Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To not want to be the minority where I live?

734 replies

Charlottehines · 12/04/2014 09:18

It really saddens me that in parks and soft plays with my children, that I am in the minority and my children can't play with other children there as they all play together and obviously can't speak English.
I'm in no way racist, my husband is of mixed origin but I do find it incredibly sad that my children are growing up the minority especially when these other groups make no effort to integrate with other mums or the children.
Am I completely unreasonable to feel sad about this?

OP posts:
BarbaraTheConeHairian · 17/04/2014 16:58

adoptmama - I wasn't really begging for you to, but perhaps the next time you try to characterise what I said, read it.

"The only reason nobody has brought a case"? What the actual fuck. Way to read animus into what someone is saying at roughly 90 degrees to their point.

Dawndonnaagain · 17/04/2014 16:59

Okay boys, surely you have homework to do?

BarbaraTheConeHairian · 17/04/2014 17:14

It's interesting to see how keen everyone is to chuck pejoratives at each other.

It might be momentarily satisfying to suggest someone is a terrible person for feeling what they feel, but it doesn't solve any problems in the long run and it certainly isn't healthy to bury problems.

MrsDeVere · 17/04/2014 18:07

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

YouTheCat · 17/04/2014 19:10

This is where racism leads: never again

alemci · 17/04/2014 19:19

that's awful, history repeating itself in Russia like the pogroms.

adoptmama · 17/04/2014 20:34

leftwingechochamber No, I havent been provided with a single source that shows that diversity is beneficial to social capital, unless I have missed it. If so, it is a simple matter for you to provide that link again.

No, it is not a 'simple matter for me to provided that link again' because I am not your nurse maid. You were given them at the time, they are referenced. You have been given both direct links and references with the authors names. And not just by me but by other people. Denying it doesn't make it less true. Everyone on this thread - with the exception of some very recently created dual personalities - knows that. Your echochamber repetition of denial is not relevant. Lies never really are.

Your own little Echochamber's not working is it because you simply can't drown out the truth by repeating your nonsense. You are a small minded and clearly rather intellecually myopic person if you think that simply sticking your metaphorical fingers in your ears and saying 'la la la I'm not listening' means you can deny the existance of publicly available research.

That's the point isn't it. It doesn't matter how much you go on, and on and on. All you are doing is drawing more and more attention to the paucity of your intellect and ideas. You are giving me and other posters the opportunity to flag up research article after research article which disproves your racist assertions. Thanks to you we've had the opportunity to have rational discussions with those who were fearful of multiculturalism - and they have changed their negative ideas, opened up their minds to new information. TeamNigel would consider this a definite Mission Failure on your part.

So yes, you've been given plenty of material, with the authors names, year of publication etc. Go read the full articles yourself. They don't all have long, difficult words in them. If you know how to search JSTOR or any other digital library you'll be able to find them. Though of course the fact you can't actually search a MN thread or understand simple information rather suggests you might struggle a bit with academic material.

leftwingechochamber And ok, I should have been more precise. Rather than asking for evidence of diversity benefiting social capital, I originally asked for evidence to show it merely didnt have a negative impact. But its a moot point, because you havent provided that either.

Yes, again it has been provided. Again not hard to find. Additional authors and their conclusions were referenced in my last reply to you as well as what was originally given pages and pages back in this thread. You don't want them to exist, you don't want to read them. You certainly don't want to believe them. But none of that changes the fact they exist and have been referenced here on this thread. Your childish repetition that no-one has answered you serves only to make you look increasingly ridiculous.

You believe in a country that never existed. Britain has been a society of different ethnicities and races (hello Scotland, England, Wales) for hundreds of years. Even amongst what one might term 'ethnic' Britains there are multiple religions, dialects and beliefs. There have been Jews in Britain longer than there have been Christians. There have been black and mixed race people in Britain since around the time of the Romans and the evidence is they were from every strata of society. Larger communities of black people began to arrive in the early 16th century, the same time, broadly, that Roma arrived. The Chinese have been here for over 200 years, as have the Indians. British may mean white, English speaking to you. But that is only one very narrow definition. White may be the majority, but being in the majority does not afford special rights. It does not afford extra rights. It does not make you 'more British'.

writtenguarantee · 17/04/2014 22:23

I don't think voluntarily selling your house at a massive profit and moving to a leafy suburb counts as displaced. and if London has been "destroyed" (hugely wealthy cosmopolitan international city, the most visited in the world, with a very low crime rate, world class universities etc etc etc) I wonder what you'd call Syria.

It's interesting that compared to other countries (canada, australia, US and now suddenly switzerland) the UK doesn't have a huge foreign population.

Leftwingechochamber · 18/04/2014 01:05

Adopmama, thats a very longwinded way of saying "I wont actually substantiate the claim that I provided sources to show that diversity has either a neutral or positive impact on social cohesion".

