Diversity and Multiculturalism II:Make Diversity Great Again

[El-Amin Caliphate]

The doctor got his pills through rigorous trials and peer reviewed studies.

And trial and error. Not on humans, but still.

[Free Arctic Territories]

I need to wonder, do any of the ones arguing against those who posted an opposition or are skepticism of diversity and multiculturalism , have any thoughts in their heads only relating it to Hitler and (neo)-nazism? I notice that is a major part of where it comes from.

I'm pretty sure some of the loonier ones are Neo-Nazis, but no multicultural politcal policies generally does not correlate with hating Jews and wanting to invade countries for lebensraum in my head.

The doctor got his pills through rigorous trials and peer reviewed studies.

And trial and error. Not on humans, but still.

Trial and error on 100 or 10,000 mice or people (in later stages) would be much more effective than testing a new herbal remedy on the 25 people in your local village.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

I need to wonder, do any of the ones arguing against those who posted an opposition or are skepticism of diversity and multiculturalism , have any thoughts in their heads only relating it to Hitler and (neo)-nazism? I notice that is a major part of where it comes from.

I'm pretty sure some of the loonier ones are Neo-Nazis, but no, being skeptical of multicultural politcal policies generally does not correlate with hating Jews and wanting to invade countries for lebensraum,

I think he's/she's talking about pro-multiculturalists "do multiculturalists equate anti-multiculturalism to nazism/white supremacist?" is what I think he's/she's asking.
To I'd answer "no", at least, not for me.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Trial and error on 100 or 10,000 mice or people (in later stages) would be much more effective than testing a new herbal remedy on the 25 people in your local village.

True.

[Torrocca]

*snip*

Thing is, this is a debate thread, not a casual conversation thread. If you aren't here to to start an argument and hopefully learn something new, go to Forum 7 or hit your buddy up on discord or something.

Debate this then:

Ah yes, don't forget religious fundamentalism, antiquated views that place women and other racial groups in positions of inferiority, wonderful practices like female genital mutilation and circumcision, "traditional" medicine and health practices that are really just a pile of horseshit in a manure bag, and who can forget, ethnic and racial tensions from historical atrocities that can linger for hundreds of years!

Yes, diversity truly is this absolutely perfect thing that every country must have, and these aspects really do make me appreciate how every bit of it is beautiful, eh?

Every culture has shitty bits to it but that doesn't mean we can't enjoy the best they have to offer.

[Free Arctic Territories]

*snip*

For the most part, I agree, but history has shown that it's really hard to keep different cultures in multicultural societies relatively intact for long periods of time. Different cultures either syncretize, are forced to assimilate, or voluntarily assimilated, producing such bastardized horrors as (forgive me for saying this) Panda Express and such. You can enjoy it, but I would argue that it's not "adding" to your society more like it's being mixed into your society, becoming steadily more unrecognizable with each generation.

[The Parkus Empire]

What exactly, OP, is the point of different countries? Why not just one?

[Free Arctic Territories]

What exactly, OP, is the point of different countries? Why not just one?

I'm so confused... a guy with a Paleocon flag talking about a world government...

[San Lumen]

*snip*

So the solution to racism is...

ANARCHY! England for the Anglo-Saxons! France for the Franks! Screw the governments and political ideas that the European powers have developed to fix centuries of warfare and feudalism! Everyone back to their homelands!

Destroying nationstates isn't going to work. You can't simply uproot the entire European political order in order to achieve some sembalance of social harmony. They are just lines on a paper, but they're underpinned by centuries of treaties, wars, and territorial evolution. America, Canada, and other colonial societies are unique cases. They were founded as multiethnic societies, and have had time to develop their own syncretic cultures and a strong national identity. To recklessly open the culturally homogenous old world to completely unrestricted immigration is inviting decades of unresolved racial tensions and resentment between "Europeans" and "Immigrants." It's silly, but you can't change everyone's mind, and I would rather keep immigrants out now and find a solution to the failed states they came from then have Europe disintegrate into sectarian and ethnic violence and have governments enforce integration at the barrel of a gun.

