Re: National identity overflow thread (inclusive of liberal worldview screeds)
Posted: Sat Mar 16, 2019 10:20 am
It was more of a general post rather than a specific dig. Also, pretty hilarious.
Exposing the stupidity, lies, and hypocrisy of Social Justice Warriors since July 2012
http://slymepit.com/phpbb/
Down the rabbit hole.
The man who was attacked was driven to the hospital but was not treated for his injuries as he was combative with staff.
It's been mentioned several times here, but isn't getting the press it deserves because of the outsized influence of Chinese money. It's not that no one gives a shit. For the record,it's very wrong.
Sigh. I still can't tell if it's deliberate.Brive1987 wrote: ↑ I missed the chortling here yesterday.
The horseshoe theory misses fundamental differences by focusing on superficial correlation.
Using guns to kill your enemy is a pretty basic point of equivalence. While it defines each instance as terroristic, it then provides little more in clarity.
It says nothing qualitative of the underlying ideologies and makes no quantative comment. The difference between religious movements entering non traditional territory and then waging jihad on the inhabitants is fundamentally different to broken individuals spat out of meme culture. In the same way the outlying middle class rapist does little to inform a conversation on popular masculinity.
I’ll be more concerned when mass killers become a required subset of the hitherti lawful nationalist conversation.
Watch the first 1:14 min (ie the intro) - this is how you come across.
Yes. Compare and contrast with the Rohingya genocide in Myanmar, which actually got quite a lot of press (largely because of the political role of Bangladesh in the area). Also China has a lot of influence on the so-called "Organization of Islamic Cooperation", thanks to the deals that the Chinese made with the Saudis and Pakistan.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑ It's been mentioned several times here, but isn't getting the press it deserves because of the outsized influence of Chinese money. It's not that no one gives a shit. For the record, it's very wrong.
It's true that islamic terrorism has far more international political support, networks of radicalization, systems of indoctrination, and religious justifications than the rampaging alt-right terrorists.Brive1987 wrote: ↑ I missed the chortling here yesterday.
The horseshoe theory misses fundamental differences by focusing on superficial correlation.
Using guns to kill your enemy is a pretty basic point of equivalence. While it defines each instance as terroristic, it then provides little more in clarity.
It says nothing qualitative of the underlying ideologies and makes no quantitative comment. The difference between religious movements entering non traditional territory and then waging jihad on the inhabitants is fundamentally different to broken individuals spat out of meme culture. In the same way the outlying middle class rapist does little to inform a conversation on popular masculinity.
I’ll be more concerned when mass killers become a required subset of the hitherto lawful nationalist conversation.
You could always inform yourself on their current POV.Kirbmarc wrote: ↑ Being charitable and assuming that the "replacement" people are honest actors concerned by issues that come with immigration who are only using hyperbolic language to move the Overton window, they should at the very least realize that their narrative of doom due to "replacement" is making some people insane and willing to act to strike against the "invaders", and possibly dial it down, and explore alternatives.
If they are grifters and only care about attention and money, they probably won't care that much, and will only superficially distance themselves from the Christchurch terrorists while carrying on the same shtick, and claim persecution if there's institutional blowback.
And if they're true believers in the more extreme forms of what they say, they'll likely double down, while doing the bare minimum to try to avoid what might get them in trouble.
I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Because there's a confused continuum of ideas in the alt-right spectrum. The central theme of the alt-right is that there's an invasion of immigrants going on, which causes the "fall of the west"/the "death of tradition"/"a great replacement"/a generic theme of doom and destruction and so, according to the terrorist, it justifies retaliation on the "invaders". Everything else (the "old" neo-nazi tropes, the "crusader" motifs, the memes, the "race realism" stuff, etc.) is simply window-dressing, a bunch of justifications to bolster the main theme.Brive1987 wrote: ↑ I’m personally finding it hard placing this joker on the ideological spectrum.
It’s like he gathered all the tropes and 101s from the USA and European alt-right. He then veered from Valhalla references to Crusading language, mixing his stew into a Chan meme-pot while demonstrating his self professed lack of education.
