What's wrong with diversity?

[Neu California]

And that is supposed to prove what?

People with similar ethnic and cultural background voting the same way doesn't mean that they're doing that because thread what they think their tribe wants.I

You're good at reaching, though, I'll give you that

You have serious trouble understanding my argument my friend. You just insert random stuff I never claimed into my arguments and it's getting old.

Okagy, you posted that in response to me saying that I'm sure people don't vote based on tribe, so how else was I supposed to take it?

Seriously

[Flaxxony]

What does the relationship between genetics and race have to do with anything I said?

Wires crossed, but what scientific paper will discuss what you are claiming about immigration?

And I'm still waiting for you to cite your own sources instead of claiming mine are bad and your common sense is right.

Seriously, you're embarrassing yourself

I'm not embarrassing myself. And you just stated exactly my point!!! What scientific paper will discuss what I claimed either?

It's not "common sense". It is inference based on assumptions. Which one of my assumptions do you specifically want proved? That people aren't biased? The converse is more inane than the claim! That people don't largely identify on demographic bounds? If that isn't true, explain systemic racism.

I need you to tell me which of my assumptions you think are not sound, and I will try to get a CREDIBLE source to substantiate the relatively obvious.

[Flaxxony]

You have serious trouble understanding my argument my friend. You just insert random stuff I never claimed into my arguments and it's getting old.

Okagy, you posted that in response to me saying that I'm sure people don't vote based on tribe, so how else was I supposed to take it?

Seriously

I'm saying people vote based on identity over ideology. I think it's pretty clear based on that graph.

[Catburg]

Okagy, you posted that in response to me saying that I'm sure people don't vote based on tribe, so how else was I supposed to take it?

Seriously

I'm saying people vote based on identity over ideology. I think it's pretty clear based on that graph.

This is why my hypothetical meritocratic city states aren't supposed to be democratic.

Ethnic voting is simply a form of corruption because it defeats the point of democracy.

[Neu California]

Wires crossed, but what scientific paper will discuss what you are claiming about immigration?

And I'm still waiting for you to cite your own sources instead of claiming mine are bad and your common sense is right.

Seriously, you're embarrassing yourself

I'm not embarrassing myself. And you just stated exactly my point!!! What scientific paper will discuss what I claimed either?

It's not "common sense". It is inference based on assumptions. Which one of my assumptions do you specifically want proved? That people aren't biased? The converse is more inane than the claim! That people don't largely identify on demographic bounds? If that isn't true, explain systemic racism.

I need you to tell me which of my assumptions you think are not sound, and I will try to get a CREDIBLE source to substantiate the relatively obvious.

I already did.

See this post

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=478872&p=36569513#p36569513

Also evidence>>>>>>assumptions and that Atlantic article was written by a geneticist on the topic of genetics and race, which is why I provided a scientific paper that said the same thing about genetics and race. Reading back that's obvious to me now.

[Flaxxony]

When is the last time someone asked for a source about Republican gerrymandering on NS?

When was the last time someone asked for a source that the sky is blue?

On systemic racism?

People want sources for claims they don't believe.

People want sources for data used to reach conclusions... usually for conclusions or data they don't believe.

That's how it works. That's sort of the point of diversity... or, at least, why groupthink is bad.

The burden of proof lies on the side that's making the extraordinary claim.

Burdens of proof have nothing to do with "sides". Ever argument you make implies a particular burden... it's up to you meet that burden and provide the reader with a reason to believe it.

And the extraordinary claim is that flooding the market with foreign labour is going to cause the median real wage to increase.

No, the extraordinary claim is that people are saying this.

The extraordinary claim is that non-white immigrants don't lean dramatically left.

Immigration is very well studied. If you're not supplying evidence for this belief and spending time writing long-ish posts. the rational conclusion (by Bayes' rule) is that the evidence doesn't exist (contrary to what people will tell you, the absence of evidence generally does make believing the absence of [thing] more likely).

Note that we come back to that point about burdens. If your "substance" for this claim is that "non-white immigrants" have every reason to be lefties, then the claim should not be "non-white immigrants are lefties" (you have not met the burden of this argument) but rather "it's extraordinary to think that non-white immigrants don't have every reason to support left-wing parties" (which is a claim you can support, by assumption).

Further note... as far as I can tell, this is the single most important factual statement in your entire post... that you haven't given a single reason to support it is mind-boggling.

The extraordinary claim is that people that come here from poverty-stricken nations don't want their families to come here as well.

Firstly, does anyone actually not believe this? Secondly, why are we talking about this like it's a bad thing?

The extraordinary claim is that immigration doesn't beget more immigration, that it isn't a political victory for the left, and that Americans not in the capital class benefit from tons of people coming here by the metric ton every year.

Hilariously, immigration is also argued to be a self-evident scam perpetrated by the capital class against the non-capital class. Read any thread about immigration here.

It's also deeply ironic to see you simultaneously arguing that immigration doesn't increase wages and that it benefits the wage-earners of American society. Do you actually think these are ideas that fit together like hand in glove because they really, really do not.

You misread my post.

Look at it this way. The black death is fairly widely credited with higher standards of living for Yeomen English farmers who survived. Shortage of labor supply, demand goes up, wages go up.

So how does a glut of low-skilled labor possibly not increase competition with domestic workers, lowering standards of living? The Dow Jones has scarcely doubled since 1970 despite population growing by roughly 50%.

Unions used to know this. Liberals used to know this.

[Neu California]

Okagy, you posted that in response to me saying that I'm sure people don't vote based on tribe, so how else was I supposed to take it?

Seriously

I'm saying people vote based on identity over ideology. I think it's pretty clear based on that graph.

Not in the context of just posting a link and a single word in response to an argument against tribal voting, no

[Flaxxony]

I'm not embarrassing myself. And you just stated exactly my point!!! What scientific paper will discuss what I claimed either?

It's not "common sense". It is inference based on assumptions. Which one of my assumptions do you specifically want proved? That people aren't biased? The converse is more inane than the claim! That people don't largely identify on demographic bounds? If that isn't true, explain systemic racism.

I need you to tell me which of my assumptions you think are not sound, and I will try to get a CREDIBLE source to substantiate the relatively obvious.

I already did.

See this post

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=478872&p=36569513#p36569513

Also evidence>>>>>>assumptions and that Atlantic article was written by a geneticist on the topic of genetics and race, which is why I provided a scientific paper that said the same thing about genetics and race. Reading back that's obvious to me now.

You didn't. You just quoted the entirety of my first post.

[Neu California]

I already did.

See this post

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=478872&p=36569513#p36569513

Also evidence>>>>>>assumptions and that Atlantic article was written by a geneticist on the topic of genetics and race, which is why I provided a scientific paper that said the same thing about genetics and race. Reading back that's obvious to me now.

You didn't. You just quoted the entirety of my first post.

While asking you to provide sources for the claims in it. Or did you miss me saying just below the top post I quoted

I want you to source these claims for starters

Look over the whole damn post please

[Flaxxony]

I'm saying people vote based on identity over ideology. I think it's pretty clear based on that graph.

Not in the context of just posting a link and a single word in response to an argument against tribal voting, no

I think the primary issue here is that you and I just live in different mental universes. I don't see this discussion going anywhere.

If you can't take one look at that map and see that Non-white immigration helps Democrats, I don't know what sort of proof I could provide to you that would make you see that.

If you can't look at that map and see that more diversity and immigration wouldn't be beneficial to Democrats, same deal.

If you can't see that an oversupply of foreign labor would depress domestic wages, same applies.

[Neu California]

Not in the context of just posting a link and a single word in response to an argument against tribal voting, no

I think the primary issue here is that you and I just live in different mental universes. I don't see this discussion going anywhere.

If you can't take one look at that map and see that Non-white immigration helps Democrats, I don't know what sort of proof I could provide to you that would make you see that.

If you can't look at that map and see that more diversity and immigration wouldn't be beneficial to Democrats, same deal.

If you can't see that an oversupply of foreign labor would depress domestic wages, same applies.

Hint, I never claimed any of what you seem to be saying I claimed here.

But nice straw man.

[Flaxxony]

I think the primary issue here is that you and I just live in different mental universes. I don't see this discussion going anywhere.

If you can't take one look at that map and see that Non-white immigration helps Democrats, I don't know what sort of proof I could provide to you that would make you see that.

If you can't look at that map and see that more diversity and immigration wouldn't be beneficial to Democrats, same deal.

If you can't see that an oversupply of foreign labor would depress domestic wages, same applies.

Hint, I never claimed any of what you seem to be saying I claimed here.

But nice straw man.

It's not a straw man, I just don't know what the h3ll you actually are trying to disprove about my argument.

[Neu California]

Hint, I never claimed any of what you seem to be saying I claimed here.

But nice straw man.

It's not a straw man, I just don't know what the h3ll you actually are trying to disprove about my argument.

I want you to prove that, in your own words "the politicians are opening the borders to people that the people already here don't want"

[Flaxxony]

It's not a straw man, I just don't know what the h3ll you actually are trying to disprove about my argument.

I want you to prove that, in your own words "the politicians are opening the borders to people that the people already here don't want"

Ok. There we go.

So you want proof that Washington enables more immigration despite consistent opposition by most Americans.

Here you go: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/program ... -over-time

As you can see, until 1995ish very few Americans wanted immigration increased. The vast majority either wanted it at the same level or decreased. However, America got much more regardless. And the contemporary increase trend is likely largely attributed to a large amount of non-white immigrants supporting it, based on how many vote Democrat.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

If immigration helps Democrats it's probably because immigrants start out poor, and Democrat policies are more sympathetic to the poor. And immigration policy, sure, but why not? The answer to the partisan bias isn't to ban or strictly limit immigration, it's for the Republicans to stop being wrong!

[Flaxxony]

If immigration helps Democrats it's probably because immigrants start out poor, and Democrat policies are more sympathetic to the poor. And immigration policy, sure, but why not? The answer to the partisan bias isn't to ban or strictly limit immigration, it's for the Republicans to stop being wrong!

Nah, it's because Democrats favor non-whites. If that wasn't the case, why wouldn't a larger proportion of whites without a college degree support them, and even the most educated and well-paid racial minorities vote Democrat? High school educated whites vote more conservatively than college-educated ones.

[Meikaii]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with diversity, in and of itself; its an amazing thing that exposes us to different individuals that can broaden our knowledge and enrich our own lives. BUT, diversity is something that has to happen organically; you can try to force it but the end result isn't even close to as good as it could be. Trying to force diversity is discrimination and fosters racism/sexism where it did not exist before and feeds racism/sexism that was already existent. It's a poor "solution" that worsens the problem instead of fixing it. And yet, it's the only semi-competent way to deal with problematic people in power outside of investigating and removing the problematic individuals, a distinctly more expensive method.

[Catburg]

The main reason why there is a need for ethnostates is precisely the high amount of collectivism and tribalism in the world. Banishing tribalists to their respective Bantustans can leave us individualists some room to breathe.

[Flaxxony]

The main reason why there is a need for ethnostates is precisely the large amount of collectivism and tribalism in the world. Banishing tribalists to their respective Bantustans can leave us individualists some room to breathe.

Also, there's endless hand wringing about nature vs. nuture, to which I say, who cares?

At a certain point, if certain ideas are so culturally-entrenched as to be almost impossible to fix, why should our society take on the responsibility of fixing it? It reeks of a 21st century "White Man's Burden".

If antiliberalism, tribalism, bigotry, etc are rife in a certain demographic, why should societal resources be siphoned from productive activity to assimilate the unassimilable? Even in situations where animosity didn't use to exist, identity politics can stir up conflict in diverse areas much more effectively than homogenous ones.

[Neu California]

I want you to prove that, in your own words "the politicians are opening the borders to people that the people already here don't want"

Ok. There we go.

So you want proof that Washington enables more immigration despite consistent opposition by most Americans.

Here you go: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/program ... -over-time

As you can see, until 1995ish very few Americans wanted immigration increased. The vast majority either wanted it at the same level or decreased. However, America got much more regardless. And the contemporary increase trend is likely largely attributed to a large amount of non-white immigrants supporting it, based on how many vote Democrat.

Prove that the increase is likely because of non-whites then. Your links don't break it down by race. Also, I haven't seen too many politicians pushing for more immigration or looser borders, mainly just stuff about DACA, which I see as a great humanitarian policy. Would you want to be deported to a country you've never known, where you don't speak the language, and your parents fled and brought you here because you just happened not to be born here?

And it seems large majorities of people back DACA (which does not increase immigration), including supermqjorities of all races, which can't really be attributed to an increase in non-white people in the U.S. (source). I mention it because it's inevitably brought up when talk of illegals in the U.S. Is brought up.

If immigration helps Democrats it's probably because immigrants start out poor, and Democrat policies are more sympathetic to the poor. And immigration policy, sure, but why not? The answer to the partisan bias isn't to ban or strictly limit immigration, it's for the Republicans to stop being wrong!

Nah, it's because Democrats favor non-whites. If that wasn't the case, why wouldn't a larger proportion of whites without a college degree support them, and even the most educated and well-paid racial minorities vote Democrat? High school educated whites vote more conservatively than college-educated ones.

Which leads to the other question. Why are college educated whites more liberal than non-college educated whites?

Edit: autocorrect mangling

[Totenborg]

Can you link to said paper?

Anyway, have a source that says something far different than your image

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc ... sm/558818/



I won't tackle the rest of your post right now as I'm on tablet, but saying mass immigration is a form of electioneering and like gerrymandering implies that politicians are importing people whether they like it or not while I'm sure most, if not nearly all, immigrants move to their new country (and ultimate place of residence) willingly.

No it doesn't. Not even close to correct.

I am implying that the politicians are opening the borders to people that the people already here don't want.

It's like compounding interest. People already want to come here, we're rich. It's obvious why people would want to come here. And the more people that get let in, the more the voting base moves left, and the more the border gets opened, until the driving force for migration ends.

I don't mind em coming here.

[Vertali]

I do, in fact- it is probably the main question I'm concerned about for my whole life, like how some European philosophers deliberated about the Jewish question during the early 20th century.

What is going on with fertility rates for certain countries and any global migration trends effecting the developed nations is what I want to know most about on an annual basis.

And I want to back the policy that brings about the future I see as more desirable, which more often than not, would include excluding any immigration from poor countries.

why does being white matter to you so much? Immigrants from poor countries like Burma have helped to revitalize cites like Buffalo

I asked you to define a German, Briton, Canadian or American. You never answered.

There are plenty of studies on how people naturally just feel more empathy for people who are phenotypically similar to them. If you want a fairly well documented one, here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3108582/
Emotions (I'm not even sure emotion really is an apt description for the depth of what empathy is, but I digress) like empathy are what a society functions on. As that study, and others, show, people naturally favor their in-group. So knowing that, why bother putting different groups of people together if you know that on a very basic, subconscious level, they view those of the other group as less deserving of empathy and favor?

As to the revitalizing of cities, it's an absolute lie in most cases. Look at Minneapolis for example, somalis were imported in large numbers and the areas where they overwhelmingly reside have largely degraded and become less safe. While you can attempt to play it off as economic disadvantage, the fact is that other groups are just as poor overall and *don't* contribute to crime nearly as much.

And finally, as to defining groups of people: Britons and Germans, along with other ethnic groups, are both phenotypically and genetically distinct from others. Of course some variance and overlap exists (especially regarding phenotypes), but even european ethnic groups are different enough that they can be placed in areas on a genetic map and can be seen to be different. It goes without saying that non-european groups are even more dissimilar to these european ethnicities. Canadian and American are largely nationalities, but they can both be broken down into rather large racial categories, which still matter as per that study.

[Flaxxony]

Ok. There we go.

So you want proof that Washington enables more immigration despite consistent opposition by most Americans.

Here you go: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1660/immigration.aspx
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/program ... -over-time

As you can see, until 1995ish very few Americans wanted immigration increased. The vast majority either wanted it at the same level or decreased. However, America got much more regardless. And the contemporary increase trend is likely largely attributed to a large amount of non-white immigrants supporting it, based on how many vote Democrat.

Prove that the increase is likely because of non-whites then. Your links don't break it down by race. Also, I haven't seen too many politicians pushing for more immigration or looser borders, mainly just stuff about DACA, which I see as a great humanitarian policy. Would you want to be deported to a country you've never known, where you don't speak the language, and your parents fled and brought you here because you just happened not to be born here?

And it seems large majorities of people back DACA (which does not increase immigration), including supermqjorities of all races, which can't really be attributed to an increase in non-white people in the U.S. (source). I mention it because it's inevitably brought up when talk of illegals in the U.S. Is brought up.

Nah, it's because Democrats favor non-whites. If that wasn't the case, why wouldn't a larger proportion of whites without a college degree support them, and even the most educated and well-paid racial minorities vote Democrat? High school educated whites vote more conservatively than college-educated ones.

Which leads to the other question. Why are college educated whites more liberal than non-college educated whites?

Edit: autocorrect mangling

I did prove that. Look at the map again. White men still overwhelmingly vote republican which opposes more immigration (at least in theory). So clearly the increase in favorable attitudes isn't coming from white men. Maybe white women but not white men. Which leaves everyone else.

College educated whites don't compete directly with low skilled immigrants. Proof is based on the relatively unassailable truth that college educated individuals generally results in higher-skilled employment. If this wasn't true, why go to college?

[Catburg]

The main reason why there is a need for ethnostates is precisely the large amount of collectivism and tribalism in the world. Banishing tribalists to their respective Bantustans can leave us individualists some room to breathe.

Also, there's endless hand wringing about nature vs. nuture, to which I say, who cares?

At a certain point, if certain ideas are so culturally-entrenched as to be almost impossible to fix, why should our society take on the responsibility of fixing it? It reeks of a 21st century "White Man's Burden".

If antiliberalism, tribalism, bigotry, etc are rife in a certain demographic, why should societal resources be siphoned from productive activity to assimilate the unassimilable? Even in situations where animosity didn't use to exist, identity politics can stir up conflict in diverse areas much more effectively than homogenous ones.

I of course do not support America-style diversity. Diverse places should be rare and only for certain financial & scientific centers such as Singapore. Moreover such diversity needs to be meritocratic.

Most people are collectivists. Let them be in their ethnostates so that Singaporeans can be free from them.

[Forsher]

You misread my post.

Not even a little.

Look at it this way. The black death is fairly widely credited with higher standards of living for Yeomen English farmers who survived. Shortage of labor supply, demand goes up, wages go up.

Yes. Literally everyone says this. So it's extraordinary to find you saying people say the opposite. Where are those people?

But I repeat myself.

So how does a glut of low-skilled labor possibly not increase competition with domestic workers, lowering standards of living? The Dow Jones has scarcely doubled since 1970 despite population growing by roughly 50%.

wut

Dow Jones 1970... 809.20 (start) and 838.92 (end). Now... 28,551.53 (23 December). Source.

US Population 1970: 205.1 (says Google) and Now? 327.2 million (2018) (likewise, Google)

327.2 / 205.1 = 1.595319356. That's not roughly 50%. That's roughly 60%. When you're dealing with percentages this kind of cock up with rounding is a Big Deal.

28,551.53 / 838.92 = 34.033674248 which is a 3300% increase ((34-1)*100).

Not that the Dow Jones is remotely connected to human wellbeing. Not that the phrase "Dow Jones" ever refers to some other index. Given that you'd have to be an enormous idiot to mistake a 34-fold increase for a doubling I rather suspect you're using Dow Jones incorrectly and in so misleading a fashion as to make it impossible to check your actual meaning.

Unions used to know this. Liberals used to know this.

And to repeat myself a second time... where is the evidence that they don't talk about it now?