[noemon]

I don't recall any "whining" though I will say that "labeling" in that manner is counterproductive. I am saying that we shouldn't define those who are ethnically brits as British citizens at all. The social contract's multicultural implications are the root cause of these problems, that is what I am arguing. Sure. If you were not referring to my advancing the policy of proportional enforcement based on demographics, then you should not have made this response to that point.

You have not just argued for "racial profiling" that is just one of the arguments you have made, instead you have tried right from the beginning to argue for the separation of British citizens based on their religion. Just because you have used different argumentative tactics to reach to the same conclusion it does not mean that I have not been calling you out on the very same thing right from the beginning. I find it hilarious though that after spending numerous words trying to justify the removal of the Muslim demographic from society you are now reducing yourself down to merely arguing for 'racial profiling' alone.

I only admitted that if you insist on narrowing the scope of acceptable criteria to only those immediate circumstances pertaining to a single month's crime-rate fluctuation, that you are narrowing the scope too much to allow for anything but speculation.

In fact, one month is not even enough to time to prove that your own posited theory of reducing "stop-and-search" as the answer, that could only be confirmed after a prolong study involving multiple months and even years.

The problem is not the evidence I am giving, but the evidence which are allowing for in the conversation. You are limiting the scope of what is relevant to the point of making almost everything irrelevant.

You are not making any sense whatsoever. What one month? What narrowing are you even talking about?

The question is why have knife-attacks increased so much? The only thing you said was "Muslims" and when pressed you said "because Muslims make up 15% of the inmate population between 2001-2012". Neither of which provides any kind of explanation in any manner as to why knife-attacks have increased in these levels during the past years. Now you are whining again for a supposed imaginary censorship against data that have allegedly been dismissed

In the BBC article I linked there are various graphs:



All in all you have tried to frame Muslims as responsible for the increase in crime without any kind of data to support your argument but this speculation has not prevented you from arguing that Muslims should not be citizens at all and at the same time complaining that what you are arguing for is not racial discrimination(what is it?) and that you have been prevented from presenting data as well. All in all, supposedly you are a victim here.

My point is, that if you believe, for instance, that the country should be ruled under an Eastern Orthodox theocracy, the criteria for citizenship would be different and would likely preclude Muslims. Is that racism? I don't think so, that seems to be a legit question regarding the forms of government and their criteria of what defines a citizen.

Of course it is racism. It is discrimination based on ethnic identity.

If a communist regime bans Christians is that racist? No, not when you consider their reasons (which are still wrong).

It depends.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Question for you. Do you think the US has a multiculturalism problem?

Depends on where you are at in the United States, like anywhere else.

In a very general sense (and thus a more inaccurate sense), I would have to say yes, only because the social contract system of public-owned governance seeks to expand its voter based overtime, thus, mono-cultural societies that have public-owned governance will become multi-cultural overtime out of necessity.

Is multiculturalism a problem, as in a negative thing? That depends on how you define it in relation to other terms such as integration, assimilation, etc.

I am in favor of voluntary cosmopolitanism, especially in international trading centers, I think that can be a wonderful thing, I am opposed free-immigration against the wishes of property holders, but that cannot be solved unless you have an absolute private property society (anarcho-capitalism) or a privately owned government (like a monarchy).

Multiculturalism, as originating under the welfare state (as a means of perpetuating it) creates ghettos, community divisions by demographic, racial tensions, and higher crime rates, along with extreme political factions acting on identitarian interests.

Cosmopolitanism, as free and voluntary association, not based on political policy, is entirely fine with me.

[noir]

It's daily event

[Victoribus Spolia]

What one month? What narrowing are you even talking about?

The article in the OP, which is what I thought this thread was about, discusses a surge in the knife rate from Feb-March 2018.

This is only one month. That is where I got it from.

Whether or not the knife-crime rate will remain higher than NYC for the entire year of 2018 is not something we cannot know at this time, which is why this is all quite hypothetical. A one month flux can hardly be said to be indicative of a trend at this time. There is simply not enough information going forward.

I already addressed your "stop-and-search" theory for what it was.....dealing with symptoms and not underlying causes with regard to crime.

Of course it is racism. It is discrimination based on ethnic identity.

Actually, its discrimination based on religious identity...but whatever.

So all Christian nationalists or theocrats are ipso facto racist because they believe a christian nation should have citizens who are defined by their membership to the Christian faith?

Wouldn't that also mean that the churches themselves are racist, by definition, for not allowing muslims to be members?

You can't be a Muslim and an Orthodox Christian simultaneously, and so for a church to discriminate against Muslims, on the basis of being Muslims (and not Orthodox), according to your argument, would make all historic churches that have such a criteria for membership.....racist.

[noemon]

The article in the OP, which is what I thought this thread was about, discusses a surge in the knife rate from Feb-March 2018.
This is only one month. That is where I got it from.
Whether or not the knife-crime rate will remain higher than NYC for the entire year of 2018 is not something we cannot know at this time, which is why this is all quite hypothetical. A one month flux can hardly be said to be indicative of a trend at this time. There is simply not enough information going forward.