How is immigration and diversity threat to your country? Countries like the UK, France, Germany have never been 100 percent white. Countries like Brazil, Canada and the United States were literally founded on immigration.

[Free Arctic Territories]

*snip*

I have a strange feeling of deja vu...

If you read more closely, I was pointing to only European countries. The European colonies are a different basket. France, Spain, the UK and such has a strict policy of promoting one culture in the past, with dialect cards and what not, the post I responded to literally said so itself. I feel like you've skimmed over the post, picked out the gist of it, and missed my point entirely. I didn't say immigration itself would doom the continent through some absurd immigrant apocalypse. You can't deny that the massive amount of refugees (especially in Germany, they've had to shoulder the brunt of it) has caused serious tensions between Europeans and the refugees. While we can't blame the refugees for existing, we also can't deny that this isn't sustainable at all. Already, you've seen far-right parties surge in popularity as their nationalist rhetoric catch on with a disgruntled population. You've seen far more sensationalized reporting on bombings, stabbings, and shootings carried out by resentful migrants and extremists looking to further the strained race relations we have in Europe. You cannot deny this. If we continue to accept the millions of migrants currently streaming across from refugee camps in the Middle East, this problem will only get worse. I'm not saying that we should just reject refugees entirely, but I believe that first we should figure out a way to attack the cause of the problem: the decades of civil war and conflict that have driven them out in the first place. In the meantime, we should figure out a more sustainable way to accept refugees without provoking nationalists and forcing thousands of displaced young men and women into ghettos, stripped of their homes, their possessions, stuck in a society that does not want them there, easy targets for an Al-qaeda or ISIS recruiter who talks about the glory of jihad and revenge against the West. I'm not against multicultural societies as a concept. I'm against the people who deny the huge amount problems that come with them.

[San Lumen]

*snip*

I have a strange feeling of deja vu...

If you read more closely, I was pointing to only European countries. The European colonies are a different basket. France, Spain, the UK and such has a strict policy of promoting one culture in the past, with dialect cards and what not, the post I responded to literally said so itself. I feel like you've skimmed over the post, picked out the gist of it, and missed my point entirely. I didn't say immigration itself would doom the continent through some absurd immigrant apocalypse. You can't deny that the massive amount of refugees (especially in Germany, they've had to shoulder the brunt of it) has caused serious tensions between Europeans and the refugees. While we can't blame the refugees for existing, we also can't deny that this isn't sustainable at all. Already, you've seen far-right parties surge in popularity as their nationalist rhetoric catch on with a disgruntled population. You've seen far more sensationalized reporting on bombings, stabbings, and shootings carried out by resentful migrants and extremists looking to further the strained race relations we have in Europe. You cannot deny this. If we continue to accept the millions of migrants currently streaming across from refugee camps in the Middle East, this problem will only get worse. I'm not saying that we should just reject refugees entirely, but I believe that first we should figure out a way to attack the cause of the problem: the decades of civil war and conflict that have driven them out in the first place. In the meantime, we should figure out a more sustainable way to accept refugees without provoking nationalists and forcing thousands of displaced young men and women into ghettos, stripped of their homes, their possessions, stuck in a society that does not want them there, easy targets for an Al-qaeda or ISIS recruiter who talks about the glory of jihad and revenge against the West. I'm not against multicultural societies as a concept. I'm against the people who deny the huge amount problems that come with them.

How are you going to fix Sudan, Syria and Eritrea all three of which are dictatorships? overthrow the government? There is no opposition to take power in any of them.

You dont have to provoke nationalists in the first place. And perhaps those displaced people could be treated better and I have seen no evidence that most of Europe doesnt want them. France and the UK rejected nationalist anti immigrant parties as did several other countries..

[Kubumba Tribe]

FAT has a point.
But just a reminder: there's nothing wrong with jihad.

[The United Psychiatrist Union]

So the solution to racism is...