And then spat it out.
Kind of like the process Jackson applied to Lord of the Rings.
There is also a fairly dominant strain of thought as to a particular cultural / ethic group influencing things in a negative way - which gets stronger the further right they go - and which (((You))) for whatever reason clearly fail to address.
The Christchurch terrorist didn't seem to be on the side of those who believe in vast Jewish conspiracies (perhaps I'm wrong: I haven't read all of his manifesto). I think that at this point the bickering over who gets the blame, whether it's "economic globalism" or "the Jews" is biggest schism within those who believe in narratives of "replacement". I guess that you could call those who believe in the "replacement" narratives, but not in the Jewish conspiracies, "alt-lite", although that's quite a confused mess of a definition as well.
Well he seems to take at least some of his ideas from the alt-lite crowd like Lauren Southern, although she doesn't seem to be terribly consistent either. After all, if she was serious about this great replacement thing she should be providing an example by getting married to a good hard working white man and produce lots of healthy, beautiful white babies instead of mudsharking and flitting around youtube like an F- minus Leni Riefenstahl.Brive1987 wrote: ↑ I’m personally finding it hard placing this joker on the ideological spectrum.
It’s like he gathered all the tropes and 101s from the USA and European alt-right. He then veered from Valhalla references to Crusading language, mixing his stew into a Chan meme-pot while demonstrating his self professed lack of education.
And then spat it out.
Kind of like the process Jackson applied to Lord of the Rings.
Would you like to make the argument that replacement <> demographic displacement and that said displacement is a myth of no consequence.Kirbmarc wrote: ↑The Christchurch terrorist didn't seem to be on the side of those who believe in vast Jewish conspiracies (perhaps I'm wrong: I haven't read all of his manifesto). I think that at this point the bickering over who gets the blame, whether it's "economic globalism" or "the Jews" is biggest schism within those who believe in narratives of "replacement". I guess that you could call those who believe in the "replacement" narratives, but not in the Jewish conspiracies, "alt-lite", although that's quite a confused mess of a definition as well.
Btw, displacement can happen over time and in stages. Suburb by suburb. And my belief is that host society/ community come under pressure or changes at a point well less than 50%.Brive1987 wrote: ↑Would you like to make the argument that replacement <> demographic displacement and that said displacement is a myth of no consequence.Kirbmarc wrote: ↑The Christchurch terrorist didn't seem to be on the side of those who believe in vast Jewish conspiracies (perhaps I'm wrong: I haven't read all of his manifesto). I think that at this point the bickering over who gets the blame, whether it's "economic globalism" or "the Jews" is biggest schism within those who believe in narratives of "replacement". I guess that you could call those who believe in the "replacement" narratives, but not in the Jewish conspiracies, "alt-lite", although that's quite a confused mess of a definition as well.
By all means feel free to use case studies.
Which is why I said "China" and not "Chinese". The point I was making was about state actions, versus the actions of individuals without state support.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑Quick point-Chinese people aren't the repressive government of China. Surprisingly, they're individuals with individual views as to life. People, contrary to identitarian views, are remarkably diverse in their viewpoints.
I agree that cultural relativism in terms of value, and the SocJus ideas of The Evil Whites, are dumb, and actually counterproductive to their stated goal of providing a base for racial harmony, especially in its comprehensive form of damning entire civilizations (or worse, races) instead of pointing out the flaws but also acknowledging the successes.Keating wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2019 10:50 pmI'm not even sure what's being argued anymore.
I don't think the problem is immigration, or Islam specifically. Islam certainly has its problems, but it isn't the problem.
There's a cultural malaise throughout the West, and that is the real problem. It's a crisis of meaning and identity. What is a good life in the 21st century? Where can one find meaning? What is the purpose of life? What does it mean to be a citizen?
