Is Fascism Inevitable in the Future of the West?

[Purgatio]

"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!

When did I mention anything about an SJW conspiracy? I just said when you propose something controversial which people are disinclined to believe, people are gonna try and dispute that thesis even if it was correct. That's not the same as suggesting there's a secretive cult of SJWs in academia trying to dispute politically-incorrect truths.

There's an academic debate raging on whether racial diversity increases or decreases community trust. We need to take that into account when you have people asserting, without evidence, like some self-evident truth, that more diversity is good for the US and the West.

[Purgatio]

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.

---

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.

I pointed out that there is a genuine academic debate on whether racial diversity increases or decreases community trust because people here are asserting, without evidence, that more interaction between the races is a magic solution to reduce racial tensions. The fact that there's a raging academic debate on the matter proves that we cannot take such an assumption for granted.

[Alvecia]

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.

And where we disagree is that such a method would effectively reduce tribalism. Ethnic tensions? Sure. But as I said earlier, that’s just putting the problem off till later.

[Purgatio]

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.

Sure, why not. I'm not white myself btw, and I have no desire to permanently reside in the West or become a citizen in Western countries. I think its legitimate for all countries to pursue immigration policies that will promote domestic stability and social cohesion, rather than injure it.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

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!

When did I mention anything about an SJW conspiracy? I just said when you propose something controversial which people are disinclined to believe, people are gonna try and dispute that thesis even if it was correct. That's not the same as suggesting there's a secretive cult of SJWs in academia trying to dispute politically-incorrect truths.

There's an academic debate raging on whether racial diversity increases or decreases community trust. We need to take that into account when you have people asserting, without evidence, like some self-evident truth, that more diversity is good for the US and the West.

You're literally arguing that you're right for no reason other than "people want to prove my source wrong".
If I said that the sky was bright red, and twenty people immediately corrected me, the conclusion one should draw is that the sky is not red, not that the sky being red is a controversial topic and therefore it must be.

[Valrifell]

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!

When did I mention anything about an SJW conspiracy? I just said when you propose something controversial which people are disinclined to believe, people are gonna try and dispute that thesis even if it was correct. That's not the same as suggesting there's a secretive cult of SJWs in academia trying to dispute politically-incorrect truths.

There's an academic debate raging on whether racial diversity increases or decreases community trust. We need to take that into account when you have people asserting, without evidence, like some self-evident truth, that more diversity is good for the US and the West.

It's not being declared without basis tho. You acknowledge there are counterclaims to the ones you and Putnam put forth, but you don't seem to recognize the validity of those studies for reasons I can't parse. But you have said that you think they're only doing that because it's politically correct to do so and Putnam's claims were not politically correct, ergo a conspiracy is afoot.

[Purgatio]

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.

And where we disagree is that such a method would effectively reduce tribalism. Ethnic tensions? Sure. But as I said earlier, that’s just putting the problem off till later.

But I'm not trying to reduce tribalism, my whole argument is that tribalism isn't going to magically go away no matter what the State tries to do. Hence, policy should try and reduce the negative effects of tribalism (such as a reduction of social cohesion in diverse societies) as opposed to engage in a futile exercise of eliminating it through social engineering

[Ifreann]

"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.

Logical intuition also tells us that eventually you'll just get used to the people around you, no matter how different they may seem at first.

[Purgatio]

When did I mention anything about an SJW conspiracy? I just said when you propose something controversial which people are disinclined to believe, people are gonna try and dispute that thesis even if it was correct. That's not the same as suggesting there's a secretive cult of SJWs in academia trying to dispute politically-incorrect truths.

There's an academic debate raging on whether racial diversity increases or decreases community trust. We need to take that into account when you have people asserting, without evidence, like some self-evident truth, that more diversity is good for the US and the West.

You're literally arguing that you're right for no reason other than "people want to prove my source wrong".
If I said that the sky was bright red, and twenty people immediately corrected me, the conclusion one should draw is that the sky is not red, not that the sky being red is a controversial topic and therefore it must be.