ANARCHY! England for the Anglo-Saxons! France for the Franks! Screw the governments and political ideas that the European powers have developed to fix centuries of warfare and feudalism! Everyone back to their homelands!

Destroying nationstates isn't going to work. You can't simply uproot the entire European political order in order to achieve some sembalance of social harmony. They are just lines on a paper, but they're underpinned by centuries of treaties, wars, and territorial evolution. America, Canada, and other colonial societies are unique cases. They were founded as multiethnic societies, and have had time to develop their own syncretic cultures and a strong national identity. To recklessly open the culturally homogenous old world to completely unrestricted immigration is inviting decades of unresolved racial tensions and resentment between "Europeans" and "Immigrants." It's silly, but you can't change everyone's mind, and I would rather keep immigrants out now and find a solution to the failed states they came from then have Europe disintegrate into sectarian and ethnic violence and have governments enforce integration at the barrel of a gun.

How is immigration and diversity threat to your country? Countries like the UK, France, Germany have never been 100 percent white. Countries like Brazil, Canada and the United States were literally founded on immigration.

People seem to have this weird idea that human migration is a new thing. We've been walking about to new places since we started existing, and I fail to see how it's suddenly become a problem.

[New Emeline]

What exactly, OP, is the point of different countries? Why not just one?

In my opinion, different countries exist for organization. It's easier to legislate people when you are closer to them.

[Kubumba Tribe]

How is immigration and diversity threat to your country? Countries like the UK, France, Germany have never been 100 percent white. Countries like Brazil, Canada and the United States were literally founded on immigration.

People seem to have this weird idea that human migration is a new thing. We've been walking about to new places since we started existing, and I fail to see how it's suddenly become a problem.

Because we have borders with immigration policies and xenophobes.

[San Lumen]

How is immigration and diversity threat to your country? Countries like the UK, France, Germany have never been 100 percent white. Countries like Brazil, Canada and the United States were literally founded on immigration.

People seem to have this weird idea that human migration is a new thing. We've been walking about to new places since we started existing, and I fail to see how it's suddenly become a problem.

Because some people are afraid of changing demographics. It's not really something you can do anything about considering that the generation of children in grade school in the United States currently is the first majority-minority generation.

[New Emeline]

People seem to have this weird idea that human migration is a new thing. We've been walking about to new places since we started existing, and I fail to see how it's suddenly become a problem.

Because some people are afraid of changing demographics. It's not really something you can do anything about considering that the generation of children in grade school in the United States currently is the first majority-minority generation.

I know why in theory, just in reality I don't get it.

[San Lumen]

Because some people are afraid of changing demographics. It's not really something you can do anything about considering that the generation of children in grade school in the United States currently is the first majority-minority generation.

I know why in theory, just in reality I don't get it.

I don't get it either. We are equal regardless of skin color.

[New Emeline]

I know why in theory, just in reality I don't get it.

I don't get it either. We are equal regardless of skin color.

I would say we can be equal regardless of skin color. Some of us are real assholes.

[San Lumen]

I don't get it either. We are equal regardless of skin color.

I would say we can be equal regardless of skin color. Some of us are real assholes.

Emphasis on some. Off Year elections in the United last year gave hope when you look at the diversity of candidates elected across the country. Granted who gets elected to office should be about who is best qualified for the job and by nothing else but its nice to see. The GOP ran a very decisive, racist and xenophobic campaign in Virginia and they paid dearly for it at the polls.

One of the best examples was In Helena, Montana were the incumbent Republican mayor who said immigrants and refugees were not welcome in his city was defeated by a Liberian refugee.

[Free Arctic Territories]

How are you going to fix Sudan, Syria and Eritrea all three of which are dictatorships? overthrow the government? There is no opposition to take power in any of them.

You dont have to provoke nationalists in the first place. And perhaps those displaced people could be treated better and I have seen no evidence that most of Europe doesnt want them. France and the UK rejected nationalist anti immigrant parties as did several other countries..

