The Rise of Far Left Extremism

[Metamorph]

I don't know if you're confusing it with Austria, but Australia is already an multi-ethnic, multi-cultural country like Canada.

A lot of the countries in Asia and Africa are already multi-ethnic or multi-cultural.

Japan, South Korea and North Korea are a special case, because they've been heavily influenced by the "racial purity" ideology of the Empire of Japan, which was influenced by... Nazi Germany. They've basically copied their ideas from the Nazis. Before that, there were no concept of race or ethnicity or nations. People belonged to certain clans or fiefdoms or tribes, and they were loyal to them. So they needed something, a fictional idea to unite people to create the concept of a nation for the war efforts.

Most countries pretty much only accept highly-skilled immigrants. The US being one of them.

TIL everyone lived in clans, tribes, and kingdoms prior to 1930, when the Nazis invented the idea of race and then borders came into existence. Nazis also somehow time-traveled using Indiana Jones technology to create the Empire of Japan and give them racism, militarism, and national borders hundreds of years before ****** was born, and this also led to North and South Korea, and also countries like America though they aren't racist because before then there was only the United Fiefdoms of America with no borders. K-Pop boys and anime are the modern manifestations of Nazism.

I feel like what I said basically didn't even need to be added onto what you said. Truth is stranger than fiction.

[Singu]

I mentioned Australia because its new PM and government wants to cut down on immigration and it isn't as diverse as Canada and it takes in much less immigrants compared to Canada. However, its PM and government could change in the following elections and allow more immigrants. I will also concede that Australia is already multi-ethnic/multicultural. Asian and African countries are mostly mono-ethnic/monocultural except for a few of them.

Australia has about 86% Europeans and Canada has about 73% Europeans. 30% of Australians are born overseas, and I'd suppose they take in a lot of European immigrants.

Australia frequently has these conservative, reactionary PMs, but I doubt that things will change very much.

TIL everyone lived in clans, tribes, and kingdoms prior to 1930, when the Nazis invented the idea of race and then borders came into existence. Nazis also somehow time-traveled using Indiana Jones technology to create the Empire of Japan and give them racism, militarism, and national borders hundreds of years before ****** was born, and this also led to North and South Korea, and also countries like America though they aren't racist because before then there was only the United Fiefdoms of America with no borders. K-Pop boys and anime are the modern manifestations of Nazism.

I feel like what I said basically didn't even need to be added onto what you said. Truth is stranger than fiction.

Yeah, Japan being an island nation that used to copy and import China's political system, was now learning and importing political systems from Europe, imagine that.

Or, don't talk about things you know nothing about.

[Taknamay]

I'm confused about this thread, are we talking about "what lead to the current rise in far left extremism", or "is far left extremism good or bad"? I guess I'll focus on the former.

It seems to me that the dramatic rise in Antifa (as such) started in 2016 in response to the campaign and subsequent election of Donald Trump.

[Number 9 large]

I'm confused about this thread, are we talking about "what lead to the current rise in far left extremism", or "is far left extremism good or bad"? I guess I'll focus on the former.

It seems to me that the dramatic rise in Antifa (as such) started in 2016 in response to the campaign and subsequent election of Donald Trump.

Idk but a big part of why trump got elected seems precisely BECAUSE of moral righteousness from the left

[Taknamay]

Idk but a big part of why trump got elected seems precisely BECAUSE of moral righteousness from the left

Identity politics issues like feminism, LGBT, and race have had dramatically increased mainstream attention since 2011 or so, and that may be a factor. I've seen speculation that the reason for the mainstream attention around that time was to take pressure off of economic inequality in light of the aftermath of the 2008 recession, which sounds plausible to me. It's easier for a company to be anti-racism or anti-sexism than a company to be anti-capitalist.

[Muddy]

Idk but a big part of why trump got elected seems precisely BECAUSE of moral righteousness from the left

It's a damn shame really, lots of people didn't want Trump or Hillary in 2016. The corporate establishment figured out that the best way to disempower the left was to co-opt it and encourage it to engage in petty SJW bullshit, while at the same time demonizing and mocking the hardcore leftist serious about bringing down capitalism.