It's not one person, this is a thesis supported in the Putnam 2007 study, FIeldhouse and Cutts in 2010, Costa and Kahn in 2003 and Alesina and Ferrera in 2000. It's not like it's one crazy lunatic and an entire field of sociology determined to prove him wrong. This isn't some climate change or evolution situation where a firm academic consensus has emerged and I'm citing one random moron as evidence of my view.

[Senegalboy]

And where we disagree is that such a method would effectively reduce tribalism. Ethnic tensions? Sure. But as I said earlier, that’s just putting the problem off till later.

But I'm not trying to reduce tribalism, my whole argument is that tribalism isn't going to magically go away no matter what the State tries to do. Hence, policy should try and reduce the negative effects of tribalism (such as a reduction of social cohesion in diverse societies) as opposed to engage in a futile exercise of eliminating it through social engineering

But a large part of this tribalism is the fear of the unknown.If the races interact better and have good relations then tribalism may not disappear but be reduced significantly.

[Evil Dictators Happyland]

You're literally arguing that you're right for no reason other than "people want to prove my source wrong".
If I said that the sky was bright red, and twenty people immediately corrected me, the conclusion one should draw is that the sky is not red, not that the sky being red is a controversial topic and therefore it must be.

It's not one person, this is a thesis supported in the Putnam 2007 study, FIeldhouse and Cutts in 2010, Costa and Kahn in 2003 and Alesina and Ferrera in 2000. It's not like it's one crazy lunatic and an entire field of sociology determined to prove him wrong. This isn't some climate change or evolution situation where a firm academic consensus has emerged and I'm citing one random moron as evidence of my view.

This point would have more merit if you weren't ignoring all the studies that proved it wrong. Because according to your own posts, such studies do in fact exist, but apparently they don't count because they might be biased, unlike the ones proving your point, which could never be biased.

[Purgatio]

When did I mention anything about an SJW conspiracy? I just said when you propose something controversial which people are disinclined to believe, people are gonna try and dispute that thesis even if it was correct. That's not the same as suggesting there's a secretive cult of SJWs in academia trying to dispute politically-incorrect truths.

There's an academic debate raging on whether racial diversity increases or decreases community trust. We need to take that into account when you have people asserting, without evidence, like some self-evident truth, that more diversity is good for the US and the West.

It's not being declared without basis tho. You acknowledge there are counterclaims to the ones you and Putnam put forth, but you don't seem to recognize the validity of those studies for reasons I can't parse. But you have said that you think they're only doing that because it's politically correct to do so and Putnam's claims were not politically correct, ergo a conspiracy is afoot.

Not only because Putnam's thesis isn't politically-correct. We have a natural optimism bias as human beings. Being told that ethnic diversity has negative effects and consequences is something you are going to be disinclined to buy especially if you live in a country that is diverse and is likely to become more diverse in future (ie the US, UK and Canada etc). I'm not implying there's a coordinated SJW conspiracy to prove Putnam wrong, I'm saying his thesis is prima facie controversial-sounding and the fact that other people have disputed his thesis isn't a priori evidence that Putnam is wrong. It just means there's an academic debate out there, as there is on many other controversial issues.

[Purgatio]

It's not one person, this is a thesis supported in the Putnam 2007 study, FIeldhouse and Cutts in 2010, Costa and Kahn in 2003 and Alesina and Ferrera in 2000. It's not like it's one crazy lunatic and an entire field of sociology determined to prove him wrong. This isn't some climate change or evolution situation where a firm academic consensus has emerged and I'm citing one random moron as evidence of my view.

This point would have more merit if you weren't ignoring all the studies that proved it wrong. Because according to your own posts, such studies do in fact exist, but apparently they don't count because they might be biased, unlike the ones proving your point, which could never be biased.

I'm not saying those studies don't count, I'm saying there's a legitimate academic debate out there on whether racial diversity promotes or injures community cohesion, so let's have a debate about that matter here.

[Alvecia]

And where we disagree is that such a method would effectively reduce tribalism. Ethnic tensions? Sure. But as I said earlier, that’s just putting the problem off till later.