The rise in knife-attacks observed in the graph started in 2015, do you have any evidence that Muslims are responsible for the rise in knife-attacks between 2015-2018?

Actually, its discrimination based on religious identity...but whatever.

No it is not:

So all Christian nationalists or theocrats are ipso facto racist because they believe a christian nation should have citizens who are defined by their membership to the Christian faith?

It depends on a lot of things which are beyond the scope of this thread, the relevant thing here is: Are you arguing that the imaginary Muslim criminals who are allegedly responsible for these knife-attacks would become non-criminals if they proclaimed Jesus as their saviour? Are you saying that you would accept unlimited immigrants as long as they swore to the Bible instead of the US Constitution? Is that what you are claiming now?

Wouldn't that also mean that the churches themselves are racist, by definition, for not allowing muslims to be members?
You can't be a Muslim and an Orthodox Christian simultaneously, and so for a church to discriminate against Muslims, on the basis of being Muslims (and not Orthodox), according to your argument, would make all historic churches that have such a criteria for membership.....racist.

First of all the UN definition of racism/racial discrimination is not my argument. It is the globally accepted definition of the word itself along with the definition that you signed up to when you joined the forum and were instructed of its Rules. Do not pretend that a definition is an argument. That is the equivalent of trying to argue the definition of the term "door" and "automobile". Second, once again it depends on the context and circumstances, Churches and religious institutions can indeed be racist and they often times are so, but we will not be giving anyone and everyone here a damnation or a blank cheque.

[Pants-of-dog]

@Rancid

Are you asking both of us?

[Victoribus Spolia]

The rise in knife-attacks observed in the graph started in 2015, do you have any evidence that Muslims are responsible for the rise in knife-attacks between 2015-2018?

"responsible" is a tricky word isn't it? I don't think any demographic is solely responsible for any category of crime, and I never said otherwise.

It depends on a lot of things which are beyond the scope if this thread

Well then, perhaps there is no point going forward, because these are the sort of nuances I think are important to tackling an issue that doesn't have simple solutions.

Are you arguing that the imaginary Muslim criminals who are allegedly responsible for these knife-attacks would become non-criminals if they proclaimed Jesus as their saviour? Are you saying that you would accept unlimited immigrants as long as the swore in the Bible instead of the US Constitution? Is that what you are claiming now?

I brought up a theocracy only as an example of a non-social contract form of government, you still said it was racist.

This example, as an illustration, does not represent my personal position, just an example of a definition of nation and government that defines its citizenry in a certain way that excludes others by nature-of-the-definition. Hence, depending on how you define a citizen, exclusion of some may obtain. This is why some extreme types say there should be only free and unmitigated immigration, because all exclusion of anyone from citizenry is by definition, racist.

Your own use of terms seems close to this radical proposition.

Do not pretend that a definition is an argument.

No, but they are important in the context of discussing the nature of political theory. You cannot discuss differing definitions of citizenship (which is surely within the scope of a political forum) without discussing varying degrees of exclusion. That is a logical necessity. If you define a nation based on religious criteria, it will exclude some. If you define a nation based on ethnic criteria, you will exclude some, if you define citizenship based on ideological commitment, you will exclude some, if you define citizenship based on being within a certain geographic context, you will exclude some.

I don't believe in government, so I don't believe in any of these notions, personally. I am only talking about hypothetical scenarios and their individual merits as applied to the topic of the OP.

That is all.

If this is not of interest to you, just say so, and I will post elsewhere and leave it be.

[noemon]

I brought up a theocracy only as an example of a non-social contract form of government, you still said it was racist.

This example, as an illustration, does not represent my personal position, just an example of a definition of nation and government that defines its citizenry in a certain way that excludes others by nature-of-the-definition. Hence, depending on how you define a citizen, exclusion of some may obtain. This is why some extreme types say there should be only free and unmitigated immigration, because all exclusion of anyone from citizenry is by definition, racist.

Your own use of terms seems close to this radical proposition.

You have not answered my question and my question perfectly illustrates the difference between ethnic(or ethno-religious) and religious identity. They are worlds apart, you do not want Muslims removed from society because they believe in a different god but because you do not want them as an ethnic demographic within your community, them swearing allegiance to Jesus would still not make them acceptable in your community and that is why you refuse to say so, so you should stop pretending that you are not arguing a racial discrimination/racism but merely religious identity. If you want to tell everyone here that you will accept unlimited Muslims as long as they swear allegiance to Jesus instead of the US constitution then be my guest and say so. But as long as you are arguing that they must be excluded from society based on their ethnic identity, then you are in fact engaging in racism as defined both by the UN and our forum rules.

If this is not of interest to you, just say so, and I will post elsewhere and leave it be.

My interest is to know what we are talking about so that both yourself and others understand the limits of nuance especially on this important topic. If you are asking for permission to turn this thread about your ideal Theocratic Government, then you should know the answer yourself.

[Rancid]

@Rancid

Are you asking both of us?

No, I was asking @Victoribus Spolia.

If you want to answer the question too, feel free though.