[Metamorph]

It's a damn shame really, lots of people didn't want Trump or Hillary in 2016. The corporate establishment figured out that the best way to disempower the left was to co-opt it and encourage it to engage in petty SJW bullshit, while at the same time demonizing and mocking the hardcore leftist serious about bringing down capitalism.

Capitalism isn't bad. Capitalism comes from the word "to capitalize." Capitalizing is good and is how people empower themselves. I'm not a "small government" or minarchist or anarchist person at all, but people should still be allowed to capitalize on whatever they'd like after all other things are considered. I've heard several people think socialism and capitalism will merge in the near future instead of the Marxist path of socialism overthrowing it and it'll look like Sweden, and if that happened I'd be all for it, but I still know for a fact that capitalism shouldn't be demonized as a concept.

[Muddy]

Capitalism isn't bad. Capitalism comes from the word "to capitalize." Capitalizing is good and is how people empower themselves. I'm not a "small government" or minarchist or anarchist person at all, but people should still be allowed to capitalize on whatever they'd like after all other things are considered. I've heard several people think socialism and capitalism will merge in the near future instead of the Marxist path of socialism overthrowing it and it'll look like Sweden, and if that happened I'd be all for it, but I still know for a fact that capitalism shouldn't be demonized as a concept.

I'll just copy and paste a post from the debate communism subreddit:

Lets unpack the idea that "Capitalism works". In the US, the most developed Capitalist country, the richest country in the history of the world:

• 1 out of every 7 US citizens needs to visit food banks to survive, despite having enough food to feed 10 billion people. Half of all food produced is thrown away by retailers. Food waste in 2018 enough to feed world's hungry 4 times over.
• UNICEF, RESULTS, and Bread for the World estimate that 15 million people die each year from preventable poverty, of whom 11 million are children under the age of five. 2.
• In the US alone, 20-40k deaths every year because of lack of health insurance / care. On average, that's 300k over the last decade.
• Empty homes outnumber the homeless by 6 to 1. Bank foreclosures and housing speculators have left 18.9 million empty homes. 2.5 million homeless children, or ~1 / 30. In the UK, there are 10x more empty houses than homeless families.
• 80% of US workers live paycheck to paycheck, 40% cannot cover a $400 emergency.
• The bottom half of US citizens have a combined negative net worth. Average US household carries ~$140k in debt. Median household income only $60k, 40% of millenials live with their parents.
• ~ 1/4th of US workers are trapped in the gig economy as of 2019.
• 8 men control as much wealth as half the worlds population.. Anyone wanna take a guess at how this game of monopoly ends?
• Capitalist monopolies in media, food, energy, and transportation, mostly controlled by ~200 powerful shareholders.
• Billionaires made enough money in 2017 to end poverty 7 times over.
• US Life expectancy peaked in 2015, is on the decline, and is now lower than in China.
• Suicide rates have leaped more than 33% in the last 20 years. 2, 3
• Committed countless atrocities, killing millions directly and indirectly across the globe. Imperialist network of 800 military bases in 70 countries.
• Most prisoners per capita AND by total. Makes sense, since prison is Capitalism's boarding house.
• Runs least 54 agricultural slave labor camps..
• 34,000 undesirables imprisoned in over 500 immigrant prison camps.
• More here.

Capitalist hegemony has short-circuited people into buying wildly illogical and ridiculous propaganda like: "Lift yourselves up by the bootstraps" (which shows the almost religious power of capitalist propaganda, that the impossible can become possible), or "Communism doesn't work", when in fact Communism did work extremely well.
Examples from this post by /u/bayarea415, and Stephen Gowans - Do publicly owned, planned economies work, about the USSR specifically:

