Cultural Differences.... I guess

Ah. I’m glad we have you here to label what language belongs to what group of people. If the ministry hadn’t classified that term I would have just thought that it was in essence- a simple descriptor working as a catch all to encompass the bias you mention as well as other factors.

But @vitklim- if you believe that bias towards whites is how it should be in countries with a majority white population- then surely you think the opposite is true? And as the ratio of non white citizens continues to increase proportional to whites in many countries- when and if the show were on the other foot you would just shrug at the bias against you and say “this country is supposed to be bias against me...” and surely you wouldn’t raise a peep as you aren’t an sjw right?

Not if they are infringing on my rights. I shouldn't expect you to acknowledge that little part, given your track record, but I did say that.
I will not let some self-righteous morons socially engineer countries that they despise in order to fit their communist ideals. The western countries were built on the ideas of liberty and equality of legal rights. No one has the authority to reconstruct societal norms and relations, these changes have to come naturally from people's freedom to associate.
Which is why people have the right to complain about white privelege and such, but I am also free to fight their ideas.

I never said you said anything. I asked a question- which as usual you didn’t exactly answer as much as you subverted to let you say what you wanted. Given your track record of debating yourself based only on the points you choose to bring up or acknowledge, and directing any discussion to the points you have canned answers for- I should not be surprised. But I do applaud that you have very good replies to the things you like to invent me having said, and I imagine if you could do the same for what was actually said it would make quite a good discussion.

Actually I do see now that I misread your question. Well, if the white population becomes a minority, I will seriously consider joining the alt-right. They are annoying on some points, but at least they have the balls to address some problems that no one else will.

So then, what would the difference be? If when a group you are in is a minority and it is supposedly natural for there to be bias towards the majority, but if the group you are in is a minority and your answer is to fight back against bias- then the statement that a country should have bias towards whatever group is false- and the meaning of what you are saying is that you feel a country should have positive bias to whatever group you are in based on what you are saying no?

Because when a minority that becomes a majority increases by physically coming into the country from outside, we call that an invasion.
And because these demographic shifts are displacing native populations that have been living there long before others came. Now, I know that the next thing you are going to bring up is colonization, and yes, that was a moral wrong. But it is still a moral wrong to do the same thing now. And the reason why you can't undo the impacts of colonization, is because for one, you can't, and secondly, if you go down the road of resolving every historical injustice ever, there won't be an end to it. Which is why once the first world realized that colonization was a moral wrong, they ceased it, and now we have a status quo that for the first world has not changed in a long time.
You can't justify demographic replacement because it is a moral wrong, and you cannot undo all previous moral wrongs because it is impossible to do so. Am I clear?

You’re clear in that you believe it is wrong to allow immigration of those outside ethnic groups in majority to outpace birth rates of a majority ethnicity- and while we may disagree or debate your point that two wrongs don’t make a right in this case it stands on overall sound basis of thought- but your case doesn’t factor in what happens when such a shift occurs when the birth rates of ethnic minorities outpace the birthrate of a majority population.

If we use census data that does not include non legal aliens, but only includes legal US citizens- how, if at all does that effect your stance? In such a case there is no “invasion,” or in cases where due to legal quotas on immigration- which is neither colonization or invasion but simply the natural state of affairs in a country that doesn’t practice isolationism- does that effect your stance?

And what if any justification beyond ethnic bias is there for the enforcement of this “two wrongs policy?” The “wrong” in the case of American history is the forced violent displacement and mass genocide of native peoples, as well as the taking of their claim territories for absorption into a new nation- but where no new nation is created and the United States still stands, no forced displacement occurs and whites aren’t systematically rounded up and put into reservations or exterminated to colonize territories, does said wrong occur by allowing immigration legally?

We are a country of immigration- there are no “native” white Americans, only multi generational immigrants, and “American” isn’t a race but a nationality to anyone born legally in the United States. What an “American” looks like or eats for dinner isn’t homogenous- and as our president recently and hilariously demonstrated- can’t be told simply by looking at a person like it much more easily and reliably can be in a country like Sweden or Japan for example.

