of opinion and experience.

    Right now in Britain there is a shift towards the BNP. A political party who's motto of "Britain First" seems far too easily twisted to a racist set of policies. In fact I think of them as the British version of the KKK. A less active history (I think) and less overt but no less racist in their views.
    The thing is, is that I can see some of their views as correct and have recently found myself defending them to the more "liberal" thinkers (read people with the opposite bias) and attacking their extremes with those who support them.

    Now I'm not really interested in a fight over how racist or not racist certain points of view are. Such circular thinking has only ended up in the current stalemate and under such it seems the extremes are getting more support.

    What I am interested in is what level of such "racism" is a sensible guard.
    Sounds like a backdoor to full racist views? Well if you have no control on immigrants, assylum seekers and such then you may very well end up with large problems. Of course the market should hold up as there would be as sharp an increase in demand as there would be an influx of people so it should keep the job situation fairly stables (other factors supporting that is) and ther is no race, creed or colour of people that are lazy good for nothing lay abouts. We are all equal (ish).

    So at present there is this "agreement" in Europe that assylum seekers are supposed to stop in the first safe country, doesn't happen. Apparently the thinking is that places like France will send them back and so they will skip coutries and come to good old blighty cause we won't turn them away. Some see this as noble and others as foolish.

    There is a brilliant piece of propaganda work going on in Britain too where every immigrant who gets a shiny car and a new house is splashed across the news like the Queen had been assassinated but those cases where they live in squallar or are turned back seem to disappear in the news of Beckhams latest perfume choice.

    So whilst politicians either make a career on immigration and assylum seekers, most treat it like boils. Something you don't talk about unless you really have to and then you are awkward and speak in hushed tones and carefully chosen words.

    Anyhow before that gets all too embroiled in detail (yawn), an example. Possibly a contentious one but one I reckon gets to the underlying issues that people stomp around.

    Say you have a beautiful city centre. It has won awards for it's wonderful choice of structures and good use of green spaces. Now you have an increasing population who wish to have a Mosque built. The design they want is like white stone with a golden roof (okay so it's a stereotype but I'm not particularly knowledgable on Mosque designs). Now if this was a new lesiure centre you'd just tell them no (barring backhanders) but this is now a minority you are dealing with and it's religion. You may be told that in their country all Mosques have a traditional design and so it must be of this design. That's fine... as a starting point but what about 'this is not that country, this is not that style of city and you will make the design more in keeping with the surroundings or you will not get planning permission"?

    According to one person I argued this with such an approach is uncompromising and unfair as we should allow people to keep their traditions. To some extent I agree but also I see the impact of this. If all incoming traditions are allowed virtually unhindered then what happens to the present tradition? It is changed. What about the incoming tradition? Should that not flex? If so then by how much? Why do people seem to skim over such things?

    I did suggest, in a rather technical discussion about proportional representation, that it would be good if the BNP get representation in the Houses of Parliment. I'd reckon that many of the BNP votes are protest votes designed to highlight issues. If these people could see that having an effect then they may not feel the need to protest again. Also say you have a 3-4% presence of BNP in the government. In all the really important issues you've got 96-97% ther who are members of the more middle ground parties so the BNP will not be able to steam roller some racist law into effect as some panicing people think. Also on the contentious issues like say Mosque design, you will have some people who are seemingly not afraid to represent those who resent such new and foreign things sprouting in their city and who don't want them and be damned to being hospitable!

    Personally I think that the doormat of Britain needs to have 'Welcome' written in slightly smaller letters. If that means listening to those who'd rather it read 'Closed' then so be it. Better that than continue without ever facing the questions of who should you look after first and foremost and what degree of 'Me casa et su casa" we should employ. I'm sure that even the most liberal of people would object if I, upon visiting their home, set myself up an upside down cross and started to sacrifice a goat then and there no matter how neat I was about it!

    Perhaps it is a case of 'Not In My Back Yard' (aka NIMBY)?

