Diversity and Multiculturalism II:Make Diversity Great Again

[Kubumba Tribe]

Not really, it's not that mind blowing.

Congrats, you now understand how talking about something doesn't mean you actually care about it.

I've been understanding that. That's not hard to understand.

[The Parkus Empire]

I'm more concerned about people who don't own land voting.

So then it's not about ethnicity, it's about money.
Why should people who own land be given the right to vote, and not people who don't own land? Doesn't this mean suburban and rural people get more voting rights than urbanites? Why tho?

Because a government is over a land, a territory. It should represent the interests of landowners, especially since it can use eminent domain on them. People without land do not have any interest in the country in the sense that they don't possess any portion of the country.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Congrats, you now understand how talking about something doesn't mean you actually care about it.

I've been understanding that. That's not hard to understand.

Good, now you hopefully understand that just because you talk about human rights doesn't mean you care about them.

[Kubumba Tribe]

I've been understanding that. That's not hard to understand.

Good, now you hopefully understand that just because you talk about human rights doesn't mean you care about them.

Why "now"? I wasn't born yesterday.

[Kubumba Tribe]

So then it's not about ethnicity, it's about money.
Why should people who own land be given the right to vote, and not people who don't own land? Doesn't this mean suburban and rural people get more voting rights than urbanites? Why tho?

Because a government is over a land, a territory.

It's over a heck of a lot more than that.

It should represent the interests of landowners, especially since it can use eminent domain on them. People without land do not have any interest in the country in the sense that they don't possess any portion of the country.

So do homeless people and those who live in the city not have the right to vote?

[The Parkus Empire]

Because a government is over a land, a territory.

It's over a heck of a lot more than that.

It should represent the interests of landowners, especially since it can use eminent domain on them. People without land do not have any interest in the country in the sense that they don't possess any portion of the country.

So do homeless people and those who live in the city not have the right to vote?

If they own land in the city. If they don't, no. The responsibility of caring for your own piece of the country should precede responsibility over the entire country.

[San Lumen]

I THINK IT NEEDS TO STOP

Why?

[San Lumen]

So voting rights should be different for different ethnicities? What about working rights? Should one ethnic group have better working conditions than another? Should one ethnic group be subjected to Jim Crow-like laws? Should access to education be different for different ethnicities? Same questions for religious groups, sexes and LGBT.

I don't think all that is necessary, although I would support a poll tax and a literacy test.

Public schools should obviously cater to their community's religion. Not to some random snowflake who gets triggered if the community doesn't revolve around him.

Same sex marriage shouldn't exist, no.

So I should have less rights than you because Im gay?

[San Lumen]

It's over a heck of a lot more than that.

So do homeless people and those who live in the city not have the right to vote?

If they own land in the city. If they don't, no. The responsibility of caring for your own piece of the country should precede responsibility over the entire country.

So anyone who rents should not be allowed to vote? That would disproportionately affect non whites as there are many of them in urban centers and metro areas.

Why should some people have such as LGBT people have less rights? Everyone is not equal to you regardless of race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation?

[Telconi]

If they own land in the city. If they don't, no. The responsibility of caring for your own piece of the country should precede responsibility over the entire country.

So anyone who rents should not be allowed to vote? That would disproportionately affect non whites as there are many of them in urban centers and metro areas.

Why should some people have such as LGBT people have less rights? Everyone is not equal to you regardless of race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation?

Lots of laws disproportionately effect certain races, doesn't make the law racist.

[The Parkus Empire]

If they own land in the city. If they don't, no. The responsibility of caring for your own piece of the country should precede responsibility over the entire country.

So anyone who rents should not be allowed to vote? That would disproportionately affect non whites as there are many of them in urban centers and metro areas.

Why should some people have such as LGBT people have less rights? Everyone is not equal to you regardless of race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation?

"All men are created equal" is a joke, it got BTFO by Randolph of Roanoke long ago

[San Lumen]

So anyone who rents should not be allowed to vote? That would disproportionately affect non whites as there are many of them in urban centers and metro areas.

Why should some people have such as LGBT people have less rights? Everyone is not equal to you regardless of race, religion, ethnicity or sexual orientation?

"All men are created equal" is a joke, it got BTFO by Randolph of Roanoke long ago

So some people not equal to you? Who in your view is not?

[The Parkus Empire]

"All men are created equal" is a joke, it got BTFO by Randolph of Roanoke long ago

So some people not equal to you? Who in your view is not?

