To not want to be the minority where I live?

[Charlottehines]

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?

You said it.

No, actually you said it. The fact that you are basically admitting to resorting to personal abuse simply because I corrected you is laughable.

It just makes them think you are a massive bellend.

I didn't actually call you a bellend. I just said people would think you are one. Very different.

No it isnt* very different.

it is

Oh boo hoo. So I used a word incorrectly.

If that is all you can pick at then your argument is invalid. Well, it is anyway, imo, as you have clearly come onto MN with a rather unpleasant agenda.

My argument is invalid because you made a stupid point and were petulant and belated in conceding it? Great logic. Its hardly is as if I am focussing on that one point to the neglect of more substantial points you made, it was the only point you made.

No. But you have ignored plenty of other salient points and research posted by others.

No go and do your revision or something.

echochamber ^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.... 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.^

You were given direct url link to the Financial Times interview Putnam gave which you misrepresented to suggest something was a direct quote from Putnam when it wasn't.

You were given direct link url to the introducion of the National Civic Review where Putnam writes on the topic of Diversity, Social Capital and Immigrant Integration.

You were given direct url links to research findings by the CEBR and the CEP on the economic benefits of immigration. And these were both provided in response to your assertion there are no substantial economic benefits to immigration.

Additional authors directly referenced (which in case you actually don't understand is linking - it is linking the research findings of a social scientist to the arguments being made, do you understand that? Do you understand that it is not necessary to provide a direct url address to link work to argument? It is sufficient to reference because any normal person is then actuallly able to access the information if they wish to read it further) were cited when you demanded to know what research Putnam based his long term conclusions on. This included reference to works referenced by Putnam's E Pluribus Unum. For example Simonton, 1999; Webber and Donohue 2001; O'Reilly et al, 1997; Williams and O'Reilly, 1998; Page, 2007; who all found, based on their research that creativity (in science, business, education etc) is enhanced by immigration. Economic benefits e.g. Smith and Edmonton; 1997, World Bank research, 2005; Pritchett, 2006. On social cohesion e.g. Allport back in the '50's and his conclusions that in the long term social cohesion is not damaged: Bobo and Tuan, Brewer and Brown, and Quillian to name a few. I don't need to give you direct url links to each journal article because the full article references are available in Putnam's own work - have you read it? Do you understand that it can be found, fully referenced, in his article?

References were provided yesterday in response to your new demand that evidence be provided that demonstrates diversity directly benefits social cohesion. Researchers cited were Fieldhouse and Cutts, Laurence and Heath, Letki Sturgis et al. and Twigg and Taylor.

Furthermore you were advised you can access articles in full on digital libraries such as JSTOR.

echochamber I havent been provided with a single source that shows that diversity is beneficial to social capital

Well, clearly you have.

echochamber 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

Why not? Why is it not your 'job' to go and educate yourself? It is suddenly - as of your post yesterday - my job to provide you with url links to academic research articles and then 'direct you to the relevant passage'? The mind boggles. Do you actually think you can just read one passage in an entire journal article to understand it? You need to read the bloody article in its entirity. How utterly moronic. Go find the links yourself if you have the ability to - it isn't actually that difficult to use google to identify research articles when you have the names of the authors which - wait for it - you do.

You have been told repeatedly that the soures were referenced by author. This sudden desire since yesterday to have direct url links is - yet again - another of your smokescreens, designed to suggest that you have been denied responses to your 'requests'. Which is utter BS.

I have never claimed to have provided direct url links to everything - you again misrepresent what I said (repeatedly) and then call me a liar. I have said multiple times that I have given you either direct url links and/or referenced the research by author (and at times with year of publication too). These references cover, but are not limited to: Putnam's research, economic benefits of immigration, benefits of diversity on education, science etc and the benefits of diversity on social cohesion.

Each time one of your arguments has failed you have tried to attack posters and deny that information has been provided. You latest nonsense is suggesting that because you were not given direct url links for everything - which I never claimed I had done - you have somehow 'proved' that I am lying and, presumably the research doesn't exist. This is total crap and you know it. I have repeatedly referenced by author as well as providing some direct url links. Anyone I teach in Year 12 and above finds that sufficient information to work with. They do not expect the information be handed to them with the 'relevant passage' highlighted for them to read and move on from. Perhaps I seriously underestimated your educational ability when I expected you to be able to cope with information at normal sixth form level? You want to suggest that nothing has been provided to refute your racist assertions because you - you - are incapable of accessing the information in a way that a normally intelligent 16-18 year old can do? Well cry me a river. It doesn't make me a liar because you are the one misrepresenting, twisting information and lying.

Crawl back in your hole, if you can find it without a driect url link.