• USSR had a more nutritious diet than the US, according to the CIA. Calories consumed surpassed the US. Ended famines.
• Productive forces were not organized for capital gain and private enrichment; public ownership of the means of production supplanted private ownership. It was illegal to hire others and accumulate personal wealth from their labor.
• Had the 2nd fastest growing economy of the 20th century after Japan. The USSR started out at the same level of economic development and population as Brazil in 1920, which makes comparisons to the US, an already industrialized country by the 1920s, even more spectacular.
• Free Universal Health care, and most doctors per capita in the world. 42 doctors per 10k population, vs 24 in Denmark and Sweden, 19 in US.
• Had near zero unemployment, continuous economic growth for 70 straight years. The "continuous" part should make sense – the USSR was a planned, non-market economy, so market crashes á la capitalism were pretty much impossible.
• All education, including university level, free. 2
• 99% literacy.
• Saved the world from Fascism, Taking on the majority of Nazi divisions, and killing 7 out of every 10 fascist soldier. Bore the enormous cost of blood and pain in WW2, with the bloodiest battles in the history of warfare.. An estimated 70% of Soviet housing was destroyed by Nazi invasion. Nazis were in retreat after the battle of Stalingrad in 1942, a full 2 years before the US landed troops in normandy.
• Doubled life expectancy. Eliminated poverty.
• End sex inequality. Equal wages for men and women mandated by law, but sex inequality, although not as pronounced as under capitalism, was perpetuated in social roles. Very important lesson to learn.
• End Racial inequality.
• Feudalism to space travel in 40 years. First satellite, rocket, space walk, woman, man, animal, space station, moon and mars probes.
• Soviet power production per capita in 1990 was more than the EU, Great Britain, or China's in 2014.
• Housing was socialized by localized community organizations, and there was virtually no homelessness. Houses were often shared by two families throughout the 20s and 30s – so unlike capitalism, there were no empty houses, but the houses were very full. In the 40s there was the war, and in the 50s there were a number of orphans from the war. The mass housing projects began in the 60s, they were completed in the 70s, and by the 70s, there were homeless people, but they often had genuine issues with mental health.

Now let's take a look at what happens after the USSR collapse:

• Life expectancy decreases by 10 years. 2. 7.7 million excess deaths in the first year. 2
• 40% of population drops into poverty.
• GDP instantly halves.
• One in ten children now live on the streets. Infant mortality increases. Was 29.3 in 2003 which is around (current) Syria and Micronesia, 7.9 in 2013. Infant mortality in USSR was 1.92, literally the lowest in the world.
• 1996 election rigged by the US, Yeltsin sends in tanks to disperse the supreme soviet.

For an overview of the soviet experiment, watch this brilliant talk by Micheal Parenti, or read his article, Left anticommunism, the unkindest cut.
Also read this great article by Stephen Gowans, Do publicly owned, planned economies work?. Audio on youtube
Bonus vid about cyber-communism: Paul Cockshott - Going beyond money.
More sources: Socialism Crash Course, Socialism FAQ, Glossary.

[Metamorph]

OK, let's say everything you've said is true and absolutely none of it is propaganda. Does any of that matter at all? People give up food and housing and doctors and life for more abstract values. In Cuba you can't pursue more abstract values. Enlightenment liberalism came about as the result of many different religions meeting together. If America's statistics look a pretty as a religious martyr being tormented to death, that's to be expected. Show me all the cultural achievements from Cuba. The only one I can think of is the Cuba libré and I'm not sure that counts.

[Muddy]

OK, let's say everything you've said is true and absolutely none of it is propaganda. Does any of that matter at all? People give up food and housing and doctors and life for more abstract values. In Cuba you can't pursue more abstract values. Enlightenment liberalism came about as the result of many different religions meeting together. If America's statistics look a pretty as a religious martyr being tormented to death, that's to be expected. Show me all the cultural achievements from Cuba. The only one I can think of is the Cuba libré and I'm not sure that counts.

I don't know where you get this idea that art and music are somehow exclusive with socialism. Cuba and all socialist today countries exist in very pressured conditions. The economic planners in those countries obviously are not going have people become artist and musicians while things like food and other necessities need to be produced all from within the country. The art and the music will come to Cuba when they no longer struggle under an embargo and and reach a level of wealth where focusing on such things is feasible.