No one, except sometimes for practical purposes. Like John Adams I subscribe to the idea of a "great chain of being"

[Right wing humour squad]

"All men are created equal" is a joke, it got BTFO by Randolph of Roanoke long ago

So some people not equal to you? Who in your view is not?

No people are equal to you. Hell you from a different day is not equal to you now.

[San Lumen]

So then it's not about ethnicity, it's about money.
Why should people who own land be given the right to vote, and not people who don't own land? Doesn't this mean suburban and rural people get more voting rights than urbanites? Why tho?

Because a government is over a land, a territory. It should represent the interests of landowners, especially since it can use eminent domain on them. People without land do not have any interest in the country in the sense that they don't possess any portion of the country.

So anyone who lives in a city in a apartment or rents should have no say in government or the right to vote?

[San Lumen]

So some people not equal to you? Who in your view is not?

No one, except sometimes for practical purposes. Like John Adams I subscribe to the idea of a "great chain of being"

Someone who is black or brown or LGBT is not equal to you and should have less rights than you?

[The Parkus Empire]

No one, except sometimes for practical purposes. Like John Adams I subscribe to the idea of a "great chain of being"

Someone who is black or brown or LGBT is not equal to you and should have less rights than you?

I mean if he owns a lot of land I would say he has more right to vote

[San Lumen]

Someone who is black or brown or LGBT is not equal to you and should have less rights than you?

I mean if he owns a lot of land I would say he has more right to vote

But someone who rents or doesnt own land in a urban or suburban area should have no say in government or the right to vote? That would affect non whites heavily as many of them are in urban and metropolitan areas. Therefore you don’t believe in equality for all only some

[Isilanka]

EVEN IF we accept that people aren't equal and should not have equal votes, why the hell base it on the amount of land we use ?
Power and riches do not come from the land anymore.
And even if we modulated votes depending on how useful to society you are, how would you justify that someone who owns a small, very productive agricultural land gets less votes than someone who own an immense patch of desertic nothingness ?

Parkus, if you want a complete voting supremacy for the rural gentry, just say it, it'll be easier.

[Vietnan]

Multiculturalism makes me learn more about tolerance with others. Tolerance on religion, speech, culture and etc.

[Trumptonium1]

Multiculturalism makes me learn more about tolerance with others. Tolerance on religion, speech, culture and etc.

If you want to learn things there's books and internet. It's not 1250 AD.

[The South Falls]

Multiculturalism makes me learn more about tolerance with others. Tolerance on religion, speech, culture and etc.

If you want to learn things there's books and internet. It's not 1250 AD.

People don't seem to use those resources to learn tolerance. Otherwise this would be a utopia.

[Vietnan]

Multiculturalism makes me learn more about tolerance with others. Tolerance on religion, speech, culture and etc.

If you want to learn things there's books and internet. It's not 1250 AD.

I know about it, why do you say that?

[Olerand]

Is it? I don't perceive it as such. To me, there is no value in seeing college warriors and alt-rightists fight. In France, the identist ideology of most alt-rightist groups would have seen them dissolved by the State.

So, can you tell me what your values are? Freedom of speech, more or less, in varying degrees (Which really poses a question as to if this is an American value; or at least if America's current version of it is). Though even that is being tested, even by threats from people in your own Administration. And?

Well, I suppose one very good value besides being able to handle adult things like free speech and the whole restraint on police powers is backbone. We didn't pay a bribe to a dictator after the already Feds shit the bed by officially inviting in millions of "migrants". That's a good one :^)

Also ability to take decisive action in an economic crisis. It's a good national value not to believe in cutting off your nose to spite your face. Greece like actions would never be tolerated here. Much less supported by staunch """left wing""" parties.

I literally don't know what any of this means. Probably because most of this means nothing.

We will indeed have to agree to disagree. And I also wish that Europe never resembles America. However, it is worth noting that some countries have no problems with violating the ECHR, as evidenced by the Shariah courts of Britain.

Violating the ECHR is one of the most European things you can do. Why the Italians and the Carabinieri have been at it for 20 years!

True. But we... try to be better. Nobody's perfect.

France is the State that created a Nation. France is the quintessential ideological Nation-State.

I'm an American, and my country is very much not a Nation-State. We may (mostly) speak the same language in all 50 states, but we've never valued cultural uniformity like France does. America is much more like an Empire than a Nation-State, since we have one government ruling over many cultures rather than one culture for the whole country. (I cannot express enough how much I detest Nation-States, I find the very idea of them abhorrent.)

