I stand by what I said: You’ve claimed harm but you haven’t actually demonstrated that claimed harm is real.
Social Cohesion is a thing, and its absence frequently leads to harm at both the macro and micro levels. Economic threats to social cohesion are frequently highlighted on these boards. Cultural or social threats less so. If a reduction in social cohesion is harmful in one case then is it not harmful in the other as well?
Why is the sort of thing we're talking about on here a threat to social cohesion? What even is social cohesion?
I stand by what I said: You’ve claimed harm but you haven’t actually demonstrated that claimed harm is real.
Social Cohesion is a thing, and its absence frequently leads to harm at both the macro and micro levels. Economic threats to social cohesion are frequently highlighted on these boards. Cultural or social threats less so. If a reduction in social cohesion is harmful in one case then is it not harmful in the other as well?
I agree, at least for the sake of argument, that social cohesion is a thing. (Though like @KarlLB, I think exactly what the relevant social cohesion actually is needs lots of unpacking.)
What has been asserted is that one boy turning up at prom in a dress is such a threat to social cohesion that it harms those who value the social cohesive status quo. That’s the claim, but no evidence has been put forward to support that claim, to demonstrate that the harm claimed is real, actual, observable harm.
Harm requires more than “I don’t like it,” or “it’s not how I/we think things should be” or “I don’t like where this might head.”
There also seems to me a suggestion, however muted, that if there's a question between an individual absorbing abuse or harm, or a status quo absorbing abuse or harm or an inferred social cohesion being threatened with an increment of erosion, the status quo or social cohesion should be protected first and foremost.
Well, that could be a thread all of its own. But I don't think it's coincidental that the reduction in social cohesion in the UK that's come from the erosion of shared values and social norms over the last few decades has resulted in Brexit and the rise of Reform, or for that matter the recent election of Muslim Independents to Parliament. Our society
(if, indeed, it is still a single society) is becoming more fractured.
Well, that could be a thread all of its own. But I don't think it's coincidental that the reduction in social cohesion in the UK that's come from the erosion of shared values and social norms over the last few decades has resulted in Brexit and the rise of Reform, or for that matter the recent election of Muslim Independents to Parliament. Our society
(if, indeed, it is still a single society) is becoming more fractured.
Seems like you are just pointing at specific things and then claiming that they show your conclusion (which is something about social cohesion).
There have long been independent MPs in the British House of Commons. When Keir Hardie became an MP in 1892 it was as an independent.
Muslims have obviously long been a part of British society. Several hundred years ago the first Somali sailors came, Muslims fought and died in two world wars for the British Empire.
So what can you possibly mean about social cohesion in the last few decades?
What are the shared values and norms which have been eroded?
Are you suggesting that all immigrants to the UK have instantly conformed to all social values and norms that existed prior to their arrival? Or that the changing social acceptance of those with Epiphanic qualities wasn’t in fact a change at all?
You can argue that the set of values and norms that existed in the past needed to change, and that the direction of travel is a desirable one. That’s fine. But don’t try to pretend that they haven’t changed at all, or that the imposition of those changes hasn’t caused an increase in social fragmentation, the loss of a sense of community, and the rise of reactionary politics.
A lot of other things happened during that same time period (including the counter-culture movement, decay of traditional institutions, the rise of neoliberalism and so on), I'm not sure how you can make definite statements like that.
Reactionary politics tend to find scape goats that are acceptable to reactionary politicians and those that fund them, and what they say is not necessarily the truth.
What are the shared values and norms which have been eroded?
Are you suggesting that all immigrants to the UK have instantly conformed to all social values and norms that existed prior to their arrival? Or that the changing social acceptance of those with Epiphanic qualities wasn’t in fact a change at all?
You can argue that the set of values and norms that existed in the past needed to change, and that the direction of travel is a desirable one. That’s fine. But don’t try to pretend that they haven’t changed at all, or that the imposition of those changes hasn’t caused an increase in social fragmentation, the loss of a sense of community, and the rise of reactionary politics.
Why are you changing the subject? We are trying to understand you and instead of answering the question you are deflecting.
