The failure of Liberalism (Regressive left) to deal with Islam

[AltaGuy]

Originally Posted by nik-

The regressive left concept was coined, and discussed most often, by the left.

Oh, I know that. But the right certainly enjoyed jumping in there with the SJW and "regressive left" slurring. Maybe poll the posters in the thread whether they identify as left or right?

[nik-]

If I'm honest, I don't really read a whole lot of right wing media or see their channels, from what I've seen, they don't really segregate the left or refer to the regressive left ... they're all just blanket "liberals".

SJW is another thing all together.

[Thor]

My biggest question, as a liberal, I am for immigration, freedom of religion.

However, I am not for immigration that ignores rule of law and refuse to accept our enlightenment values to live and make a life in the west.

So how do you support immigration, support for immigrants, when some of them refuse to accept the liberal values of equality, LGBT rights, etc..

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Thor

My biggest question, as a liberal, I am for immigration, freedom of religion.

However, I am not for immigration that ignores rule of law and refuse to accept our enlightenment values to live and make a life in the west.

So how do you support immigration, support for immigrants, when some of them refuse to accept the liberal values of equality, LGBT rights, etc..

As callous as it sounds, it's a buyer's market.

You just don't let those people in. There are plenty of immigrants who want to come here who will celebrate the modern secular state. I don't see how someone can desire to live in a country which has, at its fundamental core values, ideals which are such an anathema to them.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Thor

My biggest question, as a liberal, I am for immigration, freedom of religion.

However, I am not for immigration that ignores rule of law and refuse to accept our enlightenment values to live and make a life in the west.

So how do you support immigration, support for immigrants, when some of them refuse to accept the liberal values of equality, LGBT rights, etc..

I much prefer Canada's approach, Thor. Persons immigrating to Canada only need to conform to our laws (aka, some of the violent religious acts etc), the same laws that everyone has to abide by (or face the consequences).

I'm strongly against trying to strong arm people into accepting their new cultural norms. As an immigrant you're free to come to Canada and think and support whatever the hell you want, just like any other Canadian.

Then the hope is that Canada's progressive society starts rubbing off on immigrants from more conservative countries and religions, which in my experience, it does to varying degrees. I believe this is something that Canada has done well with.

I know it's very unfortunate that some citizens will suffer from backwards views from their own families/communities after immigrating to a new, more progressive families. But I just see that as a role of society itself to be accepting and make new immigrants look around and go "wow, you know what? We're Canadian now and a lot of our beliefs and values are mega out of place here, and Canadian culture is so accepting and warm, let's be more like that".

[Thor]

We have in Iceland, a Muslim community of about 800 people, our humanist group has supported them in many things, and to this point not one of them has suggested we need sharia family counsels, or that they should not support Icelandic laws because of belief.

[jayswin]

I have nothing not anecdotal to back up my beliefs but I do think society itself being very enticing for new immigrants, to the point where they want to be a part of it or just naturally shift that way, is better than "we need to stop them from refusing to accept the liberal values of equality, LGBT rights or else shove their new values that they need to accept down their throats until they conform".

That's the type of stuff that gets people's backs up, gets them defensive and leads to more disdain for western culture.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Thor

We have in Iceland, a Muslim community of about 800 people, our humanist group has supported them in many things, and to this point not one of them has suggested we need sharia family counsels, or that they should not support Icelandic laws because of belief.

Originally Posted by Thor

My biggest question, as a liberal, I am for immigration, freedom of religion.

However, I am not for immigration that ignores rule of law and refuse to accept our enlightenment values to live and make a life in the west.

So how do you support immigration, support for immigrants, when some of them refuse to accept the liberal values of equality, LGBT rights, etc..

I guess I'm slightly confused by your point then (and that very well could be my fault as I was skimming before posting). In your original post quoted above you asked how you can be supportive of immigration when they don't conform to local laws and social norms.