It is rather stupid to claim that you cant be bothered to do it, yet write a lengthy post that obviously took far longer to compose than it would have taken to simply cut and paste a previous post. Effort is not the issue. The absence of any previous posts to substantiate you claim is the issue.

And its not my job to chase down the sources you reference. If you claim a source supports a particular claim, the onus is on you to actually provide a link and direct me to the relevant passage, as I did when I referred to sources.

adoptmama · 18/04/2014 05:53

No it isn't. The information has already been substantiated on multiple posts, with both direct links and/or referencing of authors names & year of publication.

You are either too intellectually stunted to understand it, or too lacking in ability to find it. I wouldn't have thought looking back approximately 12 pages on this thread would be beyond you, but apparently it is. You denied it existed even in posts directly underneath the posts identifying the research; it isn't a case that you 'missed it' but that you deliberately ignored it. So linking to it again will accomplish what exactly when you have, over the course of the last few days, repeatedly demonstrated your unwillingness to read the research and an inability to understand it. You have repeatedly denied the existance of the links that I, and others, gave you. So why should I provide them again? What possible benefit does it serve when you couldn't be bothered to read it the first time it was provided. You have outed yourself repeatedly to be a small minded and unpleasant person. You have shown yourself over and again to be confrontational, passive-agressive and manipulated. I have no intention of playing your silly little game by being manipulated into providing again what has already been given to you. It doesn't diminsh the existance of the material to refuse to play your childish games. No doubt another 'new user' will soon join the thread in your support. Won't we all be surprised when that happens.

I didn't claim I 'couldn't be bothered' to do resupply the links; you would be 'rather stupid' to claim that. Once again you deliberately misrepresented what has been said. You really do have a bad habit of that don't you? I said that, having provided you with multiple links - direct and indirect (by referencing the research authors, year of publication etc) - I was not going to do it again. You can't actually substantiate any of your bigotry through intellectual arguments so, instead, you simply lie.

Because you have no interest in reading it anyway.

BTW - let's not forget that what you first linked to was not a research article, but a wikipedia page which misrepresents Putnam's research by omiting his long term findings on the impact of immigration and diversity on social capital and social solidarity. So don't kid yourself you linked to a research article. Any secondary school student can explain to you why wikipedia is not a robust research site. I, on the other hand, have directed you the the full article he published along with the information on the provenance of where the original misrepresentation came from (in the Thernstrom brief) and the additional information that Abigail Thernstrom worked for a neo-conservative think tank/lobbying group in the USA. Furthermore I have referenced by name many of the research articles cited in Putnam's original article in response to your demand to know what research he based his findings on - research you have repeatedly denied existed, stating his long term findings were nothing more than his biased opinion. In addition, on this thread , I have directly linked to, and/or cited, numerous pieces of unrelated research which refute all of your bogus nonsense.

You don't need to 'chase them down' because they are here, on this thread. If you are too intellectually lazy (and what a surprise that would be!) to find them so what? At the time they were actually posted you were too intellectually lazy to read them. Nothing has changed there then. As recently as yesterday I referenced several pieces of research by authors name in response to your changed demand to see research that shows diversity can strengthen social cohesion (Fieldhouse and Cutts, Laurence and Heath, Letki, Sturgis et al, Twigg & Taylor). For anyone with half an intellect that is sufficient information to identify the reserach. Apparently neither the direct links given previously or the citing of authors' names is sufficient for you though.

Keeping banging on with the same tired BS. I've taught 11 year olds with a better grasp of how to make rational, detailed arguments that you and who show a much higher level of intellectual awareness and ability.

Dawndonnaagain · 18/04/2014 08:23

And its not my job to chase down the sources you reference. If you claim a source supports a particular claim, the onus is on you to actually provide a link and direct me to the relevant passage, as I did when I referred to sources.
Fuck me! You'll have teacher writing your essays next!

Look sweetie, I don't know what's wrong with you, you very obviously have some sort of learning difficulty and I'm sorry about that, but you can't just come onto the internet and expect people who are a damn sight brighter than you to swallow the absolute piffle you have been fed and are trying to feed others. Life doesn't work that way, lovie, it really doesn't. There will always be people who are brighter than you, and I know you think you are really, really clever and incredibly superior, but you're not and when you try and argue with those who are as bright, or brighter than you, it will start to come apart at the seams.

marfisa · 18/04/2014 09:22

Leftwing keeps banging on about how diversity threatens social cohesion. Well, I have news for you, leftwing. Social cohesion is a good thing but it's not the ONLY good in society.

Small rural communities, for example, can be incredibly cruel to members who deviate from that community's norms. Punishing or excluding members of society who don't conform might be one way of ensuring social cohesion, but that doesn't make the society in question a good one. I'm sure that the Taliban created a remarkably cohesive society. And the Nazis, for that matter ... getting rid of all those pesky gays and Jews made for a beautifully cohesive society.