[Victoribus Spolia]

You have not answered my question and my question perfectly illustrates the difference between ethnic(or ethno-religious) and religious identity. They are worlds apart, you do not want Muslims removed from society because they believe in a different god but because you do not want them as an ethnic demographic within your community, them swearing allegiance to Jesus would still not make them acceptable in your community and that is why you refuse to say so, so you should stop pretending that you are not arguing a racial discrimination/racism but merely religious identity.

Well technically, I was originally discussing all demographics that commit crimes disproportionately to the native population, not just Muslims, so in that sense its a mixed bag, because the causal solution of defining a citizen in terms of ethno-cultural identity, like certain Slavic countries currently do, would preclude some these groups that are committing a larger share of the crimes.

within your community,

I don't have a "community" I deny that there should be any government so, let me stress for like the tenth time, I am not discussing my own position at all whatsoever.

As an Anarcho-Capitalist, I deny any public property and only believe in the absolute rights of private property owners to determine whoever they want to include or exclude from their own personal property and for any reason they want. Thus, none of these theories being discussed and whether they are or are not racist and whether or not the discussion of them is line with forum rules or not, are irrelevant to my own views. I have not been discussing my own views, only whether other definitions of citizen would preclude issues pertaining to crimes committed disproportionately by certain demographics.

f you want to tell everyone here that you will accept unlimited Muslims as long as they swear allegiance to Jesus instead of the US constitution then be my guest and say so

Well, If I had a choice based on criteria, I would much prefer to have a nation that requires citizens based on allegiance to Christ (irrespective of ethnicity) than allegiance to the godless American constitution (irrespective of ethnicity).

There. that was easy. I said so.

Now what? Am I automatically cleared of any suspicions of racism?

My interest is to know what we are talking about so that both yourself and others understand the limits of nuance especially on this important topic.

Well I think that is a good thing, and since we are not talking about my views, it has nothing to do with my personal beliefs.

But let me just ask point blank.

Is discussing political theories, other than those which assume the social contract, automatically racist and against forum rules? Especially since their definition of what constitutes a citizen or a national is defined by more exclusive criteria?

So, if you believe in, lets say: "Greece for Greeks!" would that make your position not only racist, but one that is against forum rules to hold? (once again, none of these views are my position).

[noemon]

Well, If I had a choice based on criteria, I would much prefer to have a nation that requires citizens based on allegiance to Christ (irrespective of ethnicity) than allegiance to the godless American constitution (irrespective of ethnicity).

There. that was easy. I said so.

Now what? Am I automatically cleared of any suspicions of racism?

Well you can be certain that whatever you say can and will be used against you in the future.
So if you want to it take back while you still can now is your chance. This is indeed not a racist policy in my view.

Is discussing political theories, other than those which assume the social contract, automatically racist and against forum rules? Especially since their definition of what constitutes a citizen or a national is defined by more exclusive criteria?

So, if you believe in, lets say: "Greece for Greeks!" would that make your position not only racist, but one that is against forum rules to hold? (once again, none of these views are my position).

It depends on the context. Shouting that Muslims are the culprits of a crime without any evidence and then calling for the wholesale removal of their citizenship is indeed racist. Discussing ethnic-identity, civic identity and national identity is not against the forum rules of course.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Well you can be certain that whatever you say can and will be used against you in the future.

Nice.

So if you want to it take back while you still can now is your chance. This is indeed not a racist policy in my view.

Take back what? I never advocated my own views on this thread, just discussed how different systems would apply their principles to the problem in question.

and I have just said that, irrespective of ethnicity, I would prefer to admit people on the basis of their allegiance to Jesus Christ, than on their allegiance to the American Constitution. Which you just said was not racist.

So, no harm no foul right?

Shouting that Muslims are the culprits of a crime without any evidence and then calling for the wholesale removal of their citizenship is indeed racist.

Not only do I deny that this was ever what I argued for, it does not reflect my views at all whatsoever. How is that?

Discussing ethnic-identity, civic identity and national identity is not against the forum rules of course.

This has been what I have been discussing the entire time, how we should define citizenship and apply those principles to the problem at hand.

That is all I have ever been arguing for. I tried explaining this several times.

[noemon]

This has been what I have been discussing the entire time, how we should define citizenship and apply those principles to the problem at hand.

That is all I have ever been arguing for. I tried explaining this several times.

Yes I'm sure that talking about aspirin, disease, symptoms, and how Muslims should be removed from the civic body in order to tackle the "disease" instead of the "symptoms" was a discussion about ethnic and national identity.

Anyhoo...

[Albert]

[noir]

Sadiq Khan, has lashed out at the Government and claimed budget cuts could be driving rising violence across the capital.

[noir]

Nigel just used the R word

Could it be that the problem is because the mayor is "Human Rights" lawyer?

[Albert]

Looks like "humanitarian" ideologues messed up things again. What is new?

[noir]

Unabated violence.

[Libertarian353]

@Suntzu There are more Black people in NYC than London. Also London had a history of crime before Blacks was reintroduce in to Britain 17th century.

[Suntzu]

Yep, Blacks make up about 25% of NYC residents and only 12% of London residents. Still, Blacks commit more than half the murders in London.