Democratic Presidential Debate

[Singu]

It seems like you haven't been reading my posts fully or are misunderstanding them and putting words in my mouth. Anyways, I think people can do whatever they want for relationships whether that is stick to their own race/ethnicity or be with a partner of a different race/ethnicity.

The same goes for countries as well, if the public votes to be nationalist and secure their borders and ethnicity then that is the route they should go and there is nothing wrong with that. The same goes for a country that votes to be globalist and become multicultural with eventual mixed relationships then that is fine too.

Btw, I am mixed race - half Italian/half Mexican so it should be obvious by now that I am not doing this to promote my lack of pure race lol. Rather, I think there should be countries that are nationalist and preserve their ethnicity and countries that are globalist and embrace multiculturalism.

Right now, every 1st world nation minus Japan and South Korea are enforcing the multicultural diversity dogma upon their nation. You would think that a mixed race person like myself would be fine with that, but no. I find it appalling that it is being forced upon these nations without any debate and people just have to accept it mindlessly or fear derision

Instead, people should have an open debate whether their country should go that path or not. I see nothing wrong with countries and people sticking with their own ethnicity for nationality and relationships. Just like there is nothing wrong with people from different countries and/or ethnicities/race mixing.

The point is, there's no reason to prefer either preserving the purity or mixing of race for any countries. Any country that does that is preferring one over the other, and therefore professing the superiority of either. All we are saying is that people have freedom of movement and they can live wherever they want.

Of course, that doesn't mean that countries should accept whomever, but what they should do is to reasonably accept any law-abiding citizens that wish to live in their countries (and to also accept some refugees), and to treat immigrants the same as the natives.

I think the real debate should be multi-culturism vs. cultural assimilationism. The real difference is the culture, and not the people.

[Raver]

The point is, there's no reason to prefer either preserving the purity or mixing of race for any countries. Any country that does that is preferring one over the other, and therefore professing the superiority of either. All we are saying is that people have freedom of movement and they can live wherever they want.

Of course, that doesn't mean that countries should accept whomever, but what they should do is to reasonably accept any law-abiding citizens that wish to live in their countries (and to also accept some refugees), and to treat immigrants the same as the natives.

I think the real debate should be multi-culturism vs. cultural assimilationism. The real difference is the culture, and not the people.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I think the debate is between nationalism vs. cultural assimilation since I think multiculturalism is bound to fail and result in balkanization. I live in a very multicultural city and so far different ethnicities just stick to their own ethnic enclaves and ignore each other.

This is the best case scenario for multiculturalism, in Europe the immigrants are not even integrating properly and causing several issues. Multiculturalism is a failed experiment, which is why we need to look to cultural assimilation or nationalism as the solution to immigration.

But there is a need to define "minor" if we're going down the path of controlling which populations are allowed to intermix based on their degree of genetic similarity.

If you're saying that nations can do whatever they want within their own borders, you're making the implicit assumption that genetic differences within nations are "minor." If geographical proximity is the main indicator of genetic commonality then this assumption is false: the French region of Alsace has more in common with the Rhineland than it does with Acquitaine, which has more in common with Spain.

The second issue is that you don't seem to mind the dilution of local populations that have different genetics from the mainstream and each other. Yet the fact that these differences are only minor is entirely your idea; to any xenophobes living in some tiny hamlet, you're a chauvinistic authoritarian who supports a political project designed to dilute their culture.

Whether you know it or not, you've crafted a definition of "minor" specifically to include or exclude people according to your personal tastes.

All I am saying is that nations in Europe either control or stop immigration like they did in the past instead of allowing mass immigration and open borders. It does not need to be more complicated than that. Anything else is you implying motives that are non existent on my part. You are framing it in a way that implies that if I don't acknowledge the minor genetic differences within nations that I might as well go for open borders, mass immigration and multiculturalism.

This is basically a slippery slope argument. I understand nations don't perfectly capture ethnicity and never will due to their arbitrary nature. That doesn't mean that we can't enforce borders in either controlling immigration or preventing it completely. This is why I refuse to answer your trick question directly on defining what minor is since that is a subjective distinction. I never implied anything else beyond controlling immigration or stopping it for nations.