I agree.

I'm an American, and my country is very much not a Nation-State. We may (mostly) speak the same language in all 50 states, but we've never valued cultural uniformity like France does. America is much more like an Empire than a Nation-State, since we have one government ruling over many cultures rather than one culture for the whole country. (I cannot express enough how much I detest Nation-States, I find the very idea of them abhorrent.)

American culture isn't that fractured. Regional variations do exist but 'American culture' as a whole is very well established and defined. The only reason some people have the perception that it's not is because its global reach and hegemony is so complete that they might attribute things which are peculiar to American culture to something like Western culture, or even think they are universal.

American national identity has subsumed the vast majority of distinct ethnic groups by this point, especially for those Americans who are past second-generation immigrants. I think it's safe to call the US a nation-state.

What is it? But better yet, what are your values? What do you share in common? Why is New England still in this same federation as the Deep South?

My values aren't non-existent. They just aren't necessarily universal to my country.

And you cannot expect everyone to share exactly the same value as you.

No one does. Even in France we have Nazis, Islamists, and Anglo-Saxon wannabes. But the vast majority of the population, and basically the entirety of the political class (or at least those that matter) do. And that's vital for a Nation to exist.

I'm an American, and my country is very much not a Nation-State. We may (mostly) speak the same language in all 50 states, but we've never valued cultural uniformity like France does. America is much more like an Empire than a Nation-State, since we have one government ruling over many cultures rather than one culture for the whole country. (I cannot express enough how much I detest Nation-States, I find the very idea of them abhorrent.)

Are you suggesting that the people of any given American State aren't culturally American? Because, buddy, I don't know how to tell you this, they are.

What is culturally American? Why do you live together? I know what I (I still vote for the PS) have in common with a LFI voter and a RN voter. What about you?

Just saw this quote right here, so Imma respond to it

And so they are closed.

You're telling me that every masjid in France is closed?

I'm telling you that every mosque who advocates for Jihad is yes. That you have this contrived vision of Islam is well established, but clearly the majority of mosques in France comply with the law.

I'm an American, and my country is very much not a Nation-State. We may (mostly) speak the same language in all 50 states, but we've never valued cultural uniformity like France does. America is much more like an Empire than a Nation-State, since we have one government ruling over many cultures rather than one culture for the whole country. (I cannot express enough how much I detest Nation-States, I find the very idea of them abhorrent.)

You know, I agree to an extent. I understand a bit better Olerand’s comment that the US is not necessarily a ‘nation’ (doesn’t excuse a damn thing though) and yeah by their definition we would not qualify.

That is not necessarily a bad thing. Our citizens are unified in terms of seeing to their collective self-interest addressed, but our ideas on how to do it are varied and nuanced. Some ways work, some do not. Some work under these circumstances but not under those. The critical point is that we have a framework set up where we can adapt to changing circumstances by having a variety of different viewpoints looking at finding solutions to whatever that problem is. Some might say it is a case of ‘Too many chiefs’, but I’d say it is closer to ‘keeping our options open’.

If we try and raise one culture as supreme, we silence those other voices that could fix things better than that one culture by itself. Different viewpoints, different priorities, different solutions. I prefer our contentious system to that of forcing people to be in lock-step.

Would it be a violation of Godwin’s law to note that Olerand’s use of Nazism as an example of restricted speech is rather ironic?

Why should us banning Nazism be ironic? Many things were banned by the Nazis and banned by us. Hitler loved animals, must we slaughter them now?

Banning ideologies that are inherently toxic to your national wellbeing and social cohesion is only common sense. There is no use to having Nazism as a political force in our country. The same is true of Islamism. And hopefully, the same will be true of the Anglo-Saxon ideologies. The day might yet come when what Macron is trying to impose in France might explode. The question is in which direction will that take our millennium-old country?

[Auze]

France is the State that created a Nation. France is the quintessential ideological Nation-State.

I'm an American, and my country is very much not a Nation-State. We may (mostly) speak the same language in all 50 states, but we've never valued cultural uniformity like France does. America is much more like an Empire than a Nation-State, since we have one government ruling over many cultures rather than one culture for the whole country. (I cannot express enough how much I detest Nation-States, I find the very idea of them abhorrent.)

There are separate non-French cultures in France (the aforementioned Britons and Basque).