If the demographic shift came from within, and for some reason the birth rates of ethnic minorities outpaced the majority so much that it would be a problem, there would be a different solution, but it would still be concerning. But that situation is almost impossible in natural circumstances.
.
To answer your latter question, the demographic replacement, even legal, is still a moral wrong. There are multiple practical reasons to be against it, but first and foremost, it is non-violent colonization, and I still consider that to be a moral wrong.
As for the other reasons, introducing new people into the country on this scale puts a strain on social services, depresses low end wages, conflagrates social tensions, increases in crime, and in the American case, leads to election fraud.
If legal immigration for the European countries was not so massive, and illegal immigration in the US was not a problem, the demographic replacement would not be that much of a current threat.

And to clarify a bit more on my former point, you also cannot try to undo a single previous moral wrong, such as with the American colonization, because then you have no limiting principle, and have no argument against letting other people try to resolve other moral wrongs as well. Which means that if you try to undo colonization, prepare for everyone demanding reparations for slavery and every war that ever happened. It's easier to not open that buckey of worms at all.
.
Also, I'm not the one downvoting your comments, just fyi.

I fail to see why a natural cultural evolution would be a problem- I believe you’re on record as stating you do not believe in social engineering- so how is trying to control the racial and or ethnic make up caused by natural birth rates not a form of social engineering? What solution would there be for that problem that doesn’t involve artificially increasing or decreasing birth rates among a group for no other reason than to control ethnic make ups?

Also- thank you for letting me know. As I general standing rule I also do not downvote comments simply because I do not agree- with rare possible e epitome where a comment is literally just a rambling racial slur (which is pretty much only guest comments.)

Well, for one, this is not a cultural evolution if we are talking about ethnic groups. Culture does evolve all the time, and the apex that we have thus far is the liberal society that values personal freedom. The problem is, that the introduction of massive numbers of people from a different cultural background will cause them to not acclimatize and adapt to the new culture, but instead, create their own enclaves that destabilize the country from within.
.
Now, onto the meat of the question. Well for one, I do in fact oppose hardcore social engineering in the sense that you would use state power to enforce some sort of ethnic makeup. In the most dire of circumstances, perhaps, but definitely not in any other case.

However, there are natural safeguards against the problem becoming that massive. For one, if the ethic makeup of the society is relatively stable, there is very little chance of a minority becoming a majority, as it would require an insane birth rate from the minority with a simultaneous and similarly large drop from the majority.
This is where the question of immigration comes in. Immigration destabilizes the ethnic and cultural makeup of a community, but as the system is elastic to an extent, the cultural aspect of the immigrants comes into fold, while the ethnic stays the same. If, however, the amount of immigration is too large, the cultural aspect remains unchanged, since the migrants create their own enclaves, and as such, their birth rates stay at the level of the countries they came from, forcing a long-term demographic shift.

So to tl;dr:
Best case scenario - small amount of immigration, cultural integration, small ethnic makeup shift that balances out over time, and little social tension.
Current scenario - large amounts of immigration, migrants forming cultural enclaves and not integrating, a consequence of which is a large shift of the ethnic makeup, and massive social tension.
.
Which means that the first order of business it to reduce immigration to appropriate levels, and deal with the social tension as best as possible.
This will solve half of the problem.

Now, onto the social engineering part. The problem that we are currently facing is twofold - the high birth rates of immigrants and low birth rates of the native population.
The high birth rates of immigrants can be addressed naturally, since as they integrate into society and culturally adapt, they lower to that of the native population, or slightly above it.
The low birth rates of the native population is the problem that is most difficult to address, because nobody knows how to, even ignoring the moral implications.
.
Social engineering by force is a moral wrong, however, what can be done is campaigns, government subsidies to incentivize marriage and having more than one child, etc. Now, I am not an expert on this, so my suggestions may be overlooking a lot, but this is the key direction.

If you want to call my approach to this social engineering, I guess you can. But I would pick a better term. Because you do need to make some distinction between that and deporting all non-whites, which is both inhumane, and counterproductive.