We don't have good answers to these questions anymore, and they are largely theological, not scientific. There's a philosopher Douglas Murray quotes that I think is apt: We are like Icarus if he survived the fall. Broken and bruised and with no idea what to do next. We are still dealing with the after effects of WWII and the Cold War. Two all encompassing ideologies failed, and badly. Some are now so badly damaged they actively hate themselves and think they should be destroyed. This is most readily apparent in Germany, where there are calls, by Germans, to self destruct, that the stain of Nazism can never be washed away. The 2015 migrant crisis is an example of that playing out. That kind of self hatred is present all through the West, though. That's the white privilege argument, largely thought up and enforced by (rich) whites. Once, the British Empire stood up and said if you try to burn a widow alive you would be killed because that is simply unacceptable. Now we have been so reduced by self hatred and doubt, and so mired in cultural relativism, that we allow people to mutilate their daughters or turn a blind eye to organised rape gangs.
The progressive answer is an all encompassing ideology too. That will always fail; it's utopian. It's also worse than many previous ideologies in that it doesn't extend grace.
It isn't that immigration itself is a problem, just that it exacerbates these existing issues. A strong culture that is sure of itself doesn't need to worry about outside issues. My thinking is that immigration needs to be shut down so that we can address these cultural problems. (That especially includes addressing the corruption in the academy.) The problems we are seeing are a result of the decline in culture. To put it another way, Rome didn't collapse because of the barbarians. The problems were internal. The barbarians simply capitalised on them.
I think where it really went all wrong was the Danish cartoons. That event laid bare that the West no longer had a spine, and the ideals we professed were only skin deep. Very few came to the cartoonists defence, and Western governments actively undermined the concept of free speech to avoid trouble. Instead we choose censorship, and we're choosing it still, if the reaction of the New Zealand government is any indication. Censorship breeds radicalisation, especially in the West.
We need a narrative. We need to be able to tell a good story about ourselves. The story we have in the West today, isn't good, it's all about how evil we are. We are slavers, we are colonisers, we are nazis. There's nothing here but oppression. It is no wonder that some Westerners rebel against that, violently.
I don't know how we solve these problems, but I'd much rather discuss them then take pot shots at Brive, be lectured to by Kirb as he misses the point, or have the viciousness of FTP.
Societies, like everything, need maintenance and improvements. Australia is a very functional society, but that doesn't mean that it can stay exactly the same for eternity. You gave full voting rights to the Aboriginals in the 1960s. You started to repeal anti-sodomy laws in the 1970s. You got gay marriage very recently (to your great displeasure, I know, but with a large popular support). There's no way to freeze time and keep things as they were when you were young.Brive1987 wrote: ↑ Thank you for that cross between a globalist rant and plea.
Kirb, we didn’t need your homogenised “values” rule book. We gave women the vote before anyone else. We had our own human rights philosophy based on an egalitarian “fair go”. We demonstrated incremental change via a tradition of telling politicians to bugger off with their referendums. We had a stable and efficient democracy that took the British model and improved the mouse trap. We played together, celebrated together and shared a common story.
China grew to be an economic superpower, that's what happened. Nobody cared about China until they started to become rich. Now even Hollywood has to cater to the Chinese market. I'm wary of their political regime and not happy with their growing influence as much as anyone else, but this is something that is largely beyond your control.Then we fucked it up. We thought we could have it all. Governments made strategic decisions without thinking past their three year terms. We got caught in the RSL playing the pokies with economic driven “growth”. A decade or so ago China didn’t even figure in economic thought. Now we live or die at their whim. How the hell did that happen?
And yet you're still a stable, prosperous liberal democracy with very low levels of crime or violence. Which means that the sky isn't falling, and the doom isn't coming. Again, the SocJus factions are annoying and counterproductive, but you have to build some sort of rational response to them instead of going for the identirarian dreams. You need to build some new civic consensus with the people you have, you can't just hope to go back to an allegedly idyllic past.Old values are now a splinter segment in a sea of Chinese, sub continent and moslem thought patterns. Meanwhile the social left exudes a wankery unimagined, subjecting anything of conventional value to continual assault.
