Diversity and Multiculturalism II:Make Diversity Great Again

[Kubumba Tribe]

Music isn't culture if you're not the one singing it
Movies aren't culture
Literature isn't culture
Food isn't culture
What is????

Someone singing is culture if you are participating, even as a listener. That is an interaction. Listening to a recording isn't

Says who?

Literature is not culture until it is shared socially.

Says who?

Food can be cultural, but food in itself obviously isn't

Says who?

[Conserative Morality]

Music isn't culture if you're not the one singing it
Movies aren't culture
Literature isn't culture
Food isn't culture
What is????

Someone singing is culture if you are participating, even as a listener. That is an interaction. Listening to a recording isn't

Literature is not culture until it is shared socially.

Food can be cultural, but food in itself obviously isn't, or else bugs have culture, since they eat

Birds have culture, because they sing and listen without recordings. =^^)

[New Emeline]

Someone singing is culture if you are participating, even as a listener. That is an interaction. Listening to a recording isn't

Says who?

Literature is not culture until it is shared socially.

Says who?

Food can be cultural, but food in itself obviously isn't

Says who?

Says Parkus, He Who Determines Culture

[The Parkus Empire]

Yankee culture basically perished in the Industrial Revolution, sadly.

So less than ten years after the US was formed. One might think that such a culture was never 'American', then.

I am referring to the Second Industrial Revolution

[New haven america]

Someone singing is culture if you are participating, even as a listener. That is an interaction. Listening to a recording isn't

Says who?

Literature is not culture until it is shared socially.

Says who?

Food can be cultural, but food in itself obviously isn't

Says who?

Parkus.

For he is obviously the sole judge on what constitutes culture or not.

[The Parkus Empire]

Someone singing is culture if you are participating, even as a listener. That is an interaction. Listening to a recording isn't

Says who?

Literature is not culture until it is shared socially.

Says who?

Food can be cultural, but food in itself obviously isn't

Says who?

T.S. Eliot's wonderful essay on culture

[The Land of the Ephyral]

Diversity causes tension and conflict.

Nation's require a solid cultural base.

This has been true throughout all of history, it's why we formed nations in the first place.

That's why we formed nations in the first place, in the 19th century?

For your statement to be true, you must have a very narrow concept of what makes a nation.

I won't say your concept of it is wrong, but it is different from mine, and our debate will meet a roadblock very quickly because of this disparity.

Diversity causes tension and conflict.

Every single time?

Typically. Ethnically and religiously diverse regions are always more violent than those that aren't. This appears to be true regardless of weapon control. Nations with greater weapon control but higher diversity than the US experience more violent crime. Nations with less ethnic diversity but similar or greater weapon control experience far less violent crime.

Intraracial crime is always higher than interracial of course, but the rate of the latter appears to increase with the disparity between ethnic group and culture.

This is always more prevalent in nations where ethnic homogeneity is the norm and then it isn't, but it remains prevalent over many centuries. Humans fall along lines of ethnic kinship. Historically, tribes of vastly different people rarely interbred. It happened, but not regularly. They will associate more with people of their own kind. War with them yes. Kill them yes. But also associate with them. Tribes became nations along these lines and they prospered.

When these nations conquered other nations they dominated them, and imposed their culture upon them, because no nation that treats all cultures equally will maintain hegemony, and that union must inevitably collapse in a far shorter space of time than it otherwise would.

[Conserative Morality]

I am referring to the Second Industrial Revolution

lol

That's an even weaker argument.

[San Lumen]

"Everyone that disagrees with me is stupid" is a great way to open your argument.

Diversity causes tension and conflict.

Nation's require a solid cultural base.

This has been true throughout all of history, it's why we formed nations in the first place.

How does diversity cause tension and conflict? Im fairly certain nations were not formed to create a solid cultural base.

[New haven america]

Someone singing is culture if you are participating, even as a listener. That is an interaction. Listening to a recording isn't

Literature is not culture until it is shared socially.

Food can be cultural, but food in itself obviously isn't, or else bugs have culture, since they eat

Birds have culture, because they sing and listen without recordings. =^^)

Also, it's been shown that crows create their own tribes out of flocks, and that their vocalizations can differ between each one.

Henceforth, crows have more culture than America does.

[New Emeline]

Says who?

Says who?

Says who?

T.S. Eliot's wonderful essay on culture

I Derive My Definition Of Culture From One Essay

[Conserative Morality]

T.S. Eliot's wonderful essay on culture

Does it ever get tiresome?

[San Lumen]

That's why we formed nations in the first place, in the 19th century?

For your statement to be true, you must have a very narrow concept of what makes a nation.

I won't say your concept of it is wrong, but it is different from mine, and our debate will meet a roadblock very quickly because of this disparity.

Every single time?