    Regardless of what people think to such people who think that immigrants are a curse, they do exist and they do get a vote. To try and ignore such a proportion of the community seems folly. It's almost like we're engaged in some international popularity contest or something. We shouldn't ignore these people but neither should we become Jingoistic.

    Thoughts?

    (Oh and the thinking here may be patchy. I'm very tired. Please ask for clarification if certain sections make no sense. Ta.)

    [PS. Sorry for the long post Mom. Hope it was worth it ]
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  2. #2
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Seeing as it's a slow day and that is quite a hectic post to start off with let me clarifiy a little.

    Firstly I'm not advocating racism per se. The ideas may well be sparked off from those who are racist but it's more that I'm seeing real and reasonable fears and concerns in their words. Things worthy of address. Plus I can see positive discrimination in several places.

    Secondly it would appear that many regard statistics their bible on these kinda of things (an appeal to an authority?) but as we know statistics can be used to prove or disprove practically any angle you like depending upon how you read them and what you set out to find when you collected the data.

    Thirdly the issues are wider and more complex (and probably subtle) than presented here but if I went into every nuance then I'd be here for ever and I'd then get the whole thing picked apart by "experts".


    Anyhow thought I'd clear that up before anyone posted as I re-read the OP and thought it sounded a little too much like waiving the BNP flag timidly. Hopefully this adjusts that.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  3. #3
    Senior Member INTJMom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    5,350

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    Okay this is coming up in discussion more and more where I am and I'm interested in getting a wider sample of opinion and experience.

    Right now in Britain there is a shift towards the BNP. A political party who's motto of "Britain First" seems far too easily twisted to a racist set of policies. In fact I think of them as the British version of the KKK. A less active history (I think) and less overt but no less racist in their views.
    The thing is, is that I can see some of their views as correct and have recently found myself defending them to the more "liberal" thinkers (read people with the opposite bias) and attacking their extremes with those who support them.

    Now I'm not really interested in a fight over how racist or not racist certain points of view are. Such circular thinking has only ended up in the current stalemate and under such it seems the extremes are getting more support.

    What I am interested in is what level of such "racism" is a sensible guard.
    Sounds like a backdoor to full racist views? Well if you have no control on immigrants, assylum seekers and such then you may very well end up with large problems. Of course the market should hold up as there would be as sharp an increase in demand as there would be an influx of people so it should keep the job situation fairly stables (other factors supporting that is) and ther is no race, creed or colour of people that are lazy good for nothing lay abouts. We are all equal (ish).

    So at present there is this "agreement" in Europe that assylum seekers are supposed to stop in the first safe country, doesn't happen. Apparently the thinking is that places like France will send them back and so they will skip coutries and come to good old blighty cause we won't turn them away. Some see this as noble and others as foolish.

    There is a brilliant piece of propaganda work going on in Britain too where every immigrant who gets a shiny car and a new house is splashed across the news like the Queen had been assassinated but those cases where they live in squallar or are turned back seem to disappear in the news of Beckhams latest perfume choice.

    So whilst politicians either make a career on immigration and assylum seekers, most treat it like boils. Something you don't talk about unless you really have to and then you are awkward and speak in hushed tones and carefully chosen words.

    Anyhow before that gets all too embroiled in detail (yawn), an example. Possibly a contentious one but one I reckon gets to the underlying issues that people stomp around.

    Say you have a beautiful city centre. It has won awards for it's wonderful choice of structures and good use of green spaces. Now you have an increasing population who wish to have a Mosque built. The design they want is like white stone with a golden roof (okay so it's a stereotype but I'm not particularly knowledgable on Mosque designs). Now if this was a new lesiure centre you'd just tell them no (barring backhanders) but this is now a minority you are dealing with and it's religion. You may be told that in their country all Mosques have a traditional design and so it must be of this design. That's fine... as a starting point but what about 'this is not that country, this is not that style of city and you will make the design more in keeping with the surroundings or you will not get planning permission"?

    According to one person I argued this with such an approach is uncompromising and unfair as we should allow people to keep their traditions. To some extent I agree but also I see the impact of this. If all incoming traditions are allowed virtually unhindered then what happens to the present tradition? It is changed. What about the incoming tradition? Should that not flex? If so then by how much? Why do people seem to skim over such things?