Robert D. Putnam’s research is being used to make the case that diversity is bad—and he’s not happy about it.
From the Chronicle of Higher Education.
That means you LeftWing

OP I've had this- I moved from a predominantly Tamil area where the families didn't mix with non Tamil. Where I live now is a diverse mix of races and all is fine. Seems to be more an issue if its predominately one race I found? Moving worked for me- my DC now mix happily and I've found new friends now (of all ethnicities)

Adoptmama, another extremely long winded post in which you spend far more time justifying why you wont prove your claim than it would actually take to prove your claim... were it true.

As you point blank refuse to support your claim that, to quote you directly:

"You have been given links to show the benefits of immigration and diversity to social capital."

I am now going to post every single link you have provided since my first post in this thread. As we shall see, none of them provide any evidence in favour of diversity improving or even having no net negative impact on social capital:

chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/robert-putnam-says-his-research-was-twisted/30357

There's no evidence for the above claim there.

www.ncl.org/publications/ncr/98-1/Putnam.pdf

No evidence there either. Indeed, he specifically says he is not going to try and summarise the complex social science relating to the impact of diversity on social capital in that piece.

www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c4ac4a74-570f-11db-9110-0000779e2340.html#axzz2ynJfY8BM

Is behind a pay wall, but it explains the reasons for him not publishing his data for 6 years. It does not, I would imagine, present evidence in favour of diversity benefiting social capital. If it does so, and you have access to the article, you are free to quote the relevant passage.

www.cebr.com/reports/migration-benefits-to-the-uk/

cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/pa014.pdf

Are both about the economic impact of immigration, not the impact of diversity on social cohesion.

And that is every one of the links you have provided since I first posted on this thread. Not one shred of evidence in favour of a positive or neutral impact of diversity on social cohesion.

So I have now demonstrated that the above claim of yours that I quoted is a lie. So please, stop insisting that I have been wilfully ignorant of the evidence that has been presented to me. You havent presented one shred of evidence to support the claim in question.

As for why it is not my job to chase down your sources, its fairly simple: If YOU make the claim, then it is incumbent on YOU to demonstrate that claim to be true. Dont give me a dozen names and dates and expect me to scour the internet for these papers and read their contents. It isnt my job to prove your completely unsubstantiated claims.

I would assume you have the intellectual honesty to at least have read the sources you are referring to by way of evidence, in which case it should be no difficulty for you to quote the relevant passages of these sources.

this has gone way past the stage now hasn't it?

Also adoptmama, even if you classify your mere mention of a name and a date as a link (which it plainly is not; a link is something which you click on and takes you directly to the relevant web page), all of the "links" that are mentioned in the passages you copied from a website (and tried to pass off as your own writing) were mentioned AFTER THE FACT of you having claimed to have provided links to support the claim that diversity was beneficial to social capital.

You made no reference, via link or otherwise, to any source that provided evidence for the positive impact of diversity on social cohesion, prior to you first claiming that you had.

You are a liar, plain and simple.

chronicle.com/blogs/percolator/robert-putnam-says-his-research-was-twisted/30357

There's no evidence for the above claim there.
That really is the most idiotic thing you have written, so far,THE FUCKING AUTHOR OF THE ORIGINAL REPORT, Putnam says his work is being twisted, which it is, and you deny it.

Oh, and is calling people a liar, plain and simple the same as calling them a racist, eg. a bit of name calling.
Racist.

Dawn, logical deductions may not be your strong point (thats being charitable), but surely even you must understand that an author claiming his research is being misrepresented is not the same as evidence being presented for diversity have a positive impact on social capital?

I do wish Mumsnet would put an end to this now.

And I didnt deny that his work had ever been misrepresented, I denied that I was misrepresenting a study merely by quoting the findings of that study. I made no claims about the conclusions of the paper, only the findings of the study.

Leftwing a) I refer you to my earlier post. b) I and really bored with you now, you are not (as I stated in said earlier post) as bright as you think you are. Your vocabulary for an A level student is not too bad, but goodness, it'll be a relief when you go back to school next week. Your insults are petty and ineffectual. The point is you are trying to spread racist propaganda where it isn't wanted. Now, do go away and grow up.

Misrepresentation of a study is not using the whole study, ergo the implication is the conclusion is supporting the statement at the begining of the study. That would be why, somewhere near the begining of the thread I advised you to read the whole study.

I never claimed I had provided you with url's to everything.

For example this is what you said yesterday and my reply:
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.

me 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 also said to you yesterday: 'You have been given links to research showing the socio-economic benefits of diversity to the life of a country. You have been given links to show the benefits of immigration and diversity to social capital. But you still claim you have not been given what you asked for or that this is not enough to show the social benefits.' Now in case you still do not understand it, social capital is measured by examining several factors, including economic. So direct url links to articles on benefits of immigration to economy of nation = benefits to social capital.