Unless you are talking about historically excluded communities - which includes Romany and travellers - where's the evidence that any of the immigrant communities lack cohesion?
We all pay tax to HMRC. We all use shared civic resources. We live in the same communities. So what exactly do you mean by social cohesion? What exactly has changed?
The recent discussion above reminds me of a letter to the editor of the local paper I had just read. I quote it below:
The Feb. 14 guest editorial on the Tribune Opinion page came from the Idaho Statesman of Boise. Publishers of local newspapers are constantly concerned about their viability and outlook for longevity while not exhibiting any self-awareness about honesty in their content.
The opinion that was printed in the Tribune regarding Idaho legislators and anti-immigration bills was leftist propaganda, not truth. It claimed the Legislature to be racist, anti-immigration and “white nationalist” conforming to something called “the great replacement theory.” Whenever a journalist begins a piece describing conservatives as racist, white nationalists or Nazis, they just lost whatever argument comes next.
The whole piece was lambasting conservatives’ fear of being replaced, in America, by people of other colors, cultures and countries. False in every way, shape and form. The concern is having America replaced by other cultures from other countries.
America is a social, economic and political construct; a constitutional republic and the only one in existence on earth. Historically, immigrants from Western civilizations literally invented America some 250 years ago. Compared to all other so-called civilizations, America has done more to advance the human condition than any other in history.
The keystone to the success of America is e pluribus unum and assimilation. Now, 21st century immigration, legal and illegal, participants are more concerned with enjoying everything America has to offer except e pluribus unum and assimilation.
The Statesman was wrong to proffer their guest editorial and the Tribune was wrong to print it as truth, which it is not.
Next is my response:
XX argues that America is at risk of being “replaced by other cultures from other countries,” and that today’s immigrants no longer value e pluribus unum or assimilation. But this framing misrepresents both our history and the lived reality of immigration today. America has never been a static cultural artifact created once and preserved in amber. It has always been a dynamic, evolving nation shaped by successive waves of newcomers—Germans, Irish, Italians, Chinese, Scandinavians, Eastern Europeans, and many others—each of whom was once accused of refusing to assimilate. Over time, they became part of the American story, not a threat to it.
The idea that immigrants today “enjoy everything America has to offer except assimilation” is not supported by evidence. Immigrants learn English at rates equal to or faster than previous generations. Their children overwhelmingly identify as American. They serve in our military, start businesses at high rates, and contribute to the civic and economic life of their communities. Assimilation is not disappearing; it is happening the same way it always has—gradually, generationally, and through shared participation in American institutions.
What truly threatens e pluribus unum is not cultural diversity but the fear‑based narrative that diversity itself is a danger. America’s strength has never come from cultural uniformity. It has come from a constitutional framework capable of welcoming difference while forging common purpose.
Rather than fearing replacement, we should recognize what history shows: newcomers do not erase America—they renew it.
The recent discussion above reminds me of a letter to the editor of the local paper I had just read. I quote it below: . . . .
Just noting, @Gramps49, that reposting that letter on a public website, especially without any attribution and, if it’s the case, without permission, may be problematic from a copyright standpoint.
What are the shared values and norms which have been eroded?
Are you suggesting that all immigrants to the UK have instantly conformed to all social values and norms that existed prior to their arrival? Or that the changing social acceptance of those with Epiphanic qualities wasn’t in fact a change at all?
You can argue that the set of values and norms that existed in the past needed to change, and that the direction of travel is a desirable one. That’s fine. But don’t try to pretend that they haven’t changed at all, or that the imposition of those changes hasn’t caused an increase in social fragmentation, the loss of a sense of community, and the rise of reactionary politics.
If anything traditional Muslim values regarding Epiphanies issues are closer to traditional Christian values (traditional is doing a lot of work there I know, it’s a shorthand) than modern secularism. Yet the people yelling about integration are typically also harking back to “traditional values” and our identity as a Christian nation. - it makes no sense without an element of racism.
The recent discussion above reminds me of a letter to the editor of the local paper I had just read. I quote it below: . . . .
