Is Diversity and Multiculturalism a Good or Bad Thing?

[The Empire of Pretantia]

IE you desire a singular mindset centered around your interpretation of the Quran.

No, I do not support ijtihad on steriods. I said Muslims think different, but no matter what, Al-Islam stays the same.

So you support differing interpretations of the Quran?

Because they leave each other alone. They don't attempt to doublethink and blend opposing ideas.

No, they don't "leave each other alone". They get to know each other and "get out the house", so to speak.

No, they leave each other alone.

This is the opposite of blending. It's organizing into camps with opposing goals and values.

So, you're against political parties, I assume? Or is this the kind of multiculturalism you're cool with?

Simply pointing out that political parties run counter to "blending".

[Kubumba Tribe]

And what does me being a (pan-)Islamist have to do with my support of diversity/multiculturalism?

[Kubumba Tribe]

No, I do not support ijtihad on steriods. I said Muslims think different, but no matter what, Al-Islam stays the same.

So you support differing interpretations of the Quran?

I acknowledge them. I don't support them.

No, they don't "leave each other alone". They get to know each other and "get out the house", so to speak.

No, they leave each other alone.

Is that why different groups marry each other and eat each other's food? Is that why many people want to learn at least one language? Is that why there are diverse workplaces? Is that why people promote their culture?

Evidently, different cultures don't leave each other alone, they interact with each other.

[O m a h a]

Depends how different the cultures are. If they have different moral codes, then it can be very dangerous to civil society.

Being the son of an imigrant mom who came here when she was 17 i can wholeheartedly say that as long as you do it legally and become a law abiding citizen there is nothing wrong with multiculturalism

[The Empire of Pretantia]

So you support differing interpretations of the Quran?

I acknowledge them. I don't support them.

Of course you don't. You believe everybody should live in accordance with your particular interpretation.

No, they leave each other alone.

Is that why different groups marry each other

Clearly we're no longer taking about opposing opinions.

and eat each other's food? Is that why many people want to learn at least one language?

Again with the superficial garbage.

Is that why there are diverse workplaces?

Workplace culture 101: nobody gives a fuck about your culture.

Is that why people promote their culture?

Promote their culture? You mean dress up and feed you their exotic cuisine? You mean show off the unimportant and aesthetic parts of their culture?

Evidently, different cultures don't leave each other alone, they interact with each other.

90% of cultural interaction is convincing people your culture is better. The rest is gawking at each other's clothing.

[Kubumba Tribe]

I acknowledge them. I don't support them.

Of course you don't. You believe everybody should live in accordance with your particular interpretation.

Do you have proof of this? I already told you I do not support ijtihad on steroids

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Of course you don't. You believe everybody should live in accordance with your particular interpretation.

Do you have proof of this? I already told you I do not support ijtihad on steroids

So you don't want everybody to be a Muslim living in accordance with your view on Islam?

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

Do you have proof of this? I already told you I do not support ijtihad on steroids

So you don't want everybody to be a Muslim living in accordance with your view on Islam?

I think you have misunderstood what pan-Islamism is.

[Kubumba Tribe]

Do you have proof of this? I already told you I do not support ijtihad on steroids

So you don't want everybody to be a Muslim living in accordance with your view on Islam?

Correct. Not according to my view of Al-Islam.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

Imma post my reply on the Islam thread.

[The Conez Imperium]

A document that does a shitty job at enforcing its own rules is far better than no document at all

It really isn't. When there's no enforcement of said document and it's just a meaningless piece of paper it might as well not exist.

So in your perspective, the Parris accords (COP 21) is useless since we can't enforce nations to reduce their carbon output? The world signed another meaningless paper that shouldn't exist?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

It really isn't. When there's no enforcement of said document and it's just a meaningless piece of paper it might as well not exist.

So in your perspective, the Parris accords (COP 21) is useless since we can't enforce nations to reduce their carbon output? The world signed another meaningless paper that shouldn't exist?