[Grendel]

OK, let's say everything you've said is true and absolutely none of it is propaganda. Does any of that matter at all? People give up food and housing and doctors and life for more abstract values. In Cuba you can't pursue more abstract values. Enlightenment liberalism came about as the result of many different religions meeting together. If America's statistics look a pretty as a religious martyr being tormented to death, that's to be expected. Show me all the cultural achievements from Cuba. The only one I can think of is the Cuba libré and I'm not sure that counts.

The freedom to nail down and fetter one's own thinking to the service of fixed abstractions that concern themselves with only their own good, and not the good of the person serving them, is hardly a freedom we'll miss.

I don't know where you get this idea that art and music are somehow exclusive with socialism. Cuba and all socialist today countries exist in very pressured conditions. The economic planners in those countries obviously are not going have people become artist and musicians while things like food and other necessities need to be produced all from within the country. The art and the music will come to Cuba when they no longer struggle under an embargo and and reach a level of wealth where focusing on such things is feasible.

This is why I'm agnostic on economics. It's always the already desperate crud countries that go communist and never really turn out great one way or another that people pull out to "debunk" socialism.

But I tend to tie death toll to longevity of a regime. The third reich got assblasted to smithereens in an instant, so they only lived to have a lower kill count than the ussr under Lenin and Stalin; which in turn is exceeded by that of the neoliberal order, because that one happened to last the longest.

[Adam Strange]

The Soviet Union and Cuba both seem to have had better results than the US in terms of education and health care, but worse results in terms of personal freedom of choice and opportunity.

I think I'd rather live in the US if I could be certain that I'd be rich, and in the Soviet Union or Cuba if I knew I was going to be poor.

Clearly, we don't have an all-inclusive solution to this problem yet.

Since there is more than enough food, wealth, and opportunity to lift everyone out of poverty and give them a shot at a good life, you have to ask yourself why this hasn't happened? Personally, I believe the answer is found in Michael Kalecki's essay
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012...mployment.html,
Section IV, part 3.
Basically, Kalecki says that, while government spending to achieve full employment could easily be done, the rich oppose it, even though they would be financial beneficiaries of it. Apparently, they don't like the idea of full employment because it would cause the workers to "get out of hand". In other words, some rich people prefer to give up some potential wealth if it keeps other people down.

I believe this is the reason that the Communists in China succeeded in overthrowing the old system, and why there is a desire in some people to shoot the rich. I feel that way myself towards anyone who wants to keep me down.

[xerx]

Basically, Kalecki says that, while government spending to achieve full employment could easily be done, the rich oppose it, even though they would be financial beneficiaries of it. Apparently, they don't like the idea of full employment because it would cause the workers to "get out of hand". In other words, some rich people prefer to give up some potential wealth if it keeps other people down.

I believe this is the reason that the Communists in China succeeded in overthrowing the old system, and why there is a desire in some people to shoot the rich. I feel that way myself towards anyone who wants to keep me down.

yep. sometimes the cream rises to the top. oftentimes it's the scum that rises to the top.

[Raver]

So I looked in the "Our Mission" section of the website, which bombastically proclaims their organization's desire to defend "Judeo-Christian" culture, making them comically not neutral on the question of Muslim immigration.



Regardless, the article was written in 2015, so I checked around to see how well the refugees in Germany are integrating. It seems like of the 1.5 million, 400,000+ are already either working or in job training. The article doesn't say what % of that 1.5 million are children, elderly, or women raising children. These figures are, in fact, ahead of what experts predicted. Source: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a8901161.html

Regarding long-time Muslim immigrants to France: if integration is that bad (and I believe it is), then the problem could be structural, whereas the integration of long-time Muslims immigrants to Germany is significantly better, with unemployment matching the national average. Source: https://www.thelocal.de/20170824/int...rest-of-europe



Regarding immigration to America, according to the CATO institute, which is a right wing / small-government think tank, legal and illegal immigrants receive less welfare benefits and commit fewer crimes than ordinary Americans.

