Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Neonivek]

Not really no.

Multicultural societies experience differences every single day and as such to survive as a multicultural society there is a buffer for these differences.

Such a buffer doesn't exist in societies without such.

At least in true multicultural societies.

[Loud Whispers]

Multicultural societies experience differences every single day and as such to survive as a multicultural society there is a buffer for these differences.

That's a good thing?

Such a buffer doesn't exist in societies without such.

At least in true multicultural societies.

'No true multiculturalism!'

Gathering all of these cultures, putting them in neat allotments and creating buffers between them expands the ever increasing gulf of differences between cultures. This in turn generates hostility and the rise of neo-reactionaries just embodies this theory that people will then begin taking sides in 'their' allotments.

Not like Bhutan. Just look at how freaking happy Bhutan is.

I think this sort of argument belongs in another thread though. Multiculturalism is hardly the root cause of specifically American displeasure. Can I hear your argument for this Lagslayer?

[Neonivek]

I think this sort of argument belongs in another thread though. Multiculturalism is hardly the root cause of American displeasure

I am saying that the disadvantages put against the United States from multiculturalism is false because they are not a true disadvantage of multiculturalism but rather an imagined one.

This in turn generates hostility and the rise of neo-reactionaries just embodies this theory that people will then begin taking sides in 'their' allotments

The exact same thing happens in Monocultural societies. Everything you listed occurs in both. The difference is who is better equipped to handle them.

It cannot be the source of the dissent if it isn't a real problem.

[Loud Whispers]

This in turn generates hostility and the rise of neo-reactionaries just embodies this theory that people will then begin taking sides in 'their' allotments

The exact same thing happens in Monocultural societies. Everything you listed occurs in both. The difference is who is better equipped to handle them.

If anything it merely exaggerates differences and gives tribal sides for antagonists of every viewpoint to latch onto.

And what we pass off as multiculturalism is clueless in dealing with our inherent differences.

[Detonate]

Multicultural societies experience differences every single day and as such to survive as a multicultural society there is a buffer for these differences.

That's a good thing?

Such a buffer doesn't exist in societies without such.

At least in true multicultural societies.

'No true multiculturalism!'

Gathering all of these cultures, putting them in neat allotments and creating buffers between them expands the ever increasing gulf of differences between cultures. This in turn generates hostility and the rise of neo-reactionaries just embodies this theory that people will then begin taking sides in 'their' allotments.

Not like Bhutan. Just look at how freaking happy Bhutan is.

I think this sort of argument belongs in another thread though. Multiculturalism is hardly the root cause of specifically American displeasure. Can I hear your argument for this Lagslayer?

Not mentioned: Neplaese refugees being kicked out by Bhutan's government. Bhutan isn't the best example of a non-multicultural society. Even if you disregard the Nepalese refugees being kicked out, it still is pretty diverse. The largest ethnic group is only a plurality, and there's even more variety linguistically.

[Loud Whispers]

Not mentioned: Neplaese refugees being kicked out by Bhutan's government. Bhutan isn't the best example of a non-multicultural society. Even if you disregard the Nepalese refugees being kicked out, it still is pretty diverse. The largest ethnic group is only a plurality, and there's even more variety linguistically.

Ethnicity is separate from culture, it is an important distinction to make in homogeneous and multicultural societies.

[Neonivek]

It takes a bit more then having multiple cultures to make a "true" multicultural society mind you.

Since most countries are technically multicultural if you were to look close enough.

The real difference is how the country treats the multiple cultures. That is where the distinction lies.

For example in a court of law will they offer you translators? Are you allowed to have a public location to pray?

[Loud Whispers]

It takes a bit more then having multiple cultures to make a "true" multicultural society mind you.

Heck I don't think the United States technically counts as one.

Agreed. I'm not sure if there is actually a country where it is genuinely multicultural. I'd say Malaysia's doing well on that front, but they occasionally lynch each other still.

[Neonivek]

Canada is pretty close. We just need to finally finish our First Nations issues and we will be on our way!

[Xantalos]

Canada is pretty close. We just need to finally finish our First Nations issues and we will be on our way!

Ayup.

[XXSockXX]

It takes a bit more then having multiple cultures to make a "true" multicultural society mind you.

Heck I don't think the United States technically counts as one.

Agreed. I'm not sure if there is actually a country where it is genuinely multicultural. I'd say Malaysia's doing well on that front, but they occasionally lynch each other still.

There was a thread about multiculturalism, but that didn't get very far. I don't think a country is multicultural because everyone eats italian and chinese food. As long as there is a dominant "main" culture, be that one based on ethnicity like in Europe or not, like in the "New World", a country is not really multicultural. The US is not really multicultural IMHO, it might become more so someday if immigration from South America continues and "Latinos" will be the majority in the southern half of the country. But currently there clearly is a mainstream culture in the US, with lots of minorities from all over the world that try to assimilate into that main culture.

The political divide in the US has nothing to do with multiculturalism though, that is mostly a coasts vs inland thing.

[Morrigi]

It takes a bit more then having multiple cultures to make a "true" multicultural society mind you.

Heck I don't think the United States technically counts as one.

