Is Fascism Inevitable in the Future of the West?

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

The statistics you were quoting addressed cross-ethnic friendships, so I addressed the same point. I fail to see how this was a logical failing on my part.
And Singapore has a population of 5.6 million. There aren't enough people living there to have any serious neo-Nazi movements, since fringe ideologies don't garner a large percentage of the vote and you need a lot of people to have a large movement. New York City doesn't have many Nazi demonstrations, last I checked, and it has a population of over 8 million, so can I use that to demonstrate that America doesn't have serious ethnic tensions?
You can definitely claim that some or even most Asian countries don't have ethnic tensions to the degree America does, but Singapore is a terrible example of this (and also just about everything else tbh) because of its small size.

To be fair, when I brought up Singapore at first, I originally wasn't using Singapore as an example of low ethnic tensions, the context in which I brought it up was in direct rebuttal to an earlier claim that 'social engineering' can magically end racial tensions. Going back to that earlier argument, the fact that Singapore is small actually bolsters my point, because its generally easier to implement nationwide social engineering educational programmes in a small country, and if it didn't eliminate racial tribalism in Singapore, to argue it would work if implemented in the US and UK is wishful utopian thinking. That was the context in which I was bringing up Singapore, not to argue we are model for the world to follow, but the exact opposite point (that if a small country run by one party couldn't engineer away racism, don't expect it to work elsewhere).

As for your claim that Singapore is too small to have neo-Nazis, that might be true but it doesn't change the overall crime rate. In the US, there were 7,175 hate crimes in 2017 (https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2017/topic-pages/incidents-and-offenses), a rate of 0.022 per 1000 people. In contrast, Singapore's overall violent crime rate (not racially-motivated violent crime, all violent crime generally) is a rate of 0.51 per 100,000 people (https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Singapore/United-States/Crime), or 0.0051 per 1000 people. Think about that, our violent crime rate is lower than the US's racially-motivated violent crime rate (not that this is a crime rate, not total gross number obviously, in case you argue this is just because our population is smaller). I can't think of any clearer illustration of the state of ethnic tensions in the US than its high rate of racially-motivated violent crime. If you're a minority, would you rather members of the racial majority not be friends with you, or beat you up? Which would regard as a worse threat to inter-ethnic relations?

But you're right, if I want to argue ethnically homogeous countries have fewer inter-ethnic tensions than diverse ones like the US, it'll probably be better to bring up China, Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, countries where one race makes up 90% of the population and with larger populations more comparable to the US, I'll agree with you there.

*rereads*
Sorry, I misunderstood what the references to Singapore originally referred to. (In my defense, you do have something of a habit of trying to argue that the entire world should try to emulate Singapore.)
Anyway, I agree with you that pseudo-Orwellian propaganda isn't a great idea. When a bureaucrat tells you to do something that you don't legally have to do, most people's reactions are to do the exact opposite.

[Purgatio]

To be fair, when I brought up Singapore at first, I originally wasn't using Singapore as an example of low ethnic tensions, the context in which I brought it up was in direct rebuttal to an earlier claim that 'social engineering' can magically end racial tensions. Going back to that earlier argument, the fact that Singapore is small actually bolsters my point, because its generally easier to implement nationwide social engineering educational programmes in a small country, and if it didn't eliminate racial tribalism in Singapore, to argue it would work if implemented in the US and UK is wishful utopian thinking. That was the context in which I was bringing up Singapore, not to argue we are model for the world to follow, but the exact opposite point (that if a small country run by one party couldn't engineer away racism, don't expect it to work elsewhere).

As for your claim that Singapore is too small to have neo-Nazis, that might be true but it doesn't change the overall crime rate. In the US, there were 7,175 hate crimes in 2017 (https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2017/topic-pages/incidents-and-offenses), a rate of 0.022 per 1000 people. In contrast, Singapore's overall violent crime rate (not racially-motivated violent crime, all violent crime generally) is a rate of 0.51 per 100,000 people (https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/compare/Singapore/United-States/Crime), or 0.0051 per 1000 people. Think about that, our violent crime rate is lower than the US's racially-motivated violent crime rate (not that this is a crime rate, not total gross number obviously, in case you argue this is just because our population is smaller). I can't think of any clearer illustration of the state of ethnic tensions in the US than its high rate of racially-motivated violent crime. If you're a minority, would you rather members of the racial majority not be friends with you, or beat you up? Which would regard as a worse threat to inter-ethnic relations?