You'd be correct. Nations can't be penalized for not reducing their carbon footprint, which is stupid.

[The Conez Imperium]

So in your perspective, the Parris accords (COP 21) is useless since we can't enforce nations to reduce their carbon output? The world signed another meaningless paper that shouldn't exist?

You'd be correct. Nations can't be penalized for not reducing their carbon footprint, which is stupid.

You realise why Kyto Protocols failed (why the US and many other African/Asian nations didn't sign it)? It's simply because most nations didn't want legally binding carbon reduction targets. It was a diplomatic failure as it just reinforced the image of already developed nations telling developing nations to suck it up and go green.

The Parris accords were different because negotiators realised the only way to fight climate change on a global scale is for everyone to contribute their own carbon reduction targets. Compared to Kyto, Parris is a success considering China is not only a signatory but the leader in carbon reduction.

Also the Parris accords explicitly recognised the impact of Humanity in contributing to climate change. That is an important statement that was ratified by most nations in the world. Obviously, Trump doesn't believe in climate change so he withdraw. In a era dominated by climate nay-sayyers the Parris accords is an important step to showing their ignorance.

I'd like to continue but it would derail the argument and some people probably need to be more familiar with international diplomacy for the conversation to be concise.

[Oil exporting People]

I've seen and heard comments recently here and elsewhere regarding changing demographics and areas becoming more multicultural and diverse is a bad thing. That somehow it undermines the concept of a nation or is somehow destructive to the culture of the country or province or city. Having a multicultural nation or city contributes much to a society.

By much, you mean poverty, ethnic conflicts and such, I take it?

[Luminesa]

I've seen and heard comments recently here and elsewhere regarding changing demographics and areas becoming more multicultural and diverse is a bad thing. That somehow it undermines the concept of a nation or is somehow destructive to the culture of the country or province or city. Having a multicultural nation or city contributes much to a society.

By much, you mean poverty, ethnic conflicts and such, I take it?

Having immigrants doesn’t always mean more poverty or ethnic conflicts, though that depends more on who is coming to your country and how much they are willing to interact with people outside their ethnic group.

[Oil exporting People]

Having immigrants doesn’t always mean more poverty or ethnic conflicts, though that depends more on who is coming to your country and how much they are willing to interact with people outside their ethnic group.

Actually, it always does, unless said immigrants are close to the host population:

- Social trust is negatively affected by ethnic diversity, case study in Denmark from 1979 to the present.
- Ethnic homogeneity and Protestant traditions positively impact individual and societal levels of social trust.
- “In longitudinal perspective, [across European regions], an increase in immigration is related to a decrease in social trust.”
- The negative effect of community diversity on social cohesion is likely causal.
- In Australia, ethnic diversity lowers social cohesion and increases “hunkering”, providing support for Putnam’s thesis finding the same results in the US.

[New haven america]

Having immigrants doesn’t always mean more poverty or ethnic conflicts, though that depends more on who is coming to your country and how much they are willing to interact with people outside their ethnic group.

Actually, it always does, unless said immigrants are close to the host population:

- Social trust is negatively affected by ethnic diversity, case study in Denmark from 1979 to the present.
- Ethnic homogeneity and Protestant traditions positively impact individual and societal levels of social trust.
- “In longitudinal perspective, [across European regions], an increase in immigration is related to a decrease in social trust.”
- The negative effect of community diversity on social cohesion is likely causal.
- In Australia, ethnic diversity lowers social cohesion and increases “hunkering”, providing support for Putnam’s thesis finding the same results in the US.

I'd like to point out that pretty much all those articles only use examples from areas of the world with are the exact opposite of racially diverse. Of course it would affect them, they have no fucking idea how to handle stuff like that (And it's an admitted issue in Australia that casual racism is still a thing over there). You brought nothing that applies to already racially diverse areas.

Also, please don't use articles that requires people to sign up or join to something to actually read it (This is in reference to the last one).