Source 1: https://www.cato.org/publications/co...-welfare-state.
Source 2: https://www.cato.org/publications/im...egal-immigrant

I noticed your first link mentioned this:

One reason why immigrants use fewer benefits is because they are often not eligible for them. Legal immigrants cannot get welfare for their first five years of residency, with few exceptions, mostly at the state level. Illegal immigrants are not eligible for welfare except for rare circumstances like emergency Medicaid.

This certainly obfuscates things because not being allowed to use something is certainly going to distort the statistics profoundly at least in the US. The main issue though isn't that immigrants are more likely to use welfare or commit more crimes than natives. It's that immigrants add in welfare costs and more crime in the long term (post 5 years) simply by entering because you are adding in more people by default if you don't control immigration. However, I never mentioned the US in terms of welfare or crime as I was talking about Europe. You don't really need a study to see how mass immigration/open borders is draining the welfare states of Western Europe and rising crime rates.

@Raver

Both legal as well as illegal immigrants to America use less welfare and commit fewer crimes. If I was going to be a dick about it, I'd point out how replacing ordinary Americans with illegals might actually make the country better.

Legal and illegal immigrants to America use less welfare than natives because they are not allowed access to welfare. You need to be a US citizen for 5 years to be eligible for welfare and newly arrived legal immigrants and illegal immigrants don't qualify for welfare. This doesn't apply to Europe though because they have much less stricter rules for welfare than the US.

Australia has about 86% Europeans and Canada has about 73% Europeans. 30% of Australians are born overseas, and I'd suppose they take in a lot of European immigrants.

Australia frequently has these conservative, reactionary PMs, but I doubt that things will change very much.

Fair enough, I agree that Australia is destined to become a multi-ethnic nation because of its history and culture. However, it will do more to stop it than countries like Sweden and Canada at least.

The Soviet Union and Cuba both seem to have had better results than the US in terms of education and health care, but worse results in terms of personal freedom of choice and opportunity.

I think I'd rather live in the US if I could be certain that I'd be rich, and in the Soviet Union or Cuba if I knew I was going to be poor.

Clearly, we don't have an all-inclusive solution to this problem yet.

Since there is more than enough food, wealth, and opportunity to lift everyone out of poverty and give them a shot at a good life, you have to ask yourself why this hasn't happened? Personally, I believe the answer is found in Michael Kalecki's essay
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2012...mployment.html,
Section IV, part 3.
Basically, Kalecki says that, while government spending to achieve full employment could easily be done, the rich oppose it, even though they would be financial beneficiaries of it. Apparently, they don't like the idea of full employment because it would cause the workers to "get out of hand". In other words, some rich people prefer to give up some potential wealth if it keeps other people down.

I believe this is the reason that the Communists in China succeeded in overthrowing the old system, and why there is a desire in some people to shoot the rich. I feel that way myself towards anyone who wants to keep me down.

An all inclusive solution already exists, it's called social democracy (nordic model) and it was implemented in Scandinavian countries like Sweden after socialism failed decades ago and they replaced it with social democracy. The problem is the US has problems implementing it due to exorbitant military spending and troops overseas in war. This is one of the main reasons why the US is the only 1st world developed nation without universal health care.

[xerx]

This certainly obfuscates things because not being allowed to use something is certainly going to distort the statistics profoundly at least in the US. The main issue though isn't that immigrants are more likely to use welfare or commit more crimes than natives. It's that immigrants add in welfare costs and more crime in the long term (post 5 years) simply by entering because you are adding in more people by default if you don't control immigration. However, I never mentioned the US in terms of welfare or crime as I was talking about Europe. You don't really need a study to see how mass immigration/open borders is draining the welfare states of Western Europe and rising crime rates.

Legal and illegal immigrants to America use less welfare than natives because they are not allowed access to welfare. You need to be a US citizen for 5 years to be eligible for welfare and newly arrived legal immigrants and illegal immigrants don't qualify for welfare. This doesn't apply to Europe though because they have much less stricter rules for welfare than the US.

OK Raver, I don't think we're going to agree.

To be honest, I've always known that some people will be resistant to outsiders under virtually every circumstance. It's futile to change deep-seated habits, so let's just focus on what we both can agree on: fewer people will need to emigrate from these countries once they become better places to live. This process is slowly happening, but it can obviously be accelerated if the third world receives massive investment and technology transfers from the first world.

[xerx]

With respect to "art," Capitalism has produced Boy bands and Justin Bieber. Enough said.

[perpetuus]

With respect to "art," Capitalism has produced Boy bands and Justin Bieber. Enough said.

Study the difference between music produced in Communist East Germany and Capitalist West Germany during the 1960s and 1970s.

[xerx]

Study the difference between music produced in Communist East Germany and Capitalist West Germany during the 1960s and 1970s.

What are you getting at?

[perpetuus]

What are you getting at?

As an exercise, it's an illuminating look at a culture split into opposing capitalist and communist systems and how the art produced under either system differed.

[xerx]

As an exercise, it's an illuminating look at a culture split into opposing capitalist and communist systems and how the art produced under either system differed.

I know that. Make a case for what you're intending me to discover or provide sources; don't make other people do your research for you.

[gone]

With respect to "art," Capitalism has produced Boy bands and Justin Bieber. Enough said.

In retrospect Backstreet Boys are good though, there's no denying it

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

free love

[Singu]

Contrary to popular belief, Europe is ethnically homogeneous, and Africa is the most ethnically diverse. Japan and the Koreas are the most ethnically homogeneous countries in the world (sure, that must've arose "naturally" without any artificial ideology at all).

Are most people even that racist as they seem?

[Raver]

Contrary to popular belief, Europe is ethnically homogeneous, and Africa is the most ethnically diverse. Japan and the Koreas are the most ethnically homogeneous countries in the world (sure, that must've arose "naturally" without any artificial ideology at all).

Are most people even that racist as they seem?

Korea being a peninsula and Japan being an island had nothing to do with it then? Geography played a pivotal role in separating people ethnically whether that was mountains or bodies of water.

[Singu]

Korea being a peninsula and Japan being an island had nothing to do with it then? Geography played a pivotal role in separating people ethnically whether that was mountains or bodies of water.

So is the United Kingdom, and yet they chose completely different paths.

The fact is, there were, and still are, a diverse group of different tribes and ethnicities when people first arrived at those territories. It's just that those people have been conveniently "forgotten", pushed aside or forcibly assimilated due to an ideology of ethnic homogeneity. Also that Japanese, Koreans and Chinese have frequently inter-mingled with one another, but of course that has also been forgotten.

However geography might play into a psychological role of these countries, as UK doesn't feel like it's much part of "Europe", and Japan doesn't feel very much that it's part of "Asia".

[Raver]

So is the United Kingdom, and yet they chose completely different paths.

The fact is, there were, and still are, a diverse group of different tribes and ethnicities when people first arrived at those territories. It's just that those people have been conveniently "forgotten", pushed aside or forcibly assimilated due to an ideology of ethnic homogeneity. Also that Japanese, Koreans and Chinese have frequently inter-mingled with one another, but of course that has also been forgotten.

Those diverse group of different tribes and ethnicities pale in comparison to the vast differences between different ethnic groups that come from different continents. The way I see it, countries should be allowed to choose the path they want whether that is homogeneity or diversity. Diversity or multiculturalism shouldn't be the default go to option for every single country in the world. It also shouldn't be pushed as aggressively in the countries that it's been accepted in. Japan has chosen to be homogeneous then they should be accepted for wanting to retain their ethnicity instead of being forced to become multicultural or diverse because it is the 21st century.

[Singu]

Those diverse group of different tribes and ethnicities pale in comparison to the vast differences between different ethnic groups that come from different continents. The way I see it, countries should be allowed to choose the path they want whether that is homogeneity or diversity. Diversity or multiculturalism shouldn't be the default go to option for every single country in the world. It also shouldn't be pushed as aggressively in the countries that it's been accepted in. Japan has chosen to be homogeneous then they should be accepted for wanting to retain their ethnicity instead of being forced to become multicultural or diverse because it is the 21st century.

And what about all the ethnic minorities that do actually live there? Should they be just forgotten?

I would say that it's unjust, because then the ethnic minorities will be at the mercy of the arbitrary whims of the ethnic majority. And I doubt that the ethnic majority will be so good and merciful that they would be treating the ethnic minorities well for very long, especially during the hard times.

Then there will be persecution and ethnic cleansing, and history would repeat itself all over again.

[mfckrz]

Contrary to popular belief, Europe is ethnically homogeneous, and Africa is the most ethnically diverse.

You mean Africa is far more clannish/tribalistic, and has badly drawn national borders.

[Singu]

You mean Africa is far more clannish/tribalistic, and has badly drawn national borders.

More reason to move from local identities to universal identities.

[Raver]

They do experience racism and discrimination, you know. Even severely.

It is inevitable to some extent in any homogeneous country, which is why they have the option to move to a multicultural/diverse country or back to their original nation. We shouldn't make the entire world multicultural/diverse to solve the problem of racism and discrimination. Even in multi-ethnic countries like Brazil, there is still racism, but between different mixtures of people. Even India has had a history of racism within its own people based on how dark their skin color is. People will always find a way to discriminate and be racist towards others, multiculturalism/diversity is a futile attempt at trying to stop it.

You want multicultural/multi-ethnic nations just for the sake of having it then that is your prerogative, but it won't automatically stop racism and discrimination. This is why I think trying to force multicultural/multi-ethnicism in every 1st world developed nation is ridiculous. It's fine to do it for some nations, but not every single nation for some strange idea of everyone from around the world getting along. Multiculturalism/multi-ethnicism inadvertently breeds xenophobia because people can't relate to others and largely ignore each other. It takes the second generation or third generation immigrants to overcome those boundaries, but first generation immigrants usually don't.

[Singu]

It is inevitable to some extent in any homogeneous country, which is why they have the option to move to a multicultural/diverse country or back to their original nation.

It's doubly unfair that they're the ones that have to move out for being born into the "wrong" race or ethnicity, and how can they go back, when they're born in that country?

We shouldn't make the entire world multicultural/diverse to solve the problem of racism and discrimination. Even in multi-ethnic countries like Brazil, there is still racism, but between different mixtures of people. Even India has had a history of racism within its own people based on how dark their skin color is. People will always find a way to discriminate and be racist towards others, multiculturalism/diversity is a futile attempt at trying to stop it.

Homogenization is also an artificial attempt at stopping racism, only that it's appeasing to the majority at the expense of the minority.

I think the reason why there's racism is because people hold onto these identities. It's just that people need a better identity like Civic nations.

[Raver]

It's doubly unfair that they're the ones that have to move out for being born into the "wrong" race or ethnicity, and how can they go back, when they're born in that country?

If they were born in that country then that makes them a second or third generation immigration that would make integration much easier for them because they absorbed the culture and traditions since birth. It's not easy or without issues of course, but they can live normal lives in those nations regardless. If it doesn't work then immigration can be used as a last resort. If I was born in China because my parents immigrated there before I was born and I felt like everyone hated me as a child growing up because I was the only non-Chinese person in the school then yeah it definitely sucks, but that doesn't mean I think China should become multicultural to cater to me as a minority lol.

Homogenization is also an artificial attempt at stopping racism, only that it's appeasing to the majority at the expense of the minority.

I think the reason why there's racism is because people hold onto these identities. It's just that people need a better identity like Civic nations.

If both homogenization and multiculturalism are artificial attempts at stopping racism then it's clear that trying to force homogeneous countries to become multicultural is not the solution. The issue is that people hate people that are different than them in general and it's not just race, sexuality, etc.... It's human nature to want to be with people that are similar to them in views, mentality and personality. Human tribalism exists in many forms, not just with ethnic differences that is just one possibility out of many. This is why multiculturalism, diversity and inclusiveness can only work to a point until it reaches diminishing returns and nothing else improves and we are back to square one where people get discriminated again for new reasons.