    I did suggest, in a rather technical discussion about proportional representation, that it would be good if the BNP get representation in the Houses of Parliment. I'd reckon that many of the BNP votes are protest votes designed to highlight issues. If these people could see that having an effect then they may not feel the need to protest again. Also say you have a 3-4% presence of BNP in the government. In all the really important issues you've got 96-97% ther who are members of the more middle ground parties so the BNP will not be able to steam roller some racist law into effect as some panicing people think. Also on the contentious issues like say Mosque design, you will have some people who are seemingly not afraid to represent those who resent such new and foreign things sprouting in their city and who don't want them and be damned to being hospitable!

    Personally I think that the doormat of Britain needs to have 'Welcome' written in slightly smaller letters. If that means listening to those who'd rather it read 'Closed' then so be it. Better that than continue without ever facing the questions of who should you look after first and foremost and what degree of 'Me casa et su casa" we should employ. I'm sure that even the most liberal of people would object if I, upon visiting their home, set myself up an upside down cross and started to sacrifice a goat then and there no matter how neat I was about it!

    Perhaps it is a case of 'Not In My Back Yard' (aka NIMBY)?

    Regardless of what people think to such people who think that immigrants are a curse, they do exist and they do get a vote. To try and ignore such a proportion of the community seems folly. It's almost like we're engaged in some international popularity contest or something. We shouldn't ignore these people but neither should we become Jingoistic.

    Thoughts?

    (Oh and the thinking here may be patchy. I'm very tired. Please ask for clarification if certain sections make no sense. Ta.)

    [PS. Sorry for the long post Mom. Hope it was worth it ]
    We're having the exact same political problem in America.

    I don't have a problem with legal immigrants. America has long been the place where people have come for a better life. When I was a kid, I'm pretty sure there was a numerical limit on how many immigrants we would take in every year. I think this is wise and necessary in the management of any economy.


    I frankly think the illegals should be sent home, or get on the road to becoming legal and paying taxes like the rest of us.

  4. #4
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTJMom View Post
    We're having the exact same political problem in America.

    I don't have a problem with legal immigrants. America has long been the place where people have come for a better life. When I was a kid, I'm pretty sure there was a numerical limit on how many immigrants we would take in every year. I think this is wise and necessary in the management of any economy.


    I frankly think the illegals should be sent home, or get on the road to becoming legal and paying taxes like the rest of us.
    Is that part of the INS? I think we just find the illegals and then lock them up in comparatively nice cells (hell if you've fled a real nasty regeime it'd be no deterant at all!!) until we get bored or decide to do something.

    It seems a shame though that people are more concerned with what small loud minorities say than actually discussing this kind of thing and getting it resolved. I'd imagine it's not as bad in America, you guys tend not to mind shouting at someone, but over here it's like they arrive and no one has the heart to do anything but set them up and welcome them. That's not always the best plan and I reckon it needs some hardline thinking to counteract all the soft and furry thinking.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  5. #5
    Protocol Droid Athenian200's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    8,828

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    It seems a shame though that people are more concerned with what small loud minorities say than actually discussing this kind of thing and getting it resolved. I'd imagine it's not as bad in America, you guys tend not to mind shouting at someone, but over here it's like they arrive and no one has the heart to do anything but set them up and welcome them. That's not always the best plan and I reckon it needs some hardline thinking to counteract all the soft and furry thinking.
    Trust me, it's not much different here either. There aren't many people willing to do anything about illegal immigration here either, some because they don't want to step on anyone's feelings. Although in our case it has less to do with welcoming them, and more to do with large corporations wanting cheaper labor.

  6. #6
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by athenian200 View Post
    Trust me, it's not much different here either. There aren't many people willing to do anything about illegal immigration here either, some because they don't want to step on anyone's feelings. Although in our case it has less to do with welcoming them, and more to do with large corporations wanting cheaper labor.
    So what's the sollution? Do you make your home more inhospitable to other cultures? Do you remove some of the things which act as enticements?