If you want to "treat them better", you would have to give them a job, housing, teach them english, educate them if they aren't educated, all of which takes time and taxpayer's money, all of which, a nationalist would argue, would be better spent fixing domestic problems. Do you see how, even you try to handwave their ideas away as ridiculous, it still fails to solve any practical problems? Just as we can't instantly usher in democratic governments in three countries currently being absolutely destroyed by constant civil war, you can't just dismiss anti-migrant parties (the fact that they are even relevant to this discussion right now is telling) by banning them or shutting them up by force. However, while we can't find solutions to any of these problems in the short term, ignoring them would make it even worse. The reality is, Europe cannot house the 6 million refugees Syria, as well as the countless others from warzones and totalitarian regimes around the world, without serious social and political turmoil and shifts. If things continue as is, far-right parties will only get more popular, and migrants will continue to struggle with integration and actively participating in the economy and society. Any change, any new approach would probably get us to a better position than simply kicking the can down the road and waiting for the next generation to suffer the consequences of failed integration.

FAT has a point.
But just a reminder: there's nothing wrong with jihad.

Nothing wrong with jihad unless said jihad involves killing or harming others. Applies for everything, really.

People seem to have this weird idea that human migration is a new thing. We've been walking about to new places since we started existing, and I fail to see how it's suddenly become a problem.

You're right, it's very old, and migration's been a common source of strife and violence since the dawn of history. The first homo sapiens appearing in Europe also coincides with the virtual extinction of the Neanderthals. Nomadic groups and raiders have been a thorn in the sides of civilizations since the dawn of history. When the Babylonians invaded ancient Israel, they scattered the Israelites throughout the empire, keeping them in exile for decades. The Roman Empire fell in part due to invading Germanic tribes moving down the Italian peninsula, ending the centuries long Pax Romana, plunging Europe into a dark age. The Mongols looted and murdered their way through Eurasia, killing tens of hundreds of millions and inadvertently dooming millions more through the Black Death. The Turks conquered Constantinople, ending a millennia of Byzantine rule. Similarly, European explorers accidentally initiated a virtual Holocaust in the New World, nearly wiping the entire indigenous population through smallpox, and then slowly erasing the remnants through intermarriage. China was plunged into civil war for nearly 200 years after the end of the Zhou Dynasty, with massive armies from regional kingdoms moving from place to place, destroying countless towns and villages in their quest to reunite China. Similarly, the Sengoku Jidai of Japan was one marked by the mass "migrations" of armies from province to province, as the daimyos sought to reunify Japan under a signle shogunate. The World Wars saw human migrations on scales never seen before, with millions of soldiers streaming across the borders in some of the largest land and naval battles in all history. The stream of refugees (depressingly still lower than the 60 million ish we have today) from the bombed out ruins of postwar Europe also marked a period of restlessness. Migration's given us many benefits, yes, like increased trade, the spread of ideas and technology, and really, nearly all of these events have also marked periods of increased contact and advancement between human societies, but mass migration has been a problem for civilizations since the dawn of history.

[The Parkus Empire]

What exactly, OP, is the point of different countries? Why not just one?

I'm so confused... a guy with a Paleocon flag talking about a world government...

I am not advocating it, no sir. I am asking what OP thinks the point of separate countries is

[The Parkus Empire]

What exactly, OP, is the point of different countries? Why not just one?

In my opinion, different countries exist for organization. It's easier to legislate people when you are closer to them.

Then why aren't they all the same size?

[Benuty]

I'm so confused... a guy with a Paleocon flag talking about a world government...

I am not advocating it, no sir. I am asking what OP thinks the point of separate countries is

Honestly only a massive reduction in the human population due to an external disaster, and the unification of the remaining military would be able to make such a thing happen.

[New Emeline]

In my opinion, different countries exist for organization. It's easier to legislate people when you are closer to them.

Then why aren't they all the same size?

I was saying that would be my reason for countries still existing, Nowadays, I think they exist mostly because we've had the same system for so long everything would collapse if we tried to change it. I'm guessing you're trying to get me to say "we have countries because people are different". Which is true. People are different. But those differences exist among singular cultures and races.