[Singu]

If they were born in that country then that makes them a second or third generation immigration that would make integration much easier for them because they absorbed the culture and traditions since birth. It's not easy or without issues of course, but they can live normal lives in those nations regardless.

...Why would you blame the victim? The racist will discriminate against them no matter how much they've integrated into the host country. There's also no fundamental reason why they should integrate, if only for the safety of not being a target of the majority.

If both homogenization and multiculturalism are artificial attempts at stopping racism then it's clear that trying to force homogeneous countries to become multicultural is not the solution. The issue is that people hate people that are different than them in general and it's not just race, sexuality, etc.... It's human nature to want to be with people that are similar to them in views, mentality and personality. Human tribalism exists in many forms, not just with ethnic differences that is just one possibility out of many. This is why multiculturalism, diversity and inclusiveness can only work to a point until it reaches diminishing returns and nothing else improves and we are back to square one where people get discriminated again for new reasons.

People hate each other because of polarization and intensification of these identities, which some of them might be almost completely arbitrary. Who cares what "tribe" you belong to?

If people hate each other and fractionalize anyway, then what's the difference between homogeneity and diversity?

[Metamorph]

I think ethnicity is a perfectly good identity. Ethnicity is not the same as race. Ethnicity is a combination of both genetics and culture. Look at how many people with various Eastern European names are living in Germany and are completely accepted without much ado, for example. You can change your ethnicity during your lifetime if you change your culture and that ethnic group places a higher value on culture than genetics. If that ethnicity mostly places value on genetics you should ask yourself why you want to be there to begin with since they sound like a bunch of horrible racists.

[Adam Strange]

I wish I could turn Donald Trump into a guy with black skin. Like, maybe, for the rest of his life.

They could call it a plot by the FBI, or they could call it an act of God, but I would call it Justice.

There is nothing like having to walk in someone's shoes for moderating harsh opinions.

[mfckrz]

There is nothing like having to walk in someone's shoes for moderating harsh opinions.

Sometimes empathizing with certain people makes me despise them even more.

[perpetuus]

I wish I could turn Donald Trump into a guy with black skin.

Sounds like the plot of an 80s teen comedy.

[Metamorph]

I wish I could turn Donald Trump into a guy with black skin.

You might want to ask this guy to make a comic for you then. (Don't worry, it's not porn even if it's very R-rated. It pretty much is a teenage comedy, and probably why The Sims is in the MoMA)

[Metamorph]

Well, ethnicity is literally the Greek/Latin word for a tribe and a tribe is defined by the people within it by any standards they choose, so that's why I have no issue with the idea of ethnic states on principle even though it can be done wrong in practice and used to justify all sorts of heinousness. Also, using the word "ethnic" to refer to groups that aren't multicultural is completely ridiculous and basically frames multiculturalism as a new religion. America is a multi-ethnic state and you can tell this because people identify themselves as things like Irish, German, English, African and Asian more often than just American, while the idea of American ethnicity tends to refer to people in the South. People in England with English citizenship almost always consider themselves English even if they're black, same with people in Germany and Hungary and many other European countries, but people in favor of forced multiculturalism want to paint ethnicity as being something that's closed for most people just to load the term with racist connotations. Granted, it's not easy to become a black Brit or Middle Eastern German but it's not easy to become an American immigrating from Mexico either even if the Mexican-American will probably keep their expatriate (another loaded word) ethnicity while the Brit and German won't. But then, I also had a German teacher who considered herself "more American than German" so ethnic identities in America are just messy in general.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_group

[Singu]

I would say that racial/ethnic homogeneity is almost completely illusory, because there's still diversity within the same race/ethnicity. People have diverse views and opinions, and that's only natural.

I think that dividing different races and ethnicity into compartments isn't the answer, because that will only intensify the polarization in the long term. Only through dialogue and mingling that you can eliminate discrimination, because discrimination is based on ignorance. People discriminate against another when they think "those people are so different from me", when they aren't actually that much different.

You might say "that naturally happens anyway", but then so do people "naturally" eat bad food, but that doesn't mean that we should advice them towards eating healthier foods.