The truth is that humans are attracted to one another's differences as well as the similarities. People fall in love all the time with people dramatically unlike themselves. People don't want to eat the same food every day; they like to try new tastes. Throughout history the most famous and successful cities have been centres of international commerce and exchange.

I'm willing to bet that you're very happy to benefit from diversity in your daily life. You eat foods and buy products created and produced by people whom you apparently don't consider good enough to live in your country. You want all the benefits of diversity without taking any risks. You want just as much diversity as you deem to be enough. And when 'diversity' starts to make you feel uncomfortable, you appeal to the lofty-sounding principle of 'social cohesion'. Hmm

I'm very impressed. Not.

adoptmama · 18/04/2014 09:24

Well said marfisa and dawn

YouTheCat · 18/04/2014 10:25

Dawn, I read that channelling Claire Raynor's voice. Grin

Leftwingechochamber · 18/04/2014 11:45

Adoptmama, I am almost certain the only links you provided were about the economic impact of immigration. Thats it.

So cut the bullshit. I am not asking you to link it again BECAUSE YOU NEVER LINKED IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

And it would take a fraction of the time to simply cut and paste and clearly prove me a liar than it has taken to write your last two posts which are nothing more then lengthy excuses for you not substantiating the claim that you have previously provided me with links to show a positive or even neutral impact of diversity on social cohesion.

Making pathetic ad hominem attacks on me as "intellectually stunted" doesnt change the fact that you are a liar.

Leftwingechochamber · 18/04/2014 11:51

As for the wiki link:

A) It didnt misrepresent anything. It reported his findings. Not giving Putnam's opinions on those findings is not a misrepresentation. It did not say or imply anything untrue

B) It may have been a wiki link, but in the very section I referred you to, it contained the following direct link:

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=27A6E299C97E548F9444C7DB0B85511D.f01t04

YouTheCat · 18/04/2014 11:55

It misrepresented because it only showed part of his findings.

Leftwingechochamber · 18/04/2014 12:01

Marfisa, I never said social cohesion was the only thing which mattered. But your point is what exactly? Can you explain to me what racial and cultural diversity bring which offsets the harm they do to social cohesion?

Because if the best you can come up with is goods, I have news for you, there's a thing called trade. You dont need to import people to import their goods. We have far higher levels of immigration from Pakistan than America for example. But if you watch a film or listen to a song or read a book, it is far more likely to have been produced by an American than by a Pakistani.

Leftwingechochamber · 18/04/2014 12:03

YouTheCat, the wiki link refers to the following:

"In recent years, Putnam has been engaged in a comprehensive study of the relationship between trust within communities and their ethnic diversity. His conclusion based on over 40 cases and 30 000 people within the United States is that, other things being equal, more diversity in a community is associated with less trust both between and within ethnic groups."

The only conclusion drawn from that study was the negative impact of diversity on social cohesion. The other findings mentioned in his paper were drawn from entirely different data.

YouTheCat · 18/04/2014 12:07

But that wasn't the complete study. A fact that you have denied and then ignored throughout this thread.

Will you just bugger off with your agenda now. It's getting very boring.

Leftwingechochamber · 18/04/2014 12:38

No, it was the complete study. The part about the 40 cases and 30,000 people was the study in its entirety and the only findings of that study were as reported.

And seeing as you are the one choosing to address me when it is you who is mistaken anyway, you can piss off.

YouTheCat · 18/04/2014 12:45

No it wasn't. Adopted linked you to the complete study and its findings and you chose to ignore it.

Leftwingechochamber · 18/04/2014 13:01

Youthecat, you may not understand the distinction between a paper and a study. But the STUDY was the collection of the data from over 30,000 people. The only thing that study demonstrated was the negative impact of diversity on social cohesion.

His more optimistic long term conclusions were based on different data altogether which were NOT collected by that study.

And the data in question is not particularly relevant in my view. The military exerts a very high degree of control over its members and makes a point of imposing uniformity, so is in no way applicable to the general population. Religious institutions are highly racially segregated so I fail to see how this is even evidence of diversity being overcome, and previous waves of immigration in America were overwhelmingly Western Europeans, so there was a much smaller gap to bridge.

Additionally, he is talking about the barriers of diversity merely being overcome in these examples, not providing evidence that diversity is actually desirable.

YouTheCat · 18/04/2014 13:03

Yes, I do understand the difference, thanks all the same.

Being patronising isn't going to make people suddenly think 'oh leftwinge is right', because you aren't. It just makes them think you are a massive bellend.

Leftwingechochamber · 18/04/2014 13:07

If you understand the difference, then why are you telling me that I am misrepresenting the study, when I am clearly not doing so? I notice you dont actually refute the point that the study only supports the findings I mentioned at the outset, and the other conclusions of Putnam are based on different data altogether.

Apparently, correcting you when you are clearly wrong is being "condescending" and a "bellend".