The Real Value of Multiculturalism

It is ironic how much those who advocate multiculturalism and acceptance of foreign cultures in the West would also be appalled were they to go to Mumbai and see a Wal-Mart. This gives them away. They are not so attracted to multiculturalism as they are repulsed by the dominant culture in which they were raised. The word "multiculturalism" gives the impression that its proponents advocate the free mixing of various cultural elements -- that the more different kinds of culture there are in one place, the better. In practice, however, they seem more interested in diluting the Western culture that they see as vapid.

Westerners bored and disillusioned with the superficiality of Western culture. They see depth and meaning in most other cultures. Sometimes it's really there. It's not hard for a culture to have more meaning than Western culture does. But a lot of the time it's just a different kind of superficiality. And whenever they do spot that superficiality, they blame it on Western influence.

Ironically enough, multiculturalism is a predominantly Western value. Slavoj Zizek once pointed out that one of Western civilization's greatest achievements was to question the value of Western culture. You don't hear about movements in non-Western civilizations to be tolerant of immigrants and the cultural practices they import. There may be the occasional marginalized activist, but not movements as large as what you see in the West.

Western multiculturalism occasionally goes in unhealthy directions, giving undue deference to alien traditions merely because they are alien. Cosmopolitanism is great when it helps us realize where our own culture can improve, but is foolish when it compounds unhealthy practices onto other unhealthy practices, degrading all cultures involved.

Fluff

Quite regularly I go online looking for something interesting. Often I have nothing specific in mind, but I guess I'm mainly looking for something to excite me. I'm not looking for something to entertain me. I'm looking for something about which I can form an opinion, or better yet, make me want to learn more about something, or create something in response. These things I rarely find.

There are lots of things to complain about, but complaining doesn't feel particularly productive. Like what I'm doing now. This isn't filling me with much of a feeling of accomplishment.

Picking a Culture

I heard someone once ask, “Why would you limit yourself to one culture, to identify with that solely and exclude all other cultural influences?” The fact that value has a lot to do with exclusivity aside, picking just one and sticking to it relieves you of the burden of having to pick any others. One does not have to choose between cultural practices and traditions when one adopts a particular lifestyle. One can devote oneself exclusively to the traditions and rituals of the chosen culture. Now this is seen by contemporary liberals as kind of icky, because so many people have historically been forced to conform to a particular cultural tradition when a mix and match approach of various cultural elements is what is best for them. There are still many people, however, who identify with one monolithic cultural canon and wish to stick with it. Often these people are simply ignorant of what other cultures have to offer, but there do exist people who devote themselves to one culture because they identify with it more than they do any other set of practices, rather than because they don't know any better.

Palin's Prospects

I have long been hoping that Sarah Palin will not only run for the Republican nomination in the next presidential election, but also that she'll succeed. I have also been quite sceptical of her prospects. Given that she has the far more coherent and far less annoying Mitt Romney running against her, I've always assumed that her prospects were dim. However, given that Obama, and people at the Cato Institute are pointing out how extremely similar Obama's health care reform bill was to Romney's own health care program in Massachusetts, and given that those on the right seem to be looking for someone who is entirely opposed to Obamacare, Romney will be severely handicapped.

On the other hand, Ron Paul has been getting increasingly impressive poll numbers. Either way, if either a retard like Palin, or a crackpot like Ron Paul get elected, it will mean the end of the Republican Party for quite some time. Hopefully, if Ron Paul gets elected, he'll at least legalize weed.

Well...

It's been a while since I posted. I haven't run out of things to say, but my mind always seems to go blank whenever I sit to write something. It's the intimidation of having to make it all coherent. I have lots of thoughts, but they're often disjointed and it's always a chore trying to get them to come together into something readable.

Veritas48

This is a Christian apologist on youtube who tries to make some logical sense and seems to actually understand a lot of the arguments made against believing in god.

In this video, and the other in the series of videos, however, he seems to be doing something kinda sneaky.


He began the project trying to remove what he calls "negative atheists" from the debate. These are people who do not affirm the non-existence of god, but are nonetheless not convinced of the existence of god. In removing them, he eliminates the burden of justifying belief in god, and then focuses on taking on the "positive atheists" who affirm the non-existence of god. Positive atheists are a much softer target because they onus proof can be turned on them, and they have the very difficult task of proving a negative.