Just noting, @Gramps49, that reposting that letter on a public website, especially without any attribution and, if it’s the case, without permission, may be problematic from a copyright standpoint.
Point taken. The letter was published in the Lewiston Tribune on Sunday 1 March, 2024.
We all pay tax to HMRC. We all use shared civic resources. We live in the same communities. So what exactly do you mean by social cohesion?
I mean the sense of “us” and “them”. The way I see it today, Britain is made up of several different groups of “us” each of which sees the others as “them”. That impacts all kinds of things, not least shared resources like the NHS. People are, generally, more willing to share resources with people they perceive as “us”, and less willing to share them with people they perceive as “them”. As the sense of community and social cohesion diminishes, so does the support for whole-nation politics. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the far right is on the rise in most Western countries. I think it’s a reaction to the amount of social change and fragmentation that’s happened over the last few decades.
The recent discussion above reminds me of a letter to the editor of the local paper I had just read. I quote it below: . . . .
Just noting, @Gramps49, that reposting that letter on a public website, especially without any attribution and, if it’s the case, without permission, may be problematic from a copyright standpoint.
Point taken. The letter was published in the Lewiston Tribune on Sunday 1 March, 2024.
I forgot to add it.
But the person who wrote the letter (who I assume is “XX” later in your post) is likely the person who owns the copyright. Either way, posting the entire letter here without the permission of whoever owns the copyright—the writer or the paper—is quite possibly a copyright violation.
We all pay tax to HMRC. We all use shared civic resources. We live in the same communities. So what exactly do you mean by social cohesion?
I mean the sense of “us” and “them”. The way I see it today, Britain is made up of several different groups of “us” each of which sees the others as “them”. That impacts all kinds of things, not least shared resources like the NHS. People are, generally, more willing to share resources with people they perceive as “us”, and less willing to share them with people they perceive as “them”. As the sense of community and social cohesion diminishes, so does the support for whole-nation politics. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the far right is on the rise in most Western countries. I think it’s a reaction to the amount of social change and fragmentation that’s happened over the last few decades.
Thatcherism/Reaganism certainly did a number on class consciousness and associated solidarity, but I think you underestimate the role of propaganda. There are now a lot of extremely wealthy racists in control of much of the media, and social media has created an algorithmic environment that rewards outrage even when the owners are not putting their thumb on the scales to favour the far right.
We all pay tax to HMRC. We all use shared civic resources. We live in the same communities. So what exactly do you mean by social cohesion?
I mean the sense of “us” and “them”. The way I see it today, Britain is made up of several different groups of “us” each of which sees the others as “them”. That impacts all kinds of things, not least shared resources like the NHS. People are, generally, more willing to share resources with people they perceive as “us”, and less willing to share them with people they perceive as “them”. As the sense of community and social cohesion diminishes, so does the support for whole-nation politics. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the far right is on the rise in most Western countries. I think it’s a reaction to the amount of social change and fragmentation that’s happened over the last few decades.
I don't know anyone who has a problem sharing the NHS with other people, I've not heard anyone say that other ethnicities are not entitled to the NHS. I have heard nonsense spoken about illegal immigrants, but that's not couched in terms of ethnicity.
There is a 'them' and 'us' but the divide is between people who use the NHS, work low paid jobs and send their kids to the local Academy school on the one side and those who have private health insurance, fat company pensions and send their kids to expensive private schools on the other.
"fat company pensions" are a thing of the past. Very few people are retiring with them, and even fewer actively earning them. Such "fat" pensions as there are are very much a quid pro quo for relatively modest public sector pay, and as such are leaner than they might be: 2/3 of less than it could be is a lot less than it could be. As usual, the conservative position bends away from the truth.
Automatic enrolment is creating very lean pensions as a privatised alternative to increasing the state pension. People are starting to retire with them, and finding just how lean these pensions are.
You appear to be missing the point or not understanding the paradox of tolerance.
The point of the paradox of tolerance is that if you think tolerance is a good you think intolerance is bad. If you think it's good to live and let live, you rather have to object to the people who aren't letting live.