But you're right, if I want to argue ethnically homogeous countries have fewer inter-ethnic tensions than diverse ones like the US, it'll probably be better to bring up China, Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, countries where one race makes up 90% of the population and with larger populations more comparable to the US, I'll agree with you there.

*rereads*
Sorry, I misunderstood what the references to Singapore originally referred to. (In my defense, you do have something of a habit of trying to argue that the entire world should try to emulate Singapore.)
Anyway, I agree with you that pseudo-Orwellian propaganda isn't a great idea. When a bureaucrat tells you to do something that you don't legally have to do, most people's reactions are to do the exact opposite.

Lol it's fine, don't worry about it reading back my comments I do see how out of context it did sound like I was trying to say everyone should emulate Singapore's social policies towards race, although I was making the opposite point. Also, I don't recall advocating the rest of the world follow Singapore except in the context of education, I don't generally think other Singaporean policies could work on a global scale outside the educational context.

And yes, agree with you that State social engineering tends to be, at best, a panacea or band-aid on the problem. Teaching people through schools and media to 'stop being racist' or 'love minorities' is probably not going to address underlying tensions and might even have the opposite effect (in reinforcing alt-right rhetoric about Jewish conspiracy to brainwash white people and shit).

[Purgatio]

By definition, a more diverse community will have more inter-ethnic interaction than a less diverse one (logically, since if there is a higher proportion of non-whites in your community the chance of you interacting with a non-white person in your life obviously increases), so the fact that there's an inverse relationship between racial diversity and social cohesion and community trust suggests that interaction doesn't resolve ethnic tensions, contrary to your claim.

The very article you posted disproves this, no? That ethnic communities have a tendency to “hunker down”.

Because being in a community rife with people who look and sound and act very differently from you increases your prejudice towards those people and makes you feel a greater inclination to cluster and self-segregate with other people who do look, sound and act like you. Which implies a tribalistic impulse that 'forced interaction' won't resolve. I'm sorry to say this, but pushing a white and black person into a room and forcing them to talk to each other for an hour or two isn't going to end racial tensions and if anything would have the exact opposite effect. Thinking State engineering can erase racial prejudice is utopianism at its worst.

[Ifreann]

You aren’t really addressing the problem, you’re putting it off. Tribalism will always occur even within ethnicly homogenous states, it just won’t be between different ethnicities. Then you’ll have to come up with a solution to deal with that particular issue.
Class/income is a good example.
I’m no sociologist but I’d instead promote interactivity between the two “tribes” to build common values that they can relate to. Give them something to rally around together.

Ah yes, the 'interaction promotes tolerance' thesis that has come under increasing challenge from within sociology itself. See Putnam's 'hunkering down' thesis which found a short-term inverse correlation between community trust/social cohesion and racial/ethnic diversity (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x)

404. But I Googled the link, curious about whence it came, and found this in the results.
https://www.socjobrumors.com/topic/are- ... edgy-again

Bowling Alone (1995/2000) prompted a whole genre of social scientific research based on arguing with Robert Putnam.

Then his article (2007) about diversity posing a challenge for national solidarity and cohesion initiated another mini-genre of research based on arguing with Robert Putnam about something else https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... 07.00176.x

It's been 11 years. Shouldn't we be getting a new provocative and overreaching argument from Robert Putnam any day now so we can continue yelling at him about why he's wrong about... whatever he's going to be wrong about next?

Apparently this Putnam fellow is a figure of some controversy among sociologists.

[Purgatio]

Ah yes, the 'interaction promotes tolerance' thesis that has come under increasing challenge from within sociology itself. See Putnam's 'hunkering down' thesis which found a short-term inverse correlation between community trust/social cohesion and racial/ethnic diversity (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x)

404. But I Googled the link, curious about whence it came, and found this in the results.
https://www.socjobrumors.com/topic/are- ... edgy-again

Bowling Alone (1995/2000) prompted a whole genre of social scientific research based on arguing with Robert Putnam.

Then his article (2007) about diversity posing a challenge for national solidarity and cohesion initiated another mini-genre of research based on arguing with Robert Putnam about something else https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs ... 07.00176.x

It's been 11 years. Shouldn't we be getting a new provocative and overreaching argument from Robert Putnam any day now so we can continue yelling at him about why he's wrong about... whatever he's going to be wrong about next?