Which - and this is where I might have you wrong - seems you want them to follow social norms and progressive beliefs as well as laws? And I was just stating that a country should only expect new immigrants to follow a country's laws, nothing more. Everything beyond that you just HOPE that they start conforming and accepting the same beliefs we do.

The bolded was the sticking point for me.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by jayswin

I guess I'm slightly confused by your point then (and that very well could be my fault as I was skimming before posting). In your original post quoted above you asked how you can be supportive of immigration when they don't conform to local laws and social norms.

Which - and this is where I might have you wrong - seems you want them to follow social norms and progressive beliefs as well as laws? And I was just stating that a country should only expect new immigrants to follow a country's laws, nothing more. Everything beyond that you just HOPE that they start conforming and accepting the same beliefs we do.

The bolded was the sticking point for me.

Would you support allowing KKK members to immigrate to Canada or Nazi party members? I'm genuinely curious as you've cut a pretty wide net with your statement.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by jayswin

I guess I'm slightly confused by your point then (and that very well could be my fault as I was skimming before posting). In your original post quoted above you asked how you can be supportive of immigration when they don't conform to local laws and social norms.

Which - and this is where I might have you wrong - seems you want them to follow social norms and progressive beliefs as well as laws? And I was just stating that a country should only expect new immigrants to follow a country's laws, nothing more. Everything beyond that you just HOPE that they start conforming and accepting the same beliefs we do.

The bolded was the sticking point for me.

I think we see a lot of things eye to eye, but an example of where I have issue with immigrants not adapting to society came up during the Vancouver Olympics. It was an eastern country that wanted O Canada at the opening ceremonies to be sung (partly) in their language (Hindi I believe). Now that's a sticking point for me. My parents didn't come here as immigrants making demands that their language should be represented as an official language.

[2Stonedbirds]

^^^ Be prepared to hear about First Nations.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Would you support allowing KKK members to immigrate to Canada or Nazi party members? I'm genuinely curious as you've cut a pretty wide net with your statement.

Damnit CaramonLS, don't make me rethink things I've posted!

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

^^^ Be prepared to hear about First Nations.

They have more of a claim to make than any other visible minority, especially this vocal group. Our national languages are French and English, no others no exceptions. Without those influences (originally) we wouldn't live in the great place we do.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by jayswin

I guess I'm slightly confused by your point then (and that very well could be my fault as I was skimming before posting). In your original post quoted above you asked how you can be supportive of immigration when they don't conform to local laws and social norms.

Because most immigrants move to find a better place to live for their family. I speak from experience, as my own family moved to Canada from Iceland in the early 80s.

Which - and this is where I might have you wrong - seems you want them to follow social norms and progressive beliefs as well as laws? And I was just stating that a country should only expect new immigrants to follow a country's laws, nothing more. Everything beyond that you just HOPE that they start conforming and accepting the same beliefs we do.

I don't care about personal religious beliefs, we have hindu's, we have all kinds of religious Canadians, none of them have wanted to set up family "courts" to deal with marriage, and other issues which our government and laws clearly deal with.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by PaperBagger'14

They have more of a claim to make than any other visible minority, especially this vocal group. Our national languages are French and English, no others no exceptions. Without those influences (originally) we wouldn't live in the great place we do.

Totally agree.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thor

Because most immigrants move to find a better place to live for their family. I speak from experience, as my own family moved to Canada from Iceland in the early 80s.



I don't care about personal religious beliefs, we have hindu's, we have all kinds of religious Canadians, none of them have wanted to set up family "courts" to deal with marriage, and other issues which our government and laws clearly deal with.

Well you do, which is fine.

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by peter12

Well you do, which is fine.

I'm curious as to what part of Thor's quote this is in reference to?

[blankall]

Left wing philosophy relies on people being good and doing what's right. It doesn't really have a mechanism to desk with people taking advantage of the system. It applies to welfare, immigration, social services, etc...