I think maybe you need to read up on Bullfrog's paradox of intolerance.
And why do you think that? Here is the wikipedia article. Which bit of "a truly tolerant society must retain the right to deny tolerance to those who promote intolerance" do you think I need to read up on?
You appear to be missing the point or not understanding the paradox of tolerance.
The point of the paradox of tolerance is that if you think tolerance is a good you think intolerance is bad. If you think it's good to live and let live, you rather have to object to the people who aren't letting live.
I think maybe you need to read up on Bullfrog's paradox of intolerance.
And why do you think that? Here is the wikipedia article. Which bit of "a truly tolerant society must retain the right to deny tolerance to those who promote intolerance" do you think I need to read up on?
Since the @WhimsicalChristian is citing me as an authority, for some reason I do not fully understand, I shall exercise my granted authority and declare that @Dafyd has the right end of the stick in this matter, as I do understand it.
Also, far as "us" and "them," I find that one very simple:
Don't feed the nativism. Scarcity will always be a problem. You have to be willing to share with people with no concern for "where are they from?"
Trust me, if nativists didn't have "nationality" to start sneering at people for, they'd find something else to sneer at people for. This isn't unique to England.
And seeing a Christian give cover to that kind of "thinking" is truly shocking to some part of me. No offense, but it's an emotional tic of mine.
It's shocking because it's entirely against the teachings of Christ. Actually, that's not entirely true: the gospel record is ambivalent. There is a lot of "them" and "us", because that was the live issue at the time the gospels were finalised - who is a Christian and how do they become one? "Whoever is not for me is against me" comes up against many of Christ's more inclusive sayings. Also one of Paul's more inclusive sayings: "In Christ there is neither male nor female, slave nor free, Jew nor Greek [etc]". The Christian tradition is not wholly in one camp or the other. The point requiring discernment is where the balance, the weight of the faith sits. To me, it is on the inclusive side, because all were caught up in both the crucifixion and the resurrection, and indeed the ascension - all signs of humanity caught up in the reality of God.
And I really need to find a better paradox to append myself to, because I love paradoxes. But the paradox of tolerance isn't something I came up with. That notions is...*checks wikipedia*...older than my dad. Thank Karl Popper for that one.
Comments
Why is the sort of thing we're talking about on here a threat to social cohesion? What even is social cohesion?
What has been asserted is that one boy turning up at prom in a dress is such a threat to social cohesion that it harms those who value the social cohesive status quo. That’s the claim, but no evidence has been put forward to support that claim, to demonstrate that the harm claimed is real, actual, observable harm.
Harm requires more than “I don’t like it,” or “it’s not how I/we think things should be” or “I don’t like where this might head.”
Well, that could be a thread all of its own. But I don't think it's coincidental that the reduction in social cohesion in the UK that's come from the erosion of shared values and social norms over the last few decades has resulted in Brexit and the rise of Reform, or for that matter the recent election of Muslim Independents to Parliament. Our society
(if, indeed, it is still a single society) is becoming more fractured.
What are the shared values and norms which have been eroded? And how does that lead to Brexit or the election of Muslim MPs?
I think you need to join the dots in your narrative.
Seems like you are just pointing at specific things and then claiming that they show your conclusion (which is something about social cohesion).
There have long been independent MPs in the British House of Commons. When Keir Hardie became an MP in 1892 it was as an independent.
Muslims have obviously long been a part of British society. Several hundred years ago the first Somali sailors came, Muslims fought and died in two world wars for the British Empire.
So what can you possibly mean about social cohesion in the last few decades?
Are you suggesting that all immigrants to the UK have instantly conformed to all social values and norms that existed prior to their arrival? Or that the changing social acceptance of those with Epiphanic qualities wasn’t in fact a change at all?
You can argue that the set of values and norms that existed in the past needed to change, and that the direction of travel is a desirable one. That’s fine. But don’t try to pretend that they haven’t changed at all, or that the imposition of those changes hasn’t caused an increase in social fragmentation, the loss of a sense of community, and the rise of reactionary politics.