But I'm not trying to reduce tribalism, my whole argument is that tribalism isn't going to magically go away no matter what the State tries to do. Hence, policy should try and reduce the negative effects of tribalism (such as a reduction of social cohesion in diverse societies) as opposed to engage in a futile exercise of eliminating it through social engineering

My criticism is still valid. At that point you’re just playing tribalistic whack a mole.

[Purgatio]

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.

Logical intuition also tells us that eventually you'll just get used to the people around you, no matter how different they may seem at first.

Why? The very fact that you're being exposed to people who are different from you in very visible, tangible and stark ways, on a constant and continuous basis, is only going to entrench your perception that these people are different from you and represent the 'other'. The more time you spend with them the more obvious these differences are, surely.

[Purgatio]

But I'm not trying to reduce tribalism, my whole argument is that tribalism isn't going to magically go away no matter what the State tries to do. Hence, policy should try and reduce the negative effects of tribalism (such as a reduction of social cohesion in diverse societies) as opposed to engage in a futile exercise of eliminating it through social engineering

But a large part of this tribalism is the fear of the unknown.If the races interact better and have good relations then tribalism may not disappear but be reduced significantly.

How do you explain the rise in hate crimes in the US? The rise of neo-Nazis and the alt-right? The rise of the EDL and Tommy Robinson in the UK? These societies are becoming more and more diverse - if more diversity leads to more toleration as you suggest, surely we'd see less and less ethno-supremacist movements in these countries as time goes on, right?

[Holy Tedalonia]

Logical intuition also tells us that eventually you'll just get used to the people around you, no matter how different they may seem at first.

Why? The very fact that you're being exposed to people who are different from you in very visible, tangible and stark ways, on a constant and continuous basis, is only going to entrench your perception that these people are different from you and represent the 'other'. The more time you spend with them the more obvious these differences are, surely.

Everyone naturally creates a ‘other’, whether by race, gender, political standing, or etc. No one can really end tribalism, that much is true, but to ignore that there are other ways to be ‘tribal’ outside of race, is also ignorant. In essence there is no soulution to reducing tribalism.

[Purgatio]

But I'm not trying to reduce tribalism, my whole argument is that tribalism isn't going to magically go away no matter what the State tries to do. Hence, policy should try and reduce the negative effects of tribalism (such as a reduction of social cohesion in diverse societies) as opposed to engage in a futile exercise of eliminating it through social engineering

My criticism is still valid. At that point you’re just playing tribalistic whack a mole.

How am I playing tribalistic whack a mole? I see a problem and I'm trying to propose a solution, and that problem is that the more the US becomes racially-diverse, the more whites feel like a declining and threatened/endangered race, and the more they become attracted to far-right demagouges, the alt-right and white supremacists. As a non-white who is currently studying in the UK and will be studying in the US, I'd rather not go to a country that increasingly feels like they have a reason to despise non-whites and beat them up and join fascist groups.

[Purgatio]

Why? The very fact that you're being exposed to people who are different from you in very visible, tangible and stark ways, on a constant and continuous basis, is only going to entrench your perception that these people are different from you and represent the 'other'. The more time you spend with them the more obvious these differences are, surely.

Everyone naturally creates a ‘other’, whether by race, gender, political standing, or etc. No one can really end tribalism, that much is true, but to ignore that there are other ways to be ‘tribal’ outside of race, is also ignorant. In essence there is no soulution to reducing tribalism.

Sure, but I can't exactly promote a mono-gender society since that doesn't make sense from an obvious perspective. But I can suggest that Western societies that are not very diverse (such as in Eastern Europe) should actively maintain that homogeneity, and Western societies which are diverse (like the US, UK and Canada) should attempt to mitigate or reduce the rate at which racial diversity increases. These are realistic and tangible policy solutions to stave off the increasing rise of and support for far-right and fascist groups.

[Bananoonza]

Recently my son asked me about Nationalism... that lead to the question, we ended with, “what is the difference between Nationalism and Patriotism?”

In my personal opinion “Fascism - Italian word,” is alive and well in the present of not only the west but most of the planet, today. It is hidden under the banner of “national interest and agenda.” If one nation (or group of people) find themselves oppressing others... well, we have a problem of moral and ethical values.

[Alvecia]

My criticism is still valid. At that point you’re just playing tribalistic whack a mole.