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Would you support allowing KKK members to immigrate to Canada or Nazi party members? I'm genuinely curious as you've cut a pretty wide net with your statement.

The reality is we are quite happy to let KKK or nazis in as long as they are reasonably discreet about it.
We pretty much apply the same tests to Muslims, if you don't turn up at immigration wrapped in an Isis flag or with an online presence of hate speech your good to go.
If, on the other hand you have a large web or political history of being a whack job, Islamic or KKK you'll probably get screened out.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by blankall

Left wing philosophy relies on people being good and doing what's right. It doesn't really have a mechanism to desk with people taking advantage of the system. It applies to welfare, immigration, social services, etc...

I would argue that if anything the exact opposite is true.

I'm going to paint a couple of exaggerated pictures to make the point clear.

Right wing philosophy assumes that people are generally good enough that everyone in the society that really needs and deserves help will get help, simply because so many people are Good Christians or equivalent. Right wing politicians generally promote carte blance style rights for the police and government agencies and opposes oversight of such institutions, with the ridiculously naïve assumption that they will not abuse or misuse those powers. (Despite the mountains of proof that people absolutely always will abuse their power over other people if there is no oversight.) They oppose inspections and oversight committees because they assume they'll just get in the way of honest business and people just trying to do their jobs. They don't want to fund councelors and guides because people have parents to do that stuff, and anyway normal people are perfectly capable of thinking for themselves. All this is to me extremely naïve.

Left wing philosophy assumes that you can't trust people to take care of anything that's not written down, be it a road, a river, a sick child, a homeless person... Anything. Every single thing needs to be a law, and anything that is not a law will be ignored by people. Every right a person has needs to be written down because otherwise people will be horrible to other people. Left wing philosophy also strongly believes that just writing something down as a law is not enough, that there is a constant need for oversight committees and independent inspectors to keep a check on people.

Left wing philosophy is also highly cynical about welfare. Essentially, welfare will always be abused to some extent so there's really no point in trying to stop it. It's like trying to stop politicians from lying. Oh, and the left wing is constantly fact-checking everyone who speaks in public, because the assumption is that everybody lies. The right wing is much less interested in fact-checking.

Trying to find welfare abusers is generally not cost-effective, because either there are so many "abusers" that you can't really blame anyone, or so few that the cost of oversight is more than the money potentially saved. The left wing philosophy also generally tends to assume that some people will just never get a job, period. The easiest and most cost-effective way to keep those people out of the way is to just give them enough money that they'll stay home smoking pot (which should be legalized because people are smoking it anyway) and playing video games. Also, left wing social policies tend not to be based on morals, but sociological studies. In other words, they're inherently calculating and immoral, unlike the right wing approach which is often mostly based on morals.

In general, left wing philosophy tends to assume that there's not really a huge difference between people. We're all generally kind of lazy, kind of selfish, prone to break or ignore laws we don't like etc etc. If someone gets a lot of money and power, they probably got it by abusing others and so they're kind of suspicious people. As a result, left wingers are much more prone to be suspicious of authority figures. Yeah, and the left wing also things people need a whole bunch of guidance all the time because they're clueless idiots that panic easily, and that people need to be sheltered with trigger warnings.

Right wing philosophy tends to assume that most people can handle themselves and guidance is only needed for "special" people.

Left wing idols tend to by cynical, sceptical, foulmouthed and even antisocial figures, living unhealthy lives and declaring everyone an a-hole. Stand-up comedians, rock stars, directors of arthouse films about child abuse etc.

Right wing idols tend to be clean-cut, idealistic, fighting for or at least representing the best moral values or greatest achievements of our society, preaching national exceptionalism and so on. Athletes, soldiers, CEO's...

Now, while both views here are obviously caricatures of a really wide spectrum of ideas, I would still argue that if you have to make an argument about which side is the cynical side and which side is the naïve side, IMO it's the right wing that is too naïve, and the left that is too cynical.