Apparently this Putnam fellow is a figure of some controversy among sociologists.

Controversial because his thesis challenged the orthodox assumption that if white and black people live on the same street, magically they'll become friends, interact, understand each other and become friends. Controversial doesn't mean wrong.

[Ifreann]

404. But I Googled the link, curious about whence it came, and found this in the results.
https://www.socjobrumors.com/topic/are- ... edgy-again


Apparently this Putnam fellow is a figure of some controversy among sociologists.

Controversial because his thesis challenged the orthodox assumption that if white and black people live on the same street, magically they'll become friends, interact, understand each other and become friends. Controversial doesn't mean wrong.

Doesn't mean right, either. And spawning genres of research about how you're wrong doesn't seem like something that would happen if he was right.

[Valrifell]

Can I get an emphasis on the "sort term" part of his findings? Thanks

[Alvecia]

The very article you posted disproves this, no? That ethnic communities have a tendency to “hunker down”.

Because being in a community rife with people who look and sound and act very differently from you increases your prejudice towards those people and makes you feel a greater inclination to cluster and self-segregate with other people who do look, sound and act like you. Which implies a tribalistic impulse that 'forced interaction' won't resolve. I'm sorry to say this, but pushing a white and black person into a room and forcing them to talk to each other for an hour or two isn't going to end racial tensions and if anything would have the exact opposite effect. Thinking State engineering can erase racial prejudice is utopianism at its worst.

I never claimed forced interaction was the solution, just encouraged interaction. Be the guiding hand, not the pushing one.

[Purgatio]

Can I get an emphasis on the "sort term" part of his findings? Thanks

Easy to say when you're not a minority in that "short term", suffering demonising rhetoric, hate crimes and the rise of reactionary alt-right movements.

Also, please read the full study. While Putnam uses quantitative data to support the claim that, in the short-term, social cohesion decreases as racial diversity increases, he doesn't actually cite data to support his claim that in the "long-term", this decrease in trust and cohesion goes away after a while. In fact, his support for the latter assertion is largely speculative, he cites how the Irish and Italians have completely assimilated as evidence (even though Jews and African-Americans have been around for the same time in US history and are still otherised and demonised by the racial majority on a regular basis) and starts arguing that since the US Marines are racially-diverse, somehow this means on a wider community or nationwide scale racial diversity won't cause problems.

In short, the "short-term" part of Putnam's thesis is supported by actual data and statistics, whereas his "long-term" part is mostly the product of speculation and spitballing. I suspect he put that in there because he knew his thesis would be controversial amongst liberals and put that in so no one could demonise him as some ethno-nationalist racist.

[Purgatio]

Controversial because his thesis challenged the orthodox assumption that if white and black people live on the same street, magically they'll become friends, interact, understand each other and become friends. Controversial doesn't mean wrong.

Doesn't mean right, either. And spawning genres of research about how you're wrong doesn't seem like something that would happen if he was right.

When you suggest something politically-incorrect like how racial diversity reduces community trust and social cohesion, you are going to spark backlash and academics desperate to prove you wrong regardless of whether your study's thesis is true or false.

[Purgatio]

Because being in a community rife with people who look and sound and act very differently from you increases your prejudice towards those people and makes you feel a greater inclination to cluster and self-segregate with other people who do look, sound and act like you. Which implies a tribalistic impulse that 'forced interaction' won't resolve. I'm sorry to say this, but pushing a white and black person into a room and forcing them to talk to each other for an hour or two isn't going to end racial tensions and if anything would have the exact opposite effect. Thinking State engineering can erase racial prejudice is utopianism at its worst.

I never claimed forced interaction was the solution, just encouraged interaction. Be the guiding hand, not the pushing one.

Tell me in concrete terms how you intend to reduce racial diversity through State-encouraged interaction. Because I've given evidence of the real harm and damage caused by racial diversity, and why this justifies an immigration policy that aims to reduce rather than increase racial diversity, so if you support an immigration policy that will lead to increased racial diversity in future, you need to propose a detailed and concrete State policy that will mitigate and reduce the corresponding reduction in social cohesion that will result.

[Ifreann]

Doesn't mean right, either. And spawning genres of research about how you're wrong doesn't seem like something that would happen if he was right.

When you suggest something politically-incorrect like how racial diversity reduces community trust and social cohesion, you are going to spark backlash and academics desperate to prove you wrong regardless of whether your study's thesis is true or false.