The world is global. You can't pretend you live in your isolated safe space.Fuck your globalism. Society is the sum of community. Community builds off families. Families operate in a mileu of shared experience and supportive values. “We’re Aussie mate”. That should the building block of success.
Oh dear. Was it the nuke Australia thing or are you offended by the hikers wearing polyester schtick. :cry:the viciousness of FTP.
The issue is not your straw man of “no change” - it’s the rate of change, it’s about obtaining social consensus before you muddy the water, it’s about managing the change for the good of the existing population. None of this has happened.Kirbmarc wrote: ↑Societies, like everything, need maintenance and improvements. Australia is a very functional society, but that doesn't mean that it can stay exactly the same for eternity. You gave full voting rights to the Aboriginals in the 1960s. You started to repeal anti-sodomy laws in the 1970s. You got gay marriage very recently (to your great displeasure, I know, but with a large popular support). There's no way to freeze time and keep things as they were when you were young.Brive1987 wrote: ↑ Thank you for that cross between a globalist rant and plea.
Kirb, we didn’t need your homogenised “values” rule book. We gave women the vote before anyone else. We had our own human rights philosophy based on an egalitarian “fair go”. We demonstrated incremental change via a tradition of telling politicians to bugger off with their referendums. We had a stable and efficient democracy that took the British model and improved the mouse trap. We played together, celebrated together and shared a common story.
China grew to be an economic superpower, that's what happened. Nobody cared about China until they started to become rich. Now even Hollywood has to cater to the Chinese market. I'm wary of their political regime and not happy with their growing influence as much as anyone else, but this is something that is largely beyond your control.Then we fucked it up. We thought we could have it all. Governments made strategic decisions without thinking past their three year terms. We got caught in the RSL playing the pokies with economic driven “growth”. A decade or so ago China didn’t even figure in economic thought. Now we live or die at their whim. How the hell did that happen?
And yet you're still a stable, prosperous liberal democracy with very low levels of crime or violence. Which means that the sky isn't falling, and the doom isn't coming. Again, the SocJus factions are annoying and counterproductive, but you have to build some sort of rational response to them instead of going for the identirarian dreams. You need to build some new civic consensus with the people you have, you can't just hope to go back to an allegedly idyllic past.Old values are now a splinter segment in a sea of Chinese, sub continent and moslem thought patterns. Meanwhile the social left exudes a wankery unimagined, subjecting anything of conventional value to continual assault.
The world is global. You can't pretend you live in your isolated safe space.Fuck your globalism. Society is the sum of community. Community builds off families. Families operate in a mileu of shared experience and supportive values. “We’re Aussie mate”. That should the building block of success.
I would agree that the best way to perceive the current epoch is as an informal global American Empire, yes.Kirbmarc wrote: ↑And yes, we live under the guidance of what is basically an informal Global American Empire, and for all the many, many flaws of the United States, past and recent, it's better them than the Chinese regime or the now thankfully defunct Soviets. The States have the potential to at least fix some of their flaws. No such luck in authoritarian regimes.
I'm not sure I agree here, and this may be a big axiomatic difference. Global trade, movement and communications are all technologies. We can choose not to use them or not. We do this with several things already; nuclear power, gun control, gene editing of human DNA.Because the world IS global, and like it or not we have to deal with different cultures coming in contact.
No, but the answers to questions like "what is the purpose to life" do have cultural responses. Indeed, it could be argued that is the purpose of culture. That isn't a scientific question.We don't talk about "Jewish science" when we discuss general relativity, or "English science" when the subject is the theory of evolution by natural selection. It's just science. It's valid beyond identities.
That's always been my position. I just think the path we're on is guaranteed to tear it down.We have a good thing going with the world of today. It can be improved, but it doesn't need to be torn down.
The big difference is that global trade and communications are the backbone of today's global economy and countries which opt out (like North Korea) don't fare very well in terms in development.