Now you are bitching, whining and straw clutching because the 'only' direct url links given are, you claim, to do with economic benefit.

Only after the economic research urls were provided did you change your demands of what you claimed you wanted, this time demanding evidence that immigration is beneficial to social cohesion. This was yesterday (at 15:48). Again, this was provided to you by referencing the authors of the relevant research.You made no complaint prior to this to having sources referenced only by author In fact you simply comment in passing 'you made reference to sources...' No request for url's regarding the research referenced. None. You went on to claim that you hadn't been 'provided with one single source that shows diversity is beneficial to social capital (at 16:52) having never asked previously for evidence it was beneficial. So, again, you were given references by author. In the early hours of this morning you decided it wasn't 'your job' to identify the research via the author references. You then announced this 'proved' nothing had been provided to refute your claims and that, furthermore, it 'proved' I lied.

Again - you proved nothing as anyone who can read the thread will see. All you did was change from accepting research being referenced by author to not accepting it and then whining because no direct url links to the multiple pieces of research were provided 2 days before you asked for them.

You have proved nothing beyond the fact you are a small minded little harpy.

There is nothing 'incumbant' upon me. I owe you nothing. Your desire to continue to insist you have been provided with no refuting evidence when you have been given the authors of multiple research articles simply shows your limitations to promolgate further discussion.

You - you - assume I have 'the intellectual honesty to have at least read the sources' I refer to. Finally one of your assumptions is correct.

I have.

I still feel absolutely no need to provide you with urls, so stick that on your needles and knit it. You see, had you actually asked, politely, at the start for direct url's I would have given them. But you didn't did you? You waited for days, until all your petty little assertions had been rebutted and you had no where else to turn your arguments. You didn't object to author referencing at the start of this. You only object now because you are scrabbling around desperately trying to find a way to discredit me and, by extension, the arguments I have made. Frankly I am now too entertained by your desperate, facile maneuvers to give you the urls. You frothing, slightly hysterical ranting has great entertainment value. Which is good. Finally you have a purpose here.

echochamber *all of the "links" that are mentioned in the passages you copied from a website (and tried to pass off as your own writing) were mentioned AFTER THE FACT of you having claimed to have provided links to support the claim that diversity was beneficial to social capital.
*

I have not tried to pass anything off as my own writing - liar.

Mentioned after the fact - liar.

You've lost the little grasp of the plot that you once had.

I quoted you specifically saying that you have provided links to show the benefits of diversity on social capital. I then copied and pasted every single link you provided - a tedious process necessitated only by your flagrant dishonesty in repeatedly claiming I was ignoring these none existent links - and even after having conclusively shown your claim was complete bullshit, you still wont admit fault and go on yet another vacuous ramble to try and deny this fact.

Redefining what "link" means, which in the context of sources on the internet obviously means a url, not reference to a name and date, isnt going to fool anyone.

And then you try and claim that the burden of proof does not rest with the person making the claim that a source being referred to supports a claim (you), but rather it rests with me to verify that claim on your behalf. Apparently, because I dont accept this plainly ridiculous position, I am a "small minded little harpy".

Well ok, if that is the standard of "evidence" required here is my "evidence" that you are a child molester:

Rice, Herbert William, Toni Morrison and the American Tradition: a Rhetorical Reading. – New York: Lang, 1998
Mori, Aoi, Toni Morrison and Womanist Discourse. – New York: Lang, 1999
Duvall, John Noel, The Identifying Fictions of Toni Morrison: Modernist Authenticity and Postmodern Blackness. – Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001
The Toni Morrison Encyclopedia. Edited by Elizabeth Ann Beaulieu. – Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press, 2003
Toni Morrison and The Bible : Contested Intertextualities / edited by Shirley A. Stave. – New York : Peter Lang, 2006

Granted I havent read any of the above sources, and I have no idea what they actually say, but hey, apparently the burden of proof is on you to prove that these sources dont demonstrate that you are a child molester, not on me to demonstrate they do. Have fun with that.

Also, stop pathetically trying to deny that you passed off the writing of others as your own. You know as well as I do that you copied almost word for word substantial passages of someone else's writing, and made no mention of the fact that it originally written by someone else.

And the only source that you have even claimed argues that diversity has a positive impact on social capital, (Fieldhous and Cutts; apparently, just stating their names without even giving a date or the title of the paper is a "link") was first mentioned in your post at the following time and date: Thu 17-Apr-14 16:30:08. It was in that very same post where you said:

"You have been given links to show the benefits of immigration and diversity to social capital."

So yes, you provided the "link" (which wasnt a link) after the fact of having claimed I had been given links to demonstrate positive impact of diversity on social capital. And to hazard a guess, you havent even seen the paper in question.

And you have the cheek to call me a liar.