I appreciate both the civility and relative emotional stability in the reply. I do however disagree on several points. I want to be very clear- what you say is correct in my mind when we view things from a perspective of racial superiority. It is most certainly bad for the power and collective interests of any majority group in control when their majority is no longer assured. So we can agree on that as a natural principal- but if we aren’t viewing things from within that majority group we can’t agree that is by default a bad thing- just that it is a truth. What’s best for one isn’t always best for all.

Now- you make some compelling points. Immigrants from other countries may carry with them views and ideas that do not place freedom as the utmost virtue- of course, we can say the same of many multigenerational natives as civics and patriotism aren’t exactly universal. But we can agree that in the case of natives who have different views or values those are largely personal and not imparted through inheritance from another system. I mean- if you let the leaders of China run America or the U.K. you’ll likely get a system like that which exists in China. That much is true.

But your argument again overlooks domestic birth. It’s a demonstrative fact that while acclimation is a slow process and many first generation immigrants may find changing a view from a lifetime of different culture and government hard or impossible. Might not even want to and simply want to live somewhere with more money or where they aren’t bound to the same social system or legal system which acted against their interests but they otherwise liked.

But second and subsequent generation immigrants tend to be more and more acclimated by default. Their country is the only one they’ve ever called home in most cases and to them is as much theirs as any other. The Irish were hated immigrants and their dependents have done well in and for my country- with the closest line America has to royalty being of Irish decent- as well as one of our most beloved presidents of all time.

Having immigrant parents or grandparents doesn’t make a person born in a country and raised there any less a member of that society. There may have been English and Irish and whoever else in America long before most others- and many of those other groups were brought here by them- but not every English or Irish person can trace an ancestor back to the early days of America. Those individuals families may have come over long after a Chinese family had come here at the turn of the last century. Their races history may go further back but their family history in that case wouldn’t have roots as deep in American history. The same applies to other countries as well.

I can’t speak for Europe- Europe is many countries and many peoples and none of them are founded on or have the history of America. None of them are referred to as “the great melting pot.” America throughout its history has been strengthened by the addition of diverse groups and perspectives. That’s caused change- tension- friction- unrest- but it’s also made one of the richest and most diverse freest nations in the world.

The make up of the people effects the vote of the people, and the vote helps steer the ship- but the legal framework of our country is designed around rights and freedoms, so regardless of who sitters the ship you’d have to tear it down to get rid of that. In this global world people are shaped by cultures and ideas from all over. We’ve seen in recent decades very strong cultural influences in mainstream American culture from many diverse sources. We’ve seen Americans join the Taliban and Isis, defect to the USSR and east Germany, side with the viet cong, buddy up with North Korea and more. The allegiances and cultures of native born multi generational Americans aren’t so perfect themselves. It’s a global world. We can try to shut that out but that didn’t work so well for Japan long term when they did it- and hasn’t worked well for North Korea either.

I actually did acknowledge that over time people do assimilate culturally into the country, and their descendants are more like the native population. That much is true, the problem is with the amount of first-generation immigrants.
The cultural integration can only occur when it is the only possible option. If people who are coming into the country from a similar culture do not want to adapt, and they most likely don't, they will create their own settlements within. This means they will not adapt and their children will take longer to integrate if they even will.
.
So for the purposes of our question, we can discard the second-generation and later immigrants. They are not the problem, they are the demonstration of how the process should normally work.

And besides, couple of things that make the situation now different. For one, I doubt that the previous immigration waves were that significantly culturally different. If anything, I suppose that one of their highest values was freedom, otherwise, why would they come. And second, the scale of immigration was also way less back then.

And I do want to split the concept into two parts. First, the irrational, which is the wish for the Western world to remain largely white. I will straight up acknowledge that I have no rational justification for this, but I want the ethnic makeup of the historically white countries to stay as it was for the past 100 or so years. But I am not willing to suppress individual rights in order to accomplish this.
.
Second, the rational part. I do consider the Western culture that values freedom and liberty to be supreme, and deserving of preservation and expansion. This means, that people who come into the country should integrate into the culture, adapting these values into their existing framework. So, in order to do so, the solution lines up with the former part. To curb immigration overall.