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. People don't wish to be associated with extremism. Lauren Southern or Faith Goldy and their flirting with far-right memes and philosophy (to be "edgy" and "provocative", i.e. attract attention and clicks) are probably harming a more rational case for discussing the pros and the cons of immigration.The latest fortnightly survey of 1,026 voters finds that 54% of the sample believe Australia’s rate of population growth is too fast – which is up from 45% recorded five years ago.
A higher percentage, 64%, think the level of immigration in Australia over the past decade has been too high – up from 50% recorded in October 2016.
But while the trend underscores increasing community concern about immigration and population growth, 55% of the sample agree with the proposition that “multiculturalism and cultural diversity has enriched the social and economic lives of all Australians”.
The statement “multiculturalism has failed and caused social division and dangerous extremism in Australia” was endorsed by 32%, while 13% did not have a view.
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. Differences in languages, cuisines, clothing, music, literature, etc. are one thing, although I don't see why mixing things is necessarily a bad thing: that's how we got rock and roll or blues, after all (and the SJ argument against "cultural appropriation" is very authoritarian) but differences in laws and principles produce lots of at theoretically preventable, and deeply unfair, suffering and harm.This is also a place where I strongly disagree with Sam Harris. The idea of a globalism repulses me. I think something would be lost if every country on earth were subsumed into the one culture, even if that were the Western culture. (Even though I agree Australia, and Europe, fall under the American Empire, I like that our local culture is different and distinct.) The idea of a unified world government is terrifying too. That's just asking for authoritarianism.
I agree that the philosophical matter of "the purpose of life" falls beyond science. Indeed, the entire matter of human rights isn't scientific. However human rights, which aren't scientific but are by their definition universal, aren't about providing purpose in life as much as they are about protecting people from unjustified harm.No, but the answers to questions like "what is the purpose to life" do have cultural responses. Indeed, it could be argued that is the purpose of culture. That isn't a scientific question.
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. The identitarian projects, on the other hand, seem to rest on assumptions that are incredibly hard to implement without violating and eroding the same liberal democratic principles that brought us here.That's always been my position. I just think the path we're on is guaranteed to tear it down.
The problems with resorting to nationalism is that the genie is out of that bottle already; you can try an artificial sort and end up going totalitarian like Hungary, but that's not going to last. Secondly, without broad international ties, including that of people, we actually risk annihilation. It's only a matter of time before Iran and Saudi Arabia get atomic weapons. My eldest younger brother, a biophysicist specializing in DNA informs me that it's quite possible to make a super virus or germ that may attack specific races.Keating wrote: ↑ I'm not even sure what's being argued anymore.
I don't think the problem is immigration, or Islam specifically. Islam certainly has its problems, but it isn't the problem.
There's a cultural malaise throughout the West, and that is the real problem. It's a crisis of meaning and identity. What is a good life in the 21st century? Where can one find meaning? What is the purpose of life? What does it mean to be a citizen?
We don't have good answers to these questions anymore, and they are largely theological, not scientific. There's a philosopher Douglas Murray quotes that I think is apt: We are like Icarus if he survived the fall. Broken and bruised and with no idea what to do next. We are still dealing with the after effects of WWII and the Cold War. Two all encompassing ideologies failed, and badly. Some are now so badly damaged they actively hate themselves and think they should be destroyed. This is most readily apparent in Germany, where there are calls, by Germans, to self destruct, that the stain of Nazism can never be washed away. The 2015 migrant crisis is an example of that playing out. That kind of self hatred is present all through the West, though. That's the white privilege argument, largely thought up and enforced by (rich) whites. Once, the British Empire stood up and said if you try to burn a widow alive you would be killed because that is simply unacceptable. Now we have been so reduced by self hatred and doubt, and so mired in cultural relativism, that we allow people to mutilate their daughters or turn a blind eye to organised rape gangs.
The progressive answer is an all encompassing ideology too. That will always fail; it's utopian. It's also worse than many previous ideologies in that it doesn't extend grace.
