Democratic Presidential Debate

[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.

[Raver]

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.

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.

What do you guys think of the Dalai Lama for saying this? Is he a Nazi or a Nazi lite for saying this and/or does he have extreme right wing views?

Despite his insistence on Europe assisting to rebuild the countries from where the refugees fled, the Dalai Lama also addressed those who might want to remain in Europe. "A limited number is OK. But the whole of Europe [will] eventually become Muslim country — impossible. Or African country, also impossible,” he said.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/n...lim-or-african

[xerx]

*snip*

I'd say that the fear of Europe becoming Muslim is the fever dream of xenophobic individuals. To put that into context, some 70% of Europe identifies as Christian and even they haven't been able to reverse the separation of church and state. If he means that the Muslim population will overtake Europe's White population through breeding, this is also quite ridiculous and flies in the face of the mathematics of demographic change.

But his other argument is something any reasonable person might advocate: that immigrants and refugees should be given access to education in order to return and rebuild their homelands. This is, in fact, the *only* permanent solution to illegal immigration from the third world. It's the right-wing that normally doesn't want to help others or pay for shit; migrant crises are the predictable result of that attitude.

[Singu]

What do you guys think of the Dalai Lama for saying this? Is he a Nazi or a Nazi lite for saying this and/or does he have extreme right wing views?

I don't see why I should care about what Dalai Lama says, but he likely have those nationalistic views because he wants Tibetan independence from Chinese rule.

So some people are conflating legitimate immigration with invasion, and that's simply disingenuous. Besides what he said was about refugees and not immigrants.

Do you honestly think that 2nd and 3rd generation immigrants and beyond feel any different from the natives? Do you really think that the reason why you feel "Canadian" is because of your race? I really don't see why race and ethnicity should matter at all, unless there are certain ideologies that make them keep certain identities, such as religion.

There's simply no good reason to arbitrarily "keep" certain races and ethnicities, unless it was forced or there was an invasion. If the argument is that because different races and ethnicities don't get along and they cause trouble, and homogeneous societies are apparently more peaceful and conflict-free and they always agree on everything, then why even bother with a democratic electoral process at all? Maybe we should just skip with the whole process because people will agree on everything anyway.

But that's not actually what happens, even the most homogeneous societies have conflicts and disagreements, unless they're a highly authoritarian society that forces a certain view on the society from the above, like say North Korea. So the apparent harmony and concord of a homogeneous society has always been authoritarian propaganda, and nothing more.

[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.

[mfckrz]

Nothing hypocritical about it.

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

[Kim]

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

Germany is not getting colonized.

[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.