[Singu]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I think the debate is between nationalism vs. cultural assimilation since I think multiculturalism is bound to fail and result in balkanization. I live in a very multicultural city and so far different ethnicities just stick to their own ethnic enclaves and ignore each other.

That may be true, but it's not as if there are no in-fighting and conflicts among people of the same race and ethnicities. People who look similar may stick together, people of similar socio-economic background stick together, people of similar education, religion and even political affiliations do.

Race and ethnicities are just one of those many imagined in-group similarities. People may be biased towards people that are similar or even just perceived as similar, because perhaps they are perceived to be safe. But that is still a cognitive and behavioral bias and an error.

The fact is that people of the same race and ethnicity used to fight and kill each other all the time (and they still do), but now they suddenly get along. Why is that? It's because people have found newer ideas to be inclusive about. That is the idea of a nation-state.

[Raver]

That may be true, but it's not as if there are no in-fighting and conflicts among people of the same race and ethnicities. People who look similar may stick together, people of similar socio-economic background stick together, people of similar education, religion and even political affiliations do.

Race and ethnicities are just one of those many imagined in-group similarities. People may be biased towards people that are similar or even just perceived as similar, because perhaps they are perceived to be safe. But that is still a cognitive and behavioral bias and an error.

The fact is that people of the same race and ethnicity used to fight and kill each other all the time (and they still do), but now they suddenly get along. Why is that? It's because people have found newer ideas to be inclusive about. That is the idea of a nation-state.

I believe it is a combination of both. Real and imagined differences between races and ethnicities. Imagined differences tend to exaggerate the real differences and make the division worse, but there is still some minor differences regardless. I suppose that the cause is humanity's tribal nature that manifests even in politics.

Anyways, I don't really mind if certain countries become multi-ethnic melting pots, while others become ethno-states. I just find it bothersome that the choice is literally just multiculturalism for 1st world nations and any other option is seen as xenophobic. Without any consideration of the potential long-term consequences.

[lemontrees]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I think the debate is between nationalism vs. cultural assimilation since I think multiculturalism is bound to fail and result in balkanization. I live in a very multicultural city and so far different ethnicities just stick to their own ethnic enclaves and ignore each other.

This is the best case scenario for multiculturalism, in Europe the immigrants are not even integrating properly and causing several issues. Multiculturalism is a failed experiment, which is why we need to look to cultural assimilation or nationalism as the solution to immigration.



All I am saying is that nations in Europe either control or stop immigration like they did in the past instead of allowing mass immigration and open borders. It does not need to be more complicated than that. Anything else is you implying motives that are non existent on my part. You are framing it in a way that implies that if I don't acknowledge the minor genetic differences within nations that I might as well go for open borders, mass immigration and multiculturalism.

This is basically a slippery slope argument. I understand nations don't perfectly capture ethnicity and never will due to their arbitrary nature. That doesn't mean that we can't enforce borders in either controlling immigration or preventing it completely. This is why I refuse to answer your trick question directly on defining what minor is since that is a subjective distinction. I never implied anything else beyond controlling immigration or stopping it for nations.

IMO it's not meant as a trick question.

I'd figured the reason you didn't respond was b/c it looked like a petty logical argument, but its implication is even if you disallowed immigration you would need some rules to determine who gets to be in the country.

@xerxe may have worded it at an extreme lol but I think he's not trying to imply that if you don't acknowledge the minor genetic differences within nations that you might as well go for open borders, mass immigration and multiculturalism. He's actually suggesting that implementing what you're saying won't be so simple, and might lead to an unfair result.

FYI I'm not trying to defend xerxe so much as clear up what looks like a misunderstanding. Will really try to stay out of other ppl's arguments in the future.

I'm putting together my own thoughts on the topic and will get them soon. >.<

[Raver]

IMO it's not meant as a trick question.

I'd figured the reason you didn't respond was b/c it looked like a petty logical argument, but its implication is you can disallow immigration but you do need some rules to determine who gets to be in the country.