Basically my argument boils down to: I want to reduce immigration for multiple reason, but primarily it is to keep the culture and stability of the countries they come in intact. Is that an argument that you would agree with?

I follow you explanation of your logic and can say that I do appreciate your candidness as it is a pet peeve of mine that many people share that view but very few will admit to it and instead try to use misdirection or excuses to justify other reasons. It makes discussion impossible because whatever points one raises address false justifications and not the persons real motivations- so it’s like trying to explain how to save money on groceries to someone who says that’s why they hate shopping when the real reason they hate shopping is how far the store is. There can’t be any meeting of the minds.

That said- I can’t agree with the idea. It’s entirely possible although I do not believe it likely that the introduction of values- especially those from more repressed cultures- could erode or destroy the freedom in countries which value it- but... we’ve already seen that in people’s need for a feeling of security and comfort they will mortgage their own freedoms even if they are from a “freedom loving” culture. As things get more scarce and precious and the number of people on earth multiply- we will continue to see the erosion of freedoms due to necessity anyway. Burying the sea in most places is a luxury- before long they’ll likely start looking at cremation as we seek more efficient, less wasteful, environmentally friendly ways to dispose of corpses. That’s an example- plastic bags and straws and low flow toilets- laws against car washing and lawn watering- surge pricing for utilities and building codes that require green construction etc... we’ve seen this too.

There are really 3 main directions for society as I see it. One which sees a cycle of mass death and destruction- then renewal and repetition- each one having less and less left than the last, one where we find a cybernetic way to live- technology which itself is a functioning ecosystem or some other “miracle” that allows continued growth without checking our excess- or one which we live like insects- where morality and emotion and freedom are sacrificed for a greater good and efficient living- all has a purpose and is in accordance to purpose without moral judgment- or better stated with a morality which imparts the philosophy of all over self and practical virtue.

Or who knows. All I know is that nature, human or otherwise, takes it’s due course. I can’t predict let alone control the future in a direct and sweeping sense- and I’m Imperfect anyway so the future is create if I had the power of a god would likely be shit anyway. When faced with any decision I have the moral and the practical to consider. Morality often flows counter to survival and success...

... but if we take the view that one must do whatever needs done to survive- that a precious gem like freedom should be protected at all costs- the question in my mind becomes of one would preserve an ideal or philosophy at any cost- survive at any cost- does one deserve to survive? I can find no proof or compelling argument that any type of human is superior to another, and to me- a freedom that isn’t available to all isn’t a right or even freedom but a favor.

IF the freedoms of the West were lost in the future- that fight would become the fight of a new generation if they chose to take it up. Due to human nature freedom is never a birth right- it’s a constant struggle. If freedom loses a round- and freedom truly is what people want- it will come back. It’s just a big circle. The world changes, I’m aware that certain changes wouldn’t benefit me or would likely cause me harm or loss- but I won’t and can’t fight them purely out of self interest.

Growing up poor I saw great inequity in the system, saw people with more than they needed when others could barely survive and the like. When I finally started making real money I was able to see and experience first hand that these taxes and other rules leveraged against those with “more-“ really suck when you have “more.” But what can I say? I can’t argue that I have more than I need and someone somewhere has far less. I’m still doing fine but not as fine as I could be, they’re still doing bad but not as bad as they could be- but I didn’t like the idea of starving while someone bought their vacation house- so how could I justify turning around and saying that it’s ok for me to do that- when it seemed out of reach and far away I was all for making “them” pay their fair share- so once I am “them” my morality changes to match my self interest?

Well, I would say that most people do not espouse unsavoury views either because they know they will be condemned, or because they would never put them into practice, even though they might on some level agree to the premise. And some people just do not realise that they are coming to the same conclusions as there "repulsive" views.
.
I can see some truth in what the alt-right talks about, but they are categorically wrong on most aspects, and any implementation of their ideas that would result in infringement on individual rights, I would oppose.