    I think I know why people vote BNP even though I'd not do so myself (mind you me and politicians is often a story fraught with disagreement). It just seems a shame that in the name of being helpful you must be a doormat or your a complete swine.

    Mind you though hasn't Aus got some of the harshest rules on this kind of thing? I don't recall any major backlash about them turning people away.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  7. #7
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    As a Ron Paul supporter, I definitely feel your pain.

  8. #8
    Senior Member INTJMom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    5,350

    Default

    I don't think anybody knows the answers yet.

    Here's a basic law of economics I learned a long time ago.
    If you want more of something, subsidize it.
    If you want less of something, tax it.


    This is usually not the way people think. We usually think, "Oh isn't this horrible, we have all these homeless hungry people, let's provide program money to feed them." (which I don't have anything against)

    But what we don't PREPARE FOR is the avalanche of people who will be attracted to the "free lunch", from other places, and who come and make themselves an ever-increasing burden by virtue of their ever-increasing numbers.

    Somehow we have to keep this in mind as we adjust our laws, to try to stop being taken advantage of, while at the same time, trying to be helpful to the needy.

    I personally think one deterrent to attracting people from other places to come and take advantage of your kindness and generosity is to put in place a waiting period, let's say of one year. If, after you have been here one year, you have not been able to sustain your life, we will help you for a limited time to get up on your feet so you can start walking on your own. That way you don't have people come to you when they have no plan of supporting themselves.

    The last time my family moved, my husband absolutely refused to consider it, unless and until he secured a job first. And rightfully so. Who can live without an income or money set aside? Why should we expect to live off the work of other people's backs?

    I highly respect and admire those immigrants who come here and set up a business of their own - a Chinese restaurant, for example - live together, work together, and support each other.

    One comment on refugees: I live in a place where a large influx of refugees has put a financial burden and stress on the economy, and has caused cultural conflicts.

    I relate to all economies the same way - I relate it to my own family economy. If our family is struggling to make ends meet, pay our bills on time, and is only enjoying the bare essentials of life, it's not likely that anyone would suggest that we take in a refugee family to house and feed, on the other hand, if we are doing financially well, and we have a surplus, it's quite possible that we would consider taking in a refugee family for a short period of time while they seek to establish themselves. Certainly no one would think we should be obligated to support them for the rest of their lives.

    The United States has a limited amount of money for sustaining the needy. It's based on a finite amount of tax money set aside for the purpose. Should we take in more than we can afford to support? No. As everyone the world over can plainly see, the US does not have "deep pockets". We are broke and in debt. Now is not a good time for more refugees, or people who expect to take advantage of the welfare system. Maybe later.

  9. #9
    Lex Parsimoniae Xander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    9w8
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    4,463

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    As a Ron Paul supporter, I definitely feel your pain.
    I'm sorry but I've no idea who that is and the Wikipedia article only took me as far as he's up for stepping out of the international arena. Not sure that's the same strain but I'm assuming I'm missing something.
    Quote Originally Posted by INTJMom View Post
    I don't think anybody knows the answers yet.

    Here's a basic law of economics I learned a long time ago.
    If you want more of something, subsidize it.
    If you want less of something, tax it.


    This is usually not the way people think. We usually think, "Oh isn't this horrible, we have all these homeless hungry people, let's provide program money to feed them." (which I don't have anything against)

    But what we don't PREPARE FOR is the avalanche of people who will be attracted to the "free lunch", from other places, and who come and make themselves an ever-increasing burden by virtue of their ever-increasing numbers.

    Somehow we have to keep this in mind as we adjust our laws, to try to stop being taken advantage of, while at the same time, trying to be helpful to the needy.

    I personally think one deterrent to attracting people from other places to come and take advantage of your kindness and generosity is to put in place a waiting period, let's say of one year. If, after you have been here one year, you have not been able to sustain your life, we will help you for a limited time to get up on your feet so you can start walking on your own. That way you don't have people come to you when they have no plan of supporting themselves.