@xerxe may have worded it at an extreme lol but I think he's not trying to imply that if you don't acknowledge the minor genetic differences within nations that you might as well go for open borders, mass immigration and multiculturalism. He's actually suggesting that implementing what you're saying won't be so simple, and might lead to an unfair result.

FYI I'm not trying to defend xerxe so much as clear up what looks like a misunderstanding. Will really try to stay out of other ppl's arguments in the future.

I'm putting together my own thoughts on the topic and will get them soon. >.<

Fair enough. The issue is my stance varies depending on the nation. Like in my nation of Canada and in the US, I don't think ethnicity should matter for immigration, but we should try to limit the number of immigrants and encourage integration and assimilation.

In nations of Europe, then it is more about Germans and Italians for example retaining their German and Italian ethnicities. I know trying to retain existing minor ethnicities within those nations is nearly impossible, which is why I think it is pointless to debate it.

[Singu]

In nations of Europe, then it is more about Germans and Italians for example retaining their German and Italian ethnicities.

Yeah, that'll go over well. You only need to add Japan to go back to straight-up 1930's axis power totalitarianism and racial/ethnic supremacy.

What you're suggesting is literally segregation and apartheid. It's not going to go well in this day and age. I guess Germany had learned their lesson, but in many places nationalistic ideas still lives on.

It sounds more like you're getting your ideas from some weird right-wing extremist sources.

[xerx]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I think the debate is between nationalism vs. cultural assimilation since I think multiculturalism is bound to fail and result in balkanization. I live in a very multicultural city and so far different ethnicities just stick to their own ethnic enclaves and ignore each other.

This is the best case scenario for multiculturalism, in Europe the immigrants are not even integrating properly and causing several issues. Multiculturalism is a failed experiment, which is why we need to look to cultural assimilation or nationalism as the solution to immigration.



All I am saying is that nations in Europe either control or stop immigration like they did in the past instead of allowing mass immigration and open borders. It does not need to be more complicated than that. Anything else is you implying motives that are non existent on my part. You are framing it in a way that implies that if I don't acknowledge the minor genetic differences within nations that I might as well go for open borders, mass immigration and multiculturalism.

This is basically a slippery slope argument. I understand nations don't perfectly capture ethnicity and never will due to their arbitrary nature. That doesn't mean that we can't enforce borders in either controlling immigration or preventing it completely. This is why I refuse to answer your trick question directly on defining what minor is since that is a subjective distinction. I never implied anything else beyond controlling immigration or stopping it for nations.

@Raver, I never said that we shouldn't enforce borders. Anyone can see that it's bad to have unregulated population growth which outstrips our ability to accommodate it with new infrastructure.

The point I want to get across is twofold: 1) genetic differences within nations are not minor, because nations are the arbitrary creations of politicians that didn't follow a genetic map; and 2) if we now accept that nations can have massive internal variability, there's nothing unprecedented about allowing gene flow from the outside.

WRT multiculturalism, I'm not yet sold on the idea that it has failed, but I agree that assimilation is a perfectly sensible solution to the question of integration, regarding which I'd love to see the Germanization of Syrians and the Swedification of people from Timbuktu.

Going further, there's an initiative to craft a German version of Islam, and while I have no intimate knowledge of the project or whether it would strip Islam of its essential characteristics, I agree in principle on the utility and decency for immigrants to energetically imbibe the cultures of their destinations; many do so in fact.

[Raver]

@Raver, I never said that we shouldn't enforce borders. Anyone can see that it's bad to have unregulated population growth which outstrips our ability to accommodate it with new infrastructure.

The point I want to get across is twofold: 1) genetic differences within nations are not minor because nations are the arbitrary creations of politicians that didn't follow a genetic map; and 2) if we now accept that nations can have massive internal variability, there's nothing unprecedented about allowing gene flow from the outside.

WRT multiculturalism, I'm not yet sold on the idea that it has failed, but I agree that assimilation is a perfectly sensible solution to the question of integration, regarding which I'd love to see the Germanization of Syrians and the Swedification of people from Timbuktu.