Yes, when you're controversial and wrong you're going to get a lot of people piling in to show how wrong you are.

[Valrifell]

When you suggest something politically-incorrect like how racial diversity reduces community trust and social cohesion, you are going to spark backlash and academics desperate to prove you wrong regardless of whether your study's thesis is true or false.

Yes, when you're controversial and wrong you're going to get a lot of people piling in to show how wrong you are.

A novel concept

[Alvecia]

I never claimed forced interaction was the solution, just encouraged interaction. Be the guiding hand, not the pushing one.

Tell me in concrete terms how you intend to reduce racial diversity through State-encouraged interaction. Because I've given evidence of the real harm and damage caused by racial diversity, and why this justifies an immigration policy that aims to reduce rather than increase racial diversity, so if you support an immigration policy that will lead to increased racial diversity in future, you need to propose a detailed and concrete State policy that will mitigate and reduce the corresponding reduction in social cohesion that will result.

I can’t.
As I said, I’m no sociologist nor policymaker. I can give you my opinion, and my overall thoughts on the direction I believe is best based on my learning and experience. But that’s it.

You are a sociologist yourself then, I assume, to have come up with such a concrete plan?

[Holy Tedalonia]

When you suggest something politically-incorrect like how racial diversity reduces community trust and social cohesion, you are going to spark backlash and academics desperate to prove you wrong regardless of whether your study's thesis is true or false.

Yes, when you're controversial and wrong you're going to get a lot of people piling in to show how wrong you are.

People trying to prove someone wrong =/= people trying to correct someone

[Purgatio]

When you suggest something politically-incorrect like how racial diversity reduces community trust and social cohesion, you are going to spark backlash and academics desperate to prove you wrong regardless of whether your study's thesis is true or false.

Yes, when you're controversial and wrong you're going to get a lot of people piling in to show how wrong you are.

And when you're controversial and right you're also going to get a lot of people piling in to show how wrong you are. My point is, when you suggest a controversial thesis, and lots of studies come out desperate to prove you wrong, it could mean you were wrong, or it could mean you were right, the fact that your thesis gets disputed doesn't suggest eitherway whether your thesis is right or wrong. So its inaccurate to cite the fact that 'other academics disagree' as somehow conclusive proof that Putnam is wrong, especially since there are studies which suggest the same correlation including the Costa and Kahn study in 2003 and the Alesina and Ferrera study of 2000.

And most recently in the Fieldhouse and Cutts study in June 2010.

[Senegalboy]

I never claimed forced interaction was the solution, just encouraged interaction. Be the guiding hand, not the pushing one.

Tell me in concrete terms how you intend to reduce racial diversity through State-encouraged interaction. Because I've given evidence of the real harm and damage caused by racial diversity, and why this justifies an immigration policy that aims to reduce rather than increase racial diversity, so if you support an immigration policy that will lead to increased racial diversity in future, you need to propose a detailed and concrete State policy that will mitigate and reduce the corresponding reduction in social cohesion that will result.

So what is your prefered Immigration Policy?

[Purgatio]

Tell me in concrete terms how you intend to reduce racial diversity through State-encouraged interaction. Because I've given evidence of the real harm and damage caused by racial diversity, and why this justifies an immigration policy that aims to reduce rather than increase racial diversity, so if you support an immigration policy that will lead to increased racial diversity in future, you need to propose a detailed and concrete State policy that will mitigate and reduce the corresponding reduction in social cohesion that will result.

I can’t.
As I said, I’m no sociologist nor policymaker. I can give you my opinion, and my overall thoughts on the direction I believe is best based on my learning and experience. But that’s it.

You are a sociologist yourself then, I assume, to have come up with such a concrete plan?

I don't have a concrete plan to reduce racial tensions through interaction, because my view is its impossible. Human beings are just too tribalistic in thinking that encouraging them to talk more with people who are different from them cannot magically erase that tribalism and in-group mentality. Hence, why I suggested the better solution to reduce ethnic tensions is pursuing an immigration policy that actively attempts to reduce, rather than increase, racial diversity, by granting permanent residency and new citizenship based on race.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

Yes, when you're controversial and wrong you're going to get a lot of people piling in to show how wrong you are.