Agreed. I'm not sure if there is actually a country where it is genuinely multicultural. I'd say Malaysia's doing well on that front, but they occasionally lynch each other still.

There was a thread about multiculturalism, but that didn't get very far. I don't think a country is multicultural because everyone eats italian and chinese food. As long as there is a dominant "main" culture, be that one based on ethnicity like in Europe or not, like in the "New World", a country is not really multicultural. The US is not really multicultural IMHO, it might become more so someday if immigration from South America continues and "Latinos" will be the majority in the southern half of the country. But currently there clearly is a mainstream culture in the US, with lots of minorities from all over the world that try to assimilate into that main culture.

The political divide in the US has nothing to do with multiculturalism though, that is mostly a coasts vs inland thing.

Not entirely. California is the polar opposite of the Southeast and the Northeast is hovering somewhere in between. Inland, you have cities like Chicago where all political opinions can be found, though some more than others, and you also have states like Texas and Wyoming.

How is this in any way related to coastal areas versus inland ones?

[GreatJustice]

That's not the only problem with the gold standard. Tying money to gold causes deflation, because the economy as a whole is growing faster than gold supplies are.

Not necessarily a bad thing, if the growth of the late 1800s is anything to go by. Prices dropping really should be the sign of a healthy economy making goods more affordable for everyone, not of a depression, but that's a whole different story.

In the short term, dissent will do jack to change politics in America, simply because the people with the influence to actually do something are the ones benefiting from the current system.

In the long run, I expect some change, but more due to the demographic shift when the Youngest Generations overtake the oldest in voting. Then, their exhaustion with the current system will see a shift from a Conservative Corporate Society to a Liberal Not as Corporate Society. Again, the dissent will still only flow from the current means of altering the system.



Also, on the Gold Standard: It is just as Arbitrary as the current economic system, just on the price of one good instead of the Strength of the Entire Market which is what we follow now. Similarly, most of the nations of the world have switched to the current system because it means your currency as a whole is stronger overall, though more variation of value of currency would occur.

Despite what some supporting the Gold Standard are saying, all it will do is reduce what effects the currency to Gold Prices, which have been unreliable enough in the past that it may not be worth establishing them now and facing the same fate.

so, on the Gold Standard: It is just as Arbitrary as the current economic system, just on the price of one good instead of the Strength of the Entire Market which is what we follow now. Similarly, most of the nations of the world have switched to the current system because it means your currency as a whole is stronger overall, though more variation of value of currency would occur.

Despite what some supporting the Gold Standard are saying, all it will do is reduce what effects the currency to Gold Prices, which have been unreliable enough in the past that it may not be worth establishing them now and facing the same fate.

Yet the value of currency when under the Gold Standard actually tended towards staying constant or increasing, whereas now it has steadily become worth less and less, despite being backed by the "entire market". The nations of the world didn't switch to fiat from gold because they believed it was unstable, they switched because it allowed them to trivially manipulate the supply of money for the benefit of their governments and the politically well connected. Keynes himself basically advocated inflation during recessions -among other reasons- because he observed that wage cuts were necessary to economic recovery and yet workers tend to get angry when their wages are cut or even frozen. So he cleverly realized that the government could simply inflate enough for the workers to still receive a raise and yet they actually had less real wealth, keeping the workers placated and yet allowing for real wealth to flow back into the hands of the connected. At this point it's probably too late for any country to go back to a Gold Standard, but there are solutions that could end the monetary manipulation that occurs presently.

[Morrigi]

Indeed. He who controls the dollar controls the world.

On that note, did you guys know that in 2000 the U.N. passed a motion allowing Iraq to export its oil for euros?

Three years later they acquired nonexistent "weapons of mass destruction" and were then promptly invaded. Guess what we did as soon as we got control of the government....

Switched the oil exports back to the dollar, of course.

For even more fun, Iran has been attempting to do the same for the last few years and look, they're making nuclear weapons now. WMDs indeed.

Speaking of WMDs, that doesn't even begin to get into the Syria business. For the record, they happen to be Iran's closest ally and in fact have a mutual defense treaty.

Moving on, you have an indecisive uprising and civil war going on for awhile, and suddenly ASSAD HAS SARIN GAS!!

Sound familiar? Then Assad allegedly used said sarin gas on the rebels, thus providing an excuse for the Americans to arm the rebels.

But wait, there's more... The UN conducted their own investigation and guess who actually used the Sarin? The rebels.


Edit: If you guys want sources, I can happily provide them.

[Scoops Novel]

Heh. Look forward to centuries of stagnation. If you can give an example where this isn't the case in a mono-cultural society, I'll be fascinated.

Ignoring every country that existed before the industrial revolution, modern Spain and Iceland are shining examples.

Shining beacons of in-divisive unity? Do tell. I'd like to add that if ethnicity can be relevant to a discussion on multiculturalism it will be. Morrigi, are you certain it wasn't both sides who used Sarin?

Rerailing, Bulborbish mentioned that he expected long-term change from the growing influence of the younger lot, and a few others have mentioned the college bubble/realizing how badly they've been fucked over. Where do you expect that to go?