Going further, there's an initiative to craft a German version of Islam, and while I have no intimate knowledge of the project or whether it would strip Islam of its essential characteristics, I agree in principle on the utility and decency for immigrants to energetically imbibe the cultures of their destinations; many do so in fact.

Well, it seems like we basically are on the same page regarding immigration into former European colonial nations like Canada, US, Australia and NZ. Cultural assimilation should work well in those nations.

As for Europe, all your argument states is that immigration within Europe between different European nations is acceptable and outside of it is not. Since there is overlap of ethnicities and genetics between different European nations.

I suppose we can include some immigration from West Asia, which is basically just Syrian refugees since they are somewhat similar to Southern Europeans and really need to flee their country or risk losing their lives.

Yeah, that'll go over well. You only need to add Japan to go back to straight-up 1930's axis power totalitarianism and racial/ethnic supremacy.

What you're suggesting is literally segregation and apartheid. It's not going to go well in this day and age. I guess Germany had learned their lesson, but in many places nationalistic ideas still lives on.

It sounds more like you're getting your ideas from some weird right-wing extremist sources.

I get my ideas from numerous sources from both the Left and Right, but a lot of them are simply organic. I like to get a diverse view of opinions to keep my mind open to different ideas.

The fact that you are equating nationalism by enforcing borders and controlling immigration with 1930s Nazi supremacy is hilarious.

[Singu]

The fact that you are equating nationalism by enforcing borders and controlling immigration with 1930s Nazi supremacy is hilarious.

Your argument is "Germany should retain their German ethnicity". That's pretty much a lighter version of Nazism. I don't think most Germans particularly care about "retaining their German ethnicity", and I'm sure whomever that suggests that get called a Nazi.

[Raver]

Your argument is "Germany should retain their German ethnicity". That's pretty much a lighter version of Nazism. I don't think most Germans particularly care about "retaining their German ethnicity", and I'm sure whomever that suggests that get called a Nazi.

Well, not just Germans, but French, Italians, Greeks, Japanese, South Koreans, Chinese, Iranians, Egyptians, Ethiopians, etc...Is that a lighter version of Nazism to you?

[Singu]

Well, not just Germans, but French, Italians, Greeks, Japanese, South Koreans, Chinese, Iranians, Egyptians, Ethiopians, etc...Is that a lighter version of Nazism to you?

Yes.

However, there might be a nationalist reaction to colonization, as in the case of say, Indian nationalism as an reaction to British colonialism. That might've been useful in winning the independence of India, it's not required any more after that.

So it's fine when Germany gets colonized, but not Ethiopia. Got it.

Well it's more that Germany is colonizing Europe.

[mfckrz]

Your argument is "Germany should retain their German ethnicity".

Lol. People will say shit like this, and then hypocritically cry about how colonization erased 'indigenous identities'.

[Kim]

Lol. People will say shit like this, and then hypocritically cry about how colonization erased 'indigenous identities'.

Nothing hypocritical about it.

[xerx]

As for Europe, all your argument states is that immigration within Europe between different European nations is acceptable and outside of it is not. Since there is overlap of ethnicities and genetics between different European nations.

I made the argument several posts ago, but this isn't necessarily the case: subpopulations can have major differences, so large in fact that they may share culturally-relevant traits more closely with distant populations.

[Kim]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I think the debate is between nationalism vs. cultural assimilation since I think multiculturalism is bound to fail and result in balkanization. I live in a very multicultural city and so far different ethnicities just stick to their own ethnic enclaves and ignore each other.

I lived in Scarborough and found that very much not to be the case. People come from all over and live side by side and with each other.

[Raver]

I lived in Scarborough and found that very much not to be the case. People come from all over and live side by side and with each other.

Did you go north and visit the GTA? Each suburban city is its own ethnic enclave. Scarborough is diverse, but that is an exception to the rule.

[Kim]

Did you go north and visit the GTA? Each suburban city is its own ethnic enclave. Scarborough is diverse like Toronto is, but that is an exception to the rule.

The rest looked pretty Anglo to me...