Typically. Ethnically and religiously diverse regions are always more violent than those that aren't. This appears to be true regardless of weapon control. Nations with greater weapon control but higher diversity than the US experience more violent crime. Nations with less ethnic diversity but similar or greater weapon control experience far less violent crime.

Intraracial crime is always higher than interracial of course, but the rate of the latter appears to increase with the disparity between ethnic group and culture.

This is always more prevalent in nations where ethnic homogeneity is the norm and then it isn't, but it remains prevalent over many centuries. Humans fall along lines of ethnic kinship. Historically, tribes of vastly different people rarely interbred. It happened, but not regularly. They will associate more with people of their own kind. War with them yes. Kill them yes. But also associate with them. Tribes became nations along these lines and they prospered.

When these nations conquered other nations they dominated them, and imposed their culture upon them, because no nation that treats all cultures equally will maintain hegemony, and that union must inevitably collapse in a far shorter space of time than it otherwise would.

You have proof of any of those claims?

[Sicaris]

Diversity is undesirable. Multiculturalism is undesirable.

There are only those that know why, and those that don't.

I find diversity not only desirable, but part of what made me who I am. There are only those that know why, and those that don't. I would be honoured to explain to those that don't understand why I am a proponent of diversity and multiculturalism.

Well, you said you'd be honored to say so, so why in fact are you a proponet of these two?

[The Land of the Ephyral]

Diversity causes tension and conflict.

Nation's require a solid cultural base.

This has been true throughout all of history, it's why we formed nations in the first place.

How does diversity cause tension and conflict? Im fairly certain nations were not formed to create a solid cultural base.

Typically. Ethnically and religiously diverse regions are always more violent than those that aren't. This appears to be true regardless of weapon control. Nations with greater weapon control but higher diversity than the US experience more violent crime. Nations with less ethnic diversity but similar or greater weapon control experience far less violent crime.

Intraracial crime is always higher than interracial of course, but the rate of the latter appears to increase with the disparity between ethnic group and culture.

This is always more prevalent in nations where ethnic homogeneity is the norm and then it isn't, but it remains prevalent over many centuries. Humans fall along lines of ethnic kinship. Historically, tribes of vastly different people rarely interbred. It happened, but not regularly. They will associate more with people of their own kind. War with them yes. Kill them yes. But also associate with them. Tribes became nations along these lines and they prospered.

When these nations conquered other nations they dominated them, and imposed their culture upon them, because no nation that treats all cultures equally will maintain hegemony, and that union must inevitably collapse in a far shorter space of time than it otherwise would.

[Conserative Morality]

For your statement to be true, you must have a very narrow concept of what makes a nation.

I won't say your concept of it is wrong, but it is different from mine, and our debate will meet a roadblock very quickly because of this disparity.

A sense of nationhood? Common language? Desire for self-rule?

Typically. Ethnically and religiously diverse regions are always more violent than those that aren't. This appears to be true regardless of weapon control. Nations with greater weapon control but higher diversity than the US experience more violent crime. Nations with less ethnic diversity but similar or greater weapon control experience far less violent crime.

I suppose this is why the more ethnically diverse UK is less violent than the US. =^)

Intraracial crime is always higher than interracial of course, but the rate of the latter appears to increase with the disparity between ethnic group and culture.

This is always more prevalent in nations where ethnic homogeneity is the norm and then it isn't, but it remains prevalent over many centuries. Humans fall along lines of ethnic kinship. Historically, tribes of vastly different people rarely interbred. It happened, but not regularly.

lolwut

They will associate more with people of their own kind. War with them yes. Kill them yes. But also associate with them. Tribes became nations along these lines and they prospered.

... not really.

When these nations conquered other nations they dominated them, and imposed their culture upon them, because no nation that treats all cultures equally will maintain hegemony, and that union must inevitably collapse in a far shorter space of time than it otherwise would.

t. the Roman Empire, which lasted longer than the much more homogeneous and tumultuous 'nations' it replaced.

[New Emeline]

So, to any ethnonationalists, do you think all French people should get out of Germany, all Nigerians get out of Kenya, etc? Because if not, you aren't ethnonationalists really. Just racial nationalists.

[The Parkus Empire]

T.S. Eliot's wonderful essay on culture

I Derive My Definition Of Culture From One Essay

T.S. Eliot was asked to lecture on culture, so I consider him authoritative. Though I also subscribe to Kuehnelt-Leddihn's theory of culture, which unlike Eliot he sharply distinguishes from civilization

[New Emeline]

I Derive My Definition Of Culture From One Essay

T.S. Eliot was asked to lecture on culture, so I consider him authoritative. Though I also subscribe to Kuehnelt-Leddihn's theory of culture, which unlike Eliot he sharply distinguishes from civilization

He was asked to do a lecture on culture.
Therefore he is the be-all-end-all on culture.
Noice.

[The Land of the Ephyral]

For your statement to be true, you must have a very narrow concept of what makes a nation.