[Oil exporting People]

I'd like to point out that pretty much all those articles only use examples from areas of the world with are the exact opposite of racially diverse. Of course it would affect them, they have no fucking idea how to handle stuff like that (And it's an admitted issue in Australia that casual racism is still a thing over there). You brought nothing that applies to already racially diverse areas.

Just to be clear, your argument is that, despite the trends being found across all societies these studies were done to the backdrop of increasing diversity, somehow more diversity is the answer? Obviously we both know how shitty an argument that is so I'll go ahead and take it serious in order to refute it with a single helpful image:

Also, please don't use articles that requires people to sign up or join to something to actually read it (This is in reference to the last one).

> TFW posts several articles, gotta complain about one.

[Trumptonium]

61%. And that includes 7 digits of European migrants. Oh wow.

[New haven america]

I'd like to point out that pretty much all those articles only use examples from areas of the world with are the exact opposite of racially diverse. Of course it would affect them, they have no fucking idea how to handle stuff like that (And it's an admitted issue in Australia that casual racism is still a thing over there). You brought nothing that applies to already racially diverse areas.

1.Just to be clear, your argument is that, despite the trends being found across all societies these studies were done to the backdrop of increasing diversity, somehow more diversity is the answer? 2.Obviously we both know how shitty an argument that is so I'll go ahead and take it serious in order to refute it with a single helpful image:

Also, please don't use articles that requires people to sign up or join to something to actually read it (This is in reference to the last one).

3.> TFW posts several articles, gotta complain about one.

1. Just to be clear, you're arguing that countries that have almost never been diverse throughout their histories are somehow good indicators of what happens in countries that have been diverse for most of their histories.
2a. It's obvious from #1 that you don't actually know what my argument is, so go reread my post and stop being lazy. 2b. That picture shows me absolutely nothing of importance, that picture is completely useless.
3. Maybe because the only article you provided that includes already racially diverse areas also requires you to join in order to actually get to that part. Either provide that entire article in full or don't link it to begin with.

[Trumptonium]

1. Just to be clear, you're arguing that countries that have almost never been diverse throughout their histories are somehow good indicators of what happens in countries that have been diverse for most of their histories.

So you're arguing that countries should go into an unknown unless proven wrong?

You'd be awful at a national antibiotic department. Just feed {whatever} to your patients and hope for the best, I guess.

How many years does Denmark have to wait - or how many whites does it need to lose - until it can become a ripe ground for a research into effect of diversity?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

or how many whites does it need to lose

What?

[Oil exporting People]

1. Just to be clear, you're arguing that countries that have almost never been diverse throughout their histories are somehow good indicators of what happens in countries that have been diverse for most of their histories.

And yet, all these trends have increased as they continue to get "diversity". Please try again dear.

2. It's obvious from #1 that you don't actually know what my argument is, go reread my post and stop being lazy.

Do tell, then, what your argument? Do spell out and avoid logical fallacies in doing so.

3. Maybe because the only article you provided that includes already racially diverse areas also requires you to join in order to actually get to that part. Either provide that entire article or don't link it to begin with.

Well here's another American article, but the hole in your point remains.

[New haven america]

1. Just to be clear, you're arguing that countries that have almost never been diverse throughout their histories are somehow good indicators of what happens in countries that have been diverse for most of their histories.

So you're arguing that countries should go into an unknown unless proven wrong?

No, I never said anything of the sort. How bout you stop strawmaning and actually read my argument?

Also, from your edit: You do realize that Arabs are considered Caucasian, right? Simply put, they're White too.

[United Islamic Commonwealth]

So you're arguing that countries should go into an unknown unless proven wrong?

No, I never said anything of the sort. How bout you stop strawmaning and actually read my argument?

Also, from your edit: You do realize that Arabs are considered Caucasian, right? Simply put, they're White too.

(Iranians, too. We actually own some of the Caucasus)