Reactionary politics tend to find scape goats that are acceptable to reactionary politicians and those that fund them, and what they say is not necessarily the truth.
Why are you changing the subject? We are trying to understand you and instead of answering the question you are deflecting.
Unless you are talking about historically excluded communities - which includes Romany and travellers - where's the evidence that any of the immigrant communities lack cohesion?
We all pay tax to HMRC. We all use shared civic resources. We live in the same communities. So what exactly do you mean by social cohesion? What exactly has changed?
Next is my response:
XX argues that America is at risk of being “replaced by other cultures from other countries,” and that today’s immigrants no longer value e pluribus unum or assimilation. But this framing misrepresents both our history and the lived reality of immigration today. America has never been a static cultural artifact created once and preserved in amber. It has always been a dynamic, evolving nation shaped by successive waves of newcomers—Germans, Irish, Italians, Chinese, Scandinavians, Eastern Europeans, and many others—each of whom was once accused of refusing to assimilate. Over time, they became part of the American story, not a threat to it.
The idea that immigrants today “enjoy everything America has to offer except assimilation” is not supported by evidence. Immigrants learn English at rates equal to or faster than previous generations. Their children overwhelmingly identify as American. They serve in our military, start businesses at high rates, and contribute to the civic and economic life of their communities. Assimilation is not disappearing; it is happening the same way it always has—gradually, generationally, and through shared participation in American institutions.
What truly threatens e pluribus unum is not cultural diversity but the fear‑based narrative that diversity itself is a danger. America’s strength has never come from cultural uniformity. It has come from a constitutional framework capable of welcoming difference while forging common purpose.
Rather than fearing replacement, we should recognize what history shows: newcomers do not erase America—they renew it.
If anything traditional Muslim values regarding Epiphanies issues are closer to traditional Christian values (traditional is doing a lot of work there I know, it’s a shorthand) than modern secularism. Yet the people yelling about integration are typically also harking back to “traditional values” and our identity as a Christian nation. - it makes no sense without an element of racism.
Queen Elizabeth II as a hijabi.
Point taken. The letter was published in the Lewiston Tribune on Sunday 1 March, 2024.
I forgot to add it.
I mean the sense of “us” and “them”. The way I see it today, Britain is made up of several different groups of “us” each of which sees the others as “them”. That impacts all kinds of things, not least shared resources like the NHS. People are, generally, more willing to share resources with people they perceive as “us”, and less willing to share them with people they perceive as “them”. As the sense of community and social cohesion diminishes, so does the support for whole-nation politics. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the far right is on the rise in most Western countries. I think it’s a reaction to the amount of social change and fragmentation that’s happened over the last few decades.
Thatcherism/Reaganism certainly did a number on class consciousness and associated solidarity, but I think you underestimate the role of propaganda. There are now a lot of extremely wealthy racists in control of much of the media, and social media has created an algorithmic environment that rewards outrage even when the owners are not putting their thumb on the scales to favour the far right.
I don't know anyone who has a problem sharing the NHS with other people, I've not heard anyone say that other ethnicities are not entitled to the NHS. I have heard nonsense spoken about illegal immigrants, but that's not couched in terms of ethnicity.
There is a 'them' and 'us' but the divide is between people who use the NHS, work low paid jobs and send their kids to the local Academy school on the one side and those who have private health insurance, fat company pensions and send their kids to expensive private schools on the other.
Automatic enrolment is creating very lean pensions as a privatised alternative to increasing the state pension. People are starting to retire with them, and finding just how lean these pensions are.
Since the @WhimsicalChristian is citing me as an authority, for some reason I do not fully understand, I shall exercise my granted authority and declare that @Dafyd has the right end of the stick in this matter, as I do understand it.
Don't feed the nativism. Scarcity will always be a problem. You have to be willing to share with people with no concern for "where are they from?"
Trust me, if nativists didn't have "nationality" to start sneering at people for, they'd find something else to sneer at people for. This isn't unique to England.
And seeing a Christian give cover to that kind of "thinking" is truly shocking to some part of me. No offense, but it's an emotional tic of mine.