    The last time my family moved, my husband absolutely refused to consider it, unless and until he secured a job first. And rightfully so. Who can live without an income or money set aside? Why should we expect to live off the work of other people's backs?

    I highly respect and admire those immigrants who come here and set up a business of their own - a Chinese restaurant, for example - live together, work together, and support each other.
    That's not a bad idea. Kinda of like prerequisites like if I wanted to move to the States but without halting those in need from taking the plunge.

    Just a side note but those boldened bits.. Very INTJ
    You humanised it though. What happened to the "and they will be shot" aspect? Sorry my INTJ friend is a staunch conservative and as a rich person advocated limited culling of poor people. He's joking but the whole serious manner in which it's constructed and planned out to the last detail is hilarious.
    Quote Originally Posted by INTJMom View Post
    One comment on refugees: I live in a place where a large influx of refugees has put a financial burden and stress on the economy, and has caused cultural conflicts.

    I relate to all economies the same way - I relate it to my own family economy. If our family is struggling to make ends meet, pay our bills on time, and is only enjoying the bare essentials of life, it's not likely that anyone would suggest that we take in a refugee family to house and feed, on the other hand, if we are doing financially well, and we have a surplus, it's quite possible that we would consider taking in a refugee family for a short period of time while they seek to establish themselves. Certainly no one would think we should be obligated to support them for the rest of their lives.

    The United States has a limited amount of money for sustaining the needy. It's based on a finite amount of tax money set aside for the purpose. Should we take in more than we can afford to support? No. As everyone the world over can plainly see, the US does not have "deep pockets". We are broke and in debt. Now is not a good time for more refugees, or people who expect to take advantage of the welfare system. Maybe later.
    It does seem that the more aid a country gives, the poorer it gets and the more applicants for aid it receives. It's almost like you're holding a two for one sale. Everyone rushes over to you.

    Personally if I had any input in where I ran or moved to it would be based on the support I'd receive though. After all we are all suckers for a free lunch but it does seem that the kitchens are tired of making it and the waiters/ waitresses are tired of serving it up. It could be time for the place to close for a short break.

    I guess the thing that riles me the most is the reported figures of refugees Britain gets. Exactly which country in need do we border? So how do they manage to get through all those other countries to get to us without proper papers and such? It seems there is an agreement to stop refugees at the first safe country, it's just no one is sticking to it and we are in risk of being shafted by it.. well at least that's the perception.

    (I'd just like to say thanks to the whole forum for not jumping on my head about this too. I wanted an adult discussion on it but expected some backlash. Thanks for the nice surprise.)
    Or maybe I spoke to soon? Who knows.
    Isn't it time for a colourful metaphor?

  10. #10
    Senior Member INTJMom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Posts
    5,350

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xander View Post
    ...
    Just a side note but those boldened bits.. Very INTJ
    Yeah? And? Just kidding. It's a good thing INTJs don't run the world.

    You humanised it though. What happened to the "and they will be shot" aspect?
    That was the OLD me.

    Sorry my INTJ friend is a staunch conservative and as a rich person advocated limited culling of poor people. He's joking but the whole serious manner in which it's constructed and planned out to the last detail is hilarious.
    One can hardly blame him.

    It does seem that the more aid a country gives, the poorer it gets and the more applicants for aid it receives. It's almost like you're holding a two for one sale. Everyone rushes over to you.
    Exactly.

    Personally if I had any input in where I ran or moved to it would be based on the support I'd receive though. After all we are all suckers for a free lunch but it does seem that the kitchens are tired of making it and the waiters/ waitresses are tired of serving it up. It could be time for the place to close for a short break.
    That's what I'M thinking.

    I guess the thing that riles me the most is the reported figures of refugees Britain gets. Exactly which country in need do we border? So how do they manage to get through all those other countries to get to us without proper papers and such? It seems there is an agreement to stop refugees at the first safe country, it's just no one is sticking to it and we are in risk of being shafted by it.. well at least that's the perception.
    It does make you wonder.

Similar Threads

  1. How Considerate Are You?
    By INTerran in forum Intertype Relations
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 11-05-2017, 06:49 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO