Kirbmarc wrote: ↑
Mon Mar 18, 2019 11:59 pm
A massive wall of text that never actually engages my points, but dances around them. Who could have predicted this?
Keating wrote:be lectured to by Kirb as he misses the point
Even further limiting immigration has its economic and social costs in terms of losses of economic growth. In order to convince your population to be in favor of more limits to immigration you have to present a convincing case which attract support, not simply argue online about the "loss of identity".
Economic growth in and of itself is clearly a problem. Mathematically, it is an exponential and we live on a finite planet. Immigration as a means of keeping economic growth up is clearly setting up a Ponzi-Scheme. We are eventually going to have to move to sustainable economies anyway.
Sneaky to slip in "social costs" in there. The "social costs" of immigration are exactly what I'm saying we can no longer afford to bare until we sort out the cultural problems.
The insistence on identitarian themes like "the great replacement", which often veer into racial themes, is likely counterproductive to the case for more restrictions, especially now that those identitarian-racial themes are causing violence.
This is indeed one of the cultural problems I'm talking about. If every peaceful venue for debating the problems with multiculturalism are shut down as racist, then only the extreme elements, who don't care about the blow back, are going to talk about it. Breivik explicitly said this himself. In the early 2000s, he thought about going into politics, but saw that even then talking about Islam in anyway was a sure fire path to being publicly destroyed. The recent Christchurch shooter came to the same conclusion, but, terrifyingly, thinks that the best thing to do is to accelerate the process of shutting down debate to further breed radicalisation and trigger a war. I certainly don't want to see more of that, and I don't see how throwing fuel on the fire of multiculturalism by growing the ethnic ghettos while further clamping down on "hate" speech prevents, rather than encourages, that.
People don't wish to be associated with extremism.
People want something to live for and to have a cultural tradition to hand down to their descendants as well. The path we're on is rapidly closing the doors to everything but extremism.
You can spend countless hours online bitching about "loss of identity", but if that makes your position unappealing, because it shades into extremism (which it does) you'll get nothing done.
I don't think I've talked about "loss of identity", but correct me if I'm wrong. I don't think the problem is an identity loss. It's that we don't have a positive cultural narrative about who we are and where we're going. Without that, people will fall back on the identity their ancestors used to have. Worse if the only narrative is negative.
Well, I don't think that all countries need to be subsumed into one culture (I don't even think it's possible, linguistically or psychologically speaking) but certain principles, like human rights, are by their nature universal.
I'm not sure that's true. How do you decide, other than cultural traditions, whether English Common Law or the Napoleonic Code is superior? Laws and human rights are as much part of the culture as are anything else. Human rights, as generally conceived, is profoundly Christian.
I don't think that states should be in the business of deciding what's the purpose of life.
God no. Are you confused? I said there was a good argument that the purpose of culture was to answer questions like this. That is not, and should not, be the same thing as the state. (Indeed, when they do become the same thing, that's pretty much the definition of totalitarianism).
States, however, are in the business of preventing harm to their citizens, and in this sense, a liberal democracy protects people's rights far better and more fairly than an authoritarian theocracy, no matter the flaws of such liberal democracy.
No, I think this is wrong. The ability of a liberal democracy to protect people's rights depends on the culture of the people being positive and a congruent with human flourishing. If they aren't, then a liberal democracy will collapse into mob rule and tyranny. I think what has happened is that we had immense cultural capital after WWII, and we've been spending it without investing in the culture that the next generation should be able to maintain it. Now, we're reaching a point where almost all of that capital is gone, and that is where trust, and civilisation, breaks down. In some ways this is understandable. It is far easier to know why communism is a bad idea if you've actually lived in the USSR. It's much harder to transmit that experience to someone who has never had any hardship.
I don't think this prophecy of doom is necessarily true. I see many potential challenged and problems that need to be addressed, but I see the potential to address them, too.
Of course I see potential to address them too. That's exactly why I'm proposing shutting down immigration and then taking a serious look at how the academy functions. As you say, I don't have any control (nor real interest) over what happens in China or Hungary, so I don't see much point in worrying about that. I do have a concern about Australia degenerating into a self inflicted ethnic tension because I live here. I also worry about the US losing its dominance this century because it is clearly better to be a member of the US empire then it would be the coming Chinese one.