I won't say your concept of it is wrong, but it is different from mine, and our debate will meet a roadblock very quickly because of this disparity.



Typically. Ethnically and religiously diverse regions are always more violent than those that aren't. This appears to be true regardless of weapon control. Nations with greater weapon control but higher diversity than the US experience more violent crime. Nations with less ethnic diversity but similar or greater weapon control experience far less violent crime.

Intraracial crime is always higher than interracial of course, but the rate of the latter appears to increase with the disparity between ethnic group and culture.

This is always more prevalent in nations where ethnic homogeneity is the norm and then it isn't, but it remains prevalent over many centuries. Humans fall along lines of ethnic kinship. Historically, tribes of vastly different people rarely interbred. It happened, but not regularly. They will associate more with people of their own kind. War with them yes. Kill them yes. But also associate with them. Tribes became nations along these lines and they prospered.

When these nations conquered other nations they dominated them, and imposed their culture upon them, because no nation that treats all cultures equally will maintain hegemony, and that union must inevitably collapse in a far shorter space of time than it otherwise would.

You have proof of any of those claims?

One can examine the rising crime rates in Sweden ever since the introduction of different peoples some decades ago, which have shot up recently since 2014 (migrant crisis), particularly in sex crime.

Similar patterns can also be seen across Germany and Britain.



Or you can look into the study conducted by Robert Putnam published in 2007, as touched on by this article.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... -distrust/

And if you require any more proof I would simply suggest you look at history and find me one example of a society that prospered beyond the average 250 year lifespan of greatness that empires tend to exhibit as determined by Sir John Glubb, and did so on the basis of being multicultural, tolerant, and diverse, as opposed to the empires that ruled firmly and with one culture above others.

But I would also ask of you to tell me why living in a society where the culture of the people who created it is suppressed to facilitate the cultures of people who did not is preferable, when in the home societies of those same people, no such accommodation is made for us in return.

Why is the West demanded to be multicultural and diverse, but the rest of the world is free to remain homogeneous, if they are, and mono-cultural or with cultural hegemony?

It couldn't possibly be because there's an ideological bias against the existence of Western culture and civilisation could it? There couldn't possibly be an agenda to drown Western cultures in those that are blatant inferior morally and socially to our own, simply because we are better than them, and we must be punished for our success?

[New Emeline]

Why is the West demanded to be multicultural and diverse, but the rest of the world is free to remain homogeneous, if they are, and mono-cultural or with cultural hegemony?

It couldn't possibly be because there's an ideological bias against the existence of Western culture and civilisation could it? There couldn't possibly be an agenda to drown Western cultures in those that are blatant inferior morally and socially to our own, simply because we are better than them, and we must be punished for our success?

And here comes the nonsense.

[Conserative Morality]

One can examine the rising crime rates in Sweden ever since the introduction of different peoples some decades ago, which have shot up recently since 2014 (migrant crisis), particularly in sex crime.

Similar patterns can also be seen across Germany and Britain.

(Image)

>> tfw non-sex crime has actually dropped since 2000
>> tfw Sweden has been involved in redefining rape and sex crimes to be inclusive and trying to encourage people to come out instead of not reporting it like in other countries
>> tfw the skyrocketing recordings of sex crimes happened long before 2014

[The Land of the Ephyral]

So, to any ethnonationalists, do you think all French people should get out of Germany, all Nigerians get out of Kenya, etc? Because if not, you aren't ethnonationalists really. Just racial nationalists.

Nigerians and Kenyans are a far more different group of people than French and Germans.

As far as the cultural existence of nations are concerned, French and Germans would do better to stay in their own countries. Despite the fact that genetically they are almost the exact same people, Europe has been a site of conflict for millennia and the two cultures despise one another.

Nigeria and Kenya have historically lacked much contact, but for the sake of their own preservation, if indeed it is in their interest, they should prevent the formation of a sizeable minority of either group forming, and then pursuing its own interests within the nation they are not from.

[The Land of the Ephyral]

One can examine the rising crime rates in Sweden ever since the introduction of different peoples some decades ago, which have shot up recently since 2014 (migrant crisis), particularly in sex crime.

Similar patterns can also be seen across Germany and Britain.

(Image)

>> tfw non-sex crime has actually dropped since 2000
>> tfw Sweden has been involved in redefining rape and sex crimes to be inclusive and trying to encourage people to come out instead of not reporting it like in other countries
>> tfw the skyrocketing recordings of sex crimes happened long before 2014

Migration predates 2014.

[The Parkus Empire]

T.S. Eliot was asked to lecture on culture, so I consider him authoritative. Though I also subscribe to Kuehnelt-Leddihn's theory of culture, which unlike Eliot he sharply distinguishes from civilization

He was asked to do a lecture on culture.
Therefore he is the be-all-end-all on culture.
Noice.

I never said he was, but I consider him far more authoritative than posters of NSG