Unfortunately you are right about the cyclical nature of the situation. The infamous saying that weak men create bad times, and strong men create good times, and one feeds into another, is true.
When it comes down to the fight for survival, there are no principles, only power. But we are not in this situation, so sticking to these principles has to be a part of the process.
.
I can definitely see that your life experience has been more difficult than mine. And that you are empathetic towards others who are at the bottom.
However, you cannot compromise your principles in order to achieve your goals. Just like you cannot justify commiting a crime in a society that gives you a path out of poverty, you cannot justify stealing a vacation house from someone who has rightfully obtained it.
.
Society is not ideal, but you can work towards making it so. It just matters that you respect the values you hold.

I think I'm gonna call the conversation here. We've gone over quite a bit and I am satisfied with the process, even though we didn't come to a complete conclusion on any topic.
.
Once someone posts another political shitpost, I'll probably be there.

Agreed, we may not have reached a compete consensus but we can agree on many basic principals even if we may disagree in some regards on how they are best represented. A productive conversation and a good place to end it. Undoubtably there will be another political shit post, and we will most certainly meet there when it is. Until then, may the memes be enjoyable and the day be good to you.

Bet here’s the thing- that discrimination? It’s not because you’re white. Of the long list of stereotypes and slurs and biases faced by an Eastern European- they may come from religion, culture, place of birth, economic status, education, manners, or any number of things that others might pick out or make fun of or look down on or judge- but not a single struggle faced by an Eastern European when dealing with other primarily white cultures is caused by being white.

Now let’s contrast- let’s go back to America. Two young boys- both born in “bad” areas. Both growing up without a father, both from families with multi generational poverty, both without access to education or opportunity. Both judged when they walk into a job interview or social interaction as low class ignorant criminals.

But if one is white- and one is of color- and both are stopped by the cops- both of them likely were pulled over due to profiling. Both may well have been stopped simply to harass them or because the officer figured based on who they are they are more likely to commit a crime- but.... the guy of color is statistically more likely to be shot on questionable or absolutely flagrant reasons.

See- the majority of police on duty shootings in America are white people. But- and this is critically important- if we dig deeper we see that yes- more white people are shot- but the population of America is mostly “white.” What’s more- we find that the majority of cases with white victims involve a victim who was a clear and actual threat. When the dust settles and IA does their review- most white on white shootings are 100% justifiable. Not so for people of color who after the fact are often found unarmed or not to have posed a threat.

Also of great significance? While most shot are white- compared to the percentage of the population who is white- those shot in police duty are under represented by demographic. Latinos however, make up almost 20% of police shootings which is disproportionate to the Latino population. Blacks as well- and most people of color make up a greater percent of shooting victims than their demographic.

If they don’t get shot and they go to court- the conviction rates for white criminals are disproportionate to people of color. Not only that- but people of color are more likely to serve harsher sentences for the same crime as their white counterparts, and less likely to be paroled.

There are also disproportionate numbers for unemployment as well as earnings across demographics of color. As discussed in recent threads-87% of major Hollywood movies started white protagonists in 2019, despite about 40% of Americans identifying as other than white.

In Europe- I can only guess what percentage of films star non white leads- but based on anecdotal evidence I imagine it’s lower than even the US (what with total non white population of Europe being much lower a percent that’s a likely given,) but I also suspect the ratio is similarly skewed as well.

All in all there are few places in the world where there isn’t an assumed status with being white- until or unless at least it’s discovered one is from a region known for “poor whites...” It’s mainly only isolationists, mono cultures, and certain cultures known to be less accepting to foreigners of all sorts that don’t confer some value judgment specific to whites- Korea, Japan, and China are examples of cultures that tend to keep foreigners of all sorts at a certain distance- some more than others.

That’s quite literally what white privilege is. It isn’t that you are rich, that your life is all sunshine and easy street, or that everyone loves you and everywhere you go everything is better for you. It means that because of the color of your skin and the history of the world- most places you are statistically likely to enjoy certain advantages in various situations. It doesn’t undermine the struggles you do face- but it means the color of your skin is unlikely to cause you any struggles that the circumstances of your birth like your family and region etc. wouldn’t.