And when you're controversial and right you're also going to get a lot of people piling in to show how wrong you are. My point is, when you suggest a controversial thesis, and lots of studies come out desperate to prove you wrong, it could mean you were wrong, or it could mean you were right, the fact that your thesis gets disputed doesn't suggest eitherway whether your thesis is right or wrong. So its inaccurate to cite the fact that 'other academics disagree' as somehow conclusive proof that Putnam is wrong, especially since there are studies which suggest the same correlation including the Costa and Kahn study in 2003 and the Alesina and Ferrera study of 2000.

And most recently in the Fieldhouse and Cutts study in June 2010.

"We can't be certain whether it's right or wrong, therefore it's right."

[Purgatio]

Tell me in concrete terms how you intend to reduce racial diversity through State-encouraged interaction. Because I've given evidence of the real harm and damage caused by racial diversity, and why this justifies an immigration policy that aims to reduce rather than increase racial diversity, so if you support an immigration policy that will lead to increased racial diversity in future, you need to propose a detailed and concrete State policy that will mitigate and reduce the corresponding reduction in social cohesion that will result.

So what is your prefered Immigration Policy?

One that takes race into account when giving out citizenship or permanent residency, in a way that attempts to either reduce racial diversity or, at worst, attempts to minimise rapid or radical demographic changes in a society, so as to not damage social cohesion and community trust.

[Valrifell]

And when you're controversial and right you're also going to get a lot of people piling in to show how wrong you are. My point is, when you suggest a controversial thesis, and lots of studies come out desperate to prove you wrong, it could mean you were wrong, or it could mean you were right, the fact that your thesis gets disputed doesn't suggest eitherway whether your thesis is right or wrong. So its inaccurate to cite the fact that 'other academics disagree' as somehow conclusive proof that Putnam is wrong, especially since there are studies which suggest the same correlation including the Costa and Kahn study in 2003 and the Alesina and Ferrera study of 2000.

And most recently in the Fieldhouse and Cutts study in June 2010.

"We can't be certain whether it's right or wrong, therefore it's right."

Well, either he's wrong/misguided or the SJW conspiracy runs deep in sociology and Big Data and are making shit up to maintain political correctness.

I know which one's more likely!

[Senegalboy]

So what is your prefered Immigration Policy?

One that takes race into account when giving out citizenship or permanent residency, in a way that attempts to either reduce racial diversity or, at worst, attempts to minimise rapid or radical demographic changes in a society, so as to not damage social cohesion and community trust.

So would you encourage White Migration like Australia did until the 1960s.

[Purgatio]

And when you're controversial and right you're also going to get a lot of people piling in to show how wrong you are. My point is, when you suggest a controversial thesis, and lots of studies come out desperate to prove you wrong, it could mean you were wrong, or it could mean you were right, the fact that your thesis gets disputed doesn't suggest eitherway whether your thesis is right or wrong. So its inaccurate to cite the fact that 'other academics disagree' as somehow conclusive proof that Putnam is wrong, especially since there are studies which suggest the same correlation including the Costa and Kahn study in 2003 and the Alesina and Ferrera study of 2000.

And most recently in the Fieldhouse and Cutts study in June 2010.

"We can't be certain whether it's right or wrong, therefore it's right."

That's not why it's right. It's right because, on top of the academic literature, its supported by logic and common sense - we are tribalistic, it's our nature, when we come into contact with huge numbers of other people who are different from us, look and sound totally different to us, it's natural to feel alienated, isolated and socially-dislocated in such an environment. That's an argument supported by both human history, the studies I cited and logical intuition.

[Ifreann]

Yes, when you're controversial and wrong you're going to get a lot of people piling in to show how wrong you are.

A novel concept

If my living depended on getting papers published I'd be over the moon to see someone in my field saying something controversial and wrong.

---

Yes, when you're controversial and wrong you're going to get a lot of people piling in to show how wrong you are.

And when you're controversial and right you're also going to get a lot of people piling in to show how wrong you are.

So we can safely conclude that your link that goes nowhere...went nowhere. How delightful.

[Valrifell]

"We can't be certain whether it's right or wrong, therefore it's right."

That's not why it's right. It's right because, on top of the academic literature, its supported by logic and common sense - we are tribalistic, it's our nature, when we come into contact with huge numbers of other people who are different from us, look and sound totally different to us, it's natural to feel alienated, isolated and socially-dislocated in such an environment. That's an argument supported by both human history, the studies I cited and logical intuition.

Reality is oft unintuitive, like calculus or particle physics. That you find it intuitive is not related or reflective of its correctness.