I think he's doing away with negative atheists a little too easily. Because they are not stating a position about the existence of god, he says, negative atheism is "not justified" because it is a "non-view". The first problem I have with this statement is the notion that you have to justify a non-view. If you must abandon non-views because you can't justify them, then nobody could ever be on the fence about anything. A person, when given a proposition, must either affirm or deny it according to this view. Nobody is ever justified in saying they are not convinced one way or another. I think this is pretty clearly problematic. As a negative atheist, this means that I either have to adopt positive atheism, a position that I think is impossible to prove, or I must accept the arguments and evidence for theism that I do not find convincing. This seems to me to be clearly unreasonable.

Now I can understand why he wants to do this. When engaging in what is ostensibly a debate about the existence of god, from his point of view what it looks like the negative atheist is doing is simply throwing up his hands and saying "well, I'm not convinced, therefore I win". This is understandably frustrating.

In order to avoid this, both the negative atheist and the theist have to realize that what is really being debated is not the existence of god, but rather the question of what constitutes legitimate grounds for being convinced there is a god. This is a subject that perhaps has not gotten the attention it deserves.

A popular epistemological stance of negative atheists is naturalism. Epistemological naturalists are convinced of things observable and measurable in nature and, because they are not able to grasp anything about entities outside of nature, (that is, supernatural things) they can have no belief one way or the other regarding the existence or nature of those things. And I think what Veritas expects of the negative atheist is an explanation of why things outside of that which is observable and measurable in nature are unworthy of belief. Or at least why, if we can have no knowledge of the supernatural, as the the naturalist believes, we should go through life under the assumption that there is nothing there. As I believe he pointed out, negative atheists, while not being convinced one way or another, most often operate under the assumption that there is no god.

Now I can't speak for all negative atheists, but the reason why I personally limit my beliefs to that which is observable in nature is largely pragmatic. When I try to apply beliefs that I can test to practical circumstances, they have a pretty good track record of giving me reliable results. When I try to apply beliefs that I have not tested, or have no way to test, the results are most often quite unreliable. Now there are plenty of beliefs I hold that I can't test, of course, but they're also beliefs in which I hold little stake because I have no way to practically apply them. I don't know for sure that Socrates existed, but I operate under the assumption that he did because I've been given some evidence and not much, if anything about the way I live my life would change if I were to find out that this belief were false. The existence of god has corollary consequences, especially if the Abrahamic god really exists. These consequences, are, however, untestable, as is the this god's existence. And if Christians want me to believe in something that has practical consequences, those consequences must be demonstrable. Because there are many propositions that are non-demonstrable, many of which are contradictory, not all of them can be adopted. How are we to decide which propositions are the correct ones if the only means of judging correctness that has shown to be reliable, that of observation and experimentation, cannot establish their truth?

Anarchists

There are a lot of hardcore anarchist types out there, but the most irritating have to be the anarcho-capitalists. These guys believe that you can have a functioning economic system without a state to guard people's private property and enforce contracts. Let's assume for a moment that you could. This kind of community is one in which, if you hit hard times, say you end up in a wheelchair, or are otherwise disabled and cannot work, or there is a structural level of unemployment and there is simply no work for you to do, and if you can't find anybody willing to help you out of the kindness of their hearts, you're basically fucked. There's nowhere for you to turn.

Now the anti-statist will say something like, "well if you can't work, and nobody wants to support you, what right do you have to burden the wealthy and productive?" Well, none. But I'm definitely glad I live in a country that is willing to support me if I happen to ever become so unfortunate, and I will support any government that ensures that, at least in the most extreme cases, there's always a safety net.

Now I'm not some hard core leftist that believes that taking from the rich is or should be the solution to the problems of the poor, and I think it should be harder to get welfare than it currently is, but I would still prefer to live in a country in which people who may happen to have had some really bad luck have some to fall back on.

Those who believe all taxation is theft find the idea of taking even the smallest amount from the wealthy and productive, in order to help those who are not able to be as productive absolutely unconscionable. They are sickened by the idea. People this far right basically want to be freed from any responsibility for anyone but themselves.