How am I playing tribalistic whack a mole? I see a problem and I'm trying to propose a solution, and that problem is that the more the US becomes racially-diverse, the more whites feel like a declining and threatened/endangered race, and the more they become attracted to far-right demagouges, the alt-right and white supremacists. As a non-white who is currently studying in the UK and will be studying in the US, I'd rather not go to a country that increasingly feels like they have a reason to despise non-whites and beat them up and join fascist groups.

As I’ve said, reducing one particular form of tribalism won’t reduce the effects of tribalism. People will just find other “tribes” and conflict will stem from there. Its a temporary measure at best.

[Senegalboy]

But a large part of this tribalism is the fear of the unknown.If the races interact better and have good relations then tribalism may not disappear but be reduced significantly.

How do you explain the rise in hate crimes in the US? The rise of neo-Nazis and the alt-right? The rise of the EDL and Tommy Robinson in the UK? These societies are becoming more and more diverse - if more diversity leads to more toleration as you suggest, surely we'd see less and less ethno-supremacist movements in these countries as time goes on, right?

I can't speak for the US but i can for the UK.
On paper the UK is becoming more diverse as is the US but in reality the different races are moving apart.In many town and cities in both the UK and the US there is a phenomenon known as "white flight" where White people are moving out of increasingly diverse areas to whiter areas. Self segregation means that the races are not mixing well. If they did then tolerance may begin to take root.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Everyone naturally creates a ‘other’, whether by race, gender, political standing, or etc. No one can really end tribalism, that much is true, but to ignore that there are other ways to be ‘tribal’ outside of race, is also ignorant. In essence there is no soulution to reducing tribalism.

Sure, but I can't exactly promote a mono-gender society since that doesn't make sense from an obvious perspective. But I can suggest that Western societies that are not very diverse (such as in Eastern Europe) should actively maintain that homogeneity, and Western societies which are diverse (like the US, UK and Canada) should attempt to mitigate or reduce the rate at which racial diversity increases. These are realistic and tangible policy solutions to stave off the increasing rise of and support for far-right and fascist groups.

I think to create a balance is not neccessary, most ethnic races will eventually decline due to globalism, and the rise of the mixed races will eventually come to fruition. No matter how you try and stop it, it will become a eventuality, and a portion of white men will be threatened. Your solution will not stop the decline of the white man, but it will increase racial tensions as many would find that, to prevent someone from entering the country due to skin color, may find that a tad problematic.

[Purgatio]

How am I playing tribalistic whack a mole? I see a problem and I'm trying to propose a solution, and that problem is that the more the US becomes racially-diverse, the more whites feel like a declining and threatened/endangered race, and the more they become attracted to far-right demagouges, the alt-right and white supremacists. As a non-white who is currently studying in the UK and will be studying in the US, I'd rather not go to a country that increasingly feels like they have a reason to despise non-whites and beat them up and join fascist groups.

As I’ve said, reducing one particular form of tribalism won’t reduce the effects of tribalism. People will just find other “tribes” and conflict will stem from there. Its a temporary measure at best.

There's a question of degree to be considered here, surely. Countries like Japan or Taiwan which are very ethnically-homogenous aren't utopias without internal political conflict or conflict over culture war issues like gay marriage, but they don't have the racial tensions of the US and UK.

[Senegalboy]

Everyone naturally creates a ‘other’, whether by race, gender, political standing, or etc. No one can really end tribalism, that much is true, but to ignore that there are other ways to be ‘tribal’ outside of race, is also ignorant. In essence there is no soulution to reducing tribalism.

Sure, but I can't exactly promote a mono-gender society since that doesn't make sense from an obvious perspective. But I can suggest that Western societies that are not very diverse (such as in Eastern Europe) should actively maintain that homogeneity, and Western societies which are diverse (like the US, UK and Canada) should attempt to mitigate or reduce the rate at which racial diversity increases. These are realistic and tangible policy solutions to stave off the increasing rise of and support for far-right and fascist groups.

But Far right and Fascist groups are doing better in homogenous countries like Poland and Hungary than in more diverse nations like the US.