It isn't that immigration itself is a problem, just that it exacerbates these existing issues. A strong culture that is sure of itself doesn't need to worry about outside issues. My thinking is that immigration needs to be shut down so that we can address these cultural problems. (That especially includes addressing the corruption in the academy.) The problems we are seeing are a result of the decline in culture. To put it another way, Rome didn't collapse because of the barbarians. The problems were internal. The barbarians simply capitalised on them.
I think where it really went all wrong was the Danish cartoons. That event laid bare that the West no longer had a spine, and the ideals we professed were only skin deep. Very few came to the cartoonists defence, and Western governments actively undermined the concept of free speech to avoid trouble. Instead we choose censorship, and we're choosing it still, if the reaction of the New Zealand government is any indication. Censorship breeds radicalisation, especially in the West.
We need a narrative. We need to be able to tell a good story about ourselves. The story we have in the West today, isn't good, it's all about how evil we are. We are slavers, we are colonisers, we are nazis. There's nothing here but oppression. It is no wonder that some Westerners rebel against that, violently.
I don't know how we solve these problems, but I'd much rather discuss them then take pot shots at Brive, be lectured to by Kirb as he misses the point, or have the viciousness of FTP.
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
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.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".
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.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.
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.People don't wish to be associated with extremism.
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.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'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.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.
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).I don't think that states should be in the business of deciding what's the purpose of life.
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.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.
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.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.
The point isn't to retreat, but an acknowledgement that the racial divisiveness cannot be solved while we simultaneously increase the size of ethnic-conclaves and also produce students who actively hate the existing citizens who have to deal with the results of the growing conclaves.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑We do need a better narrative, but retreating into enclaves of homogeneous cultures isn't going to make a better narrative. The racial divisiveness of identitarian politics on both sides are stirring up animosity and hate. That won't end well.
The important thing in a forum is to actually express an opinion - which can be tested and challenged. I find the strong silent types to be useless in that process.
Fuck off troll.free thoughtpolice wrote: ↑ I hope this doesn't poison the discourse here.
https...://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrxUbbyjN-w
I'd like some proof that racial diviseness can't be solved before I'd remotely consider that to be a valid position. What we're in now is a tiny blip in history, maybe even just growing pains.Keating wrote: ↑The point isn't to retreat, but an acknowledgement that the racial divisiveness cannot be solved while we simultaneously increase the size of ethnic-conclaves and also produce students who actively hate the existing citizens who have to deal with the results of the growing conclaves.CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑We do need a better narrative, but retreating into enclaves of homogeneous cultures isn't going to make a better narrative. The racial divisiveness of identitarian politics on both sides are stirring up animosity and hate. That won't end well.
The anywheres versus somewheres framing is very useful here. Even in Canberra, most people die within 100 km of where they were born. However, almost all of the power in the conversation is held by those who probably won't. It's the speed of the change, and the feeling that you have no say at all that breeds radicalisation.
I didn't mean to imply that racial divisiveness couldn't ever be solved; I don't believe that. However, where I think there is a problem is if the new arrivals don't have to integrate because there are so many of them that they can continue their previous culture without any need to mix with the existing population. The larger those conclaves grow, the bigger the problem precisely because there is no exchange of culture. I think there is reasonable evidence for this, the most prominent being Putnam's work. (Of course, this is not strictly an immigration problem, as I have maintained, we also have a problem that the existing population doesn't mix with each other either. This has been a problem since the invention of television, and it's only gotten worse.)CaptainFluffyBunny wrote: ↑I'd like some proof that racial diviseness can't be solved before I'd remotely consider that to be a valid position. What we're in now is a tiny blip in history, maybe even just growing pains.
We also haven't had population transfers on this scale, or where we have, they have completely destroyed the existing population (Americas and Australia). People in the UK still discuss the cultural implications in 50,000 Huguenots coming to the UK three hundred years ago. That's not even a year's worth of immigration today.People throughout history have had little to no say in events. We're actually at a time when the common person has the most say in events at any time in recorded history. The idea that we don't is a pernicious illusion usually wrought by those selling something.