Larssen
Member
+99|1858

uziq wrote:

my point being that 'the Left' in actual political philosophy denotes that branch of politics that, you know, wants to redistribute wealth and property, not insist on giving you a list of preferred pronouns. identity politics has been widely criticised by actual leftist philosophers (e.g. zizek) as a failure of liberalism. it's a sort of minor piffle leftover after all the actual social democratic ground was ceded to the right.
I agree but there probably is a huge group of lgbtq, minority & gender activists who will absolutely rage out of their minds at the above. Can't imagine Zizek being a popular personality in those circles. The whole point to them is that society still is extremely inequal with many identity groups left behind the dominant one (i.e. white people/men).

Personally I have a hard time following the endless identity squabbles - for one while I understand the arguments for it I've found it almost indefensible how positive discrimination has become the norm in certain fields as a means to 'level the playing field'. It paradoxically feels like divides are being entrenched as well, with especially more rural and poorer communities increasingly voting for old school nationalists. Which in turn feeds the 'racist white males' narrative of the rich urban multicultural elite, further radicalising both groups. I'm a centre-lefty but for many in the rural communities I can't help but agree their anger at this is justified in many ways.

Last edited by Larssen (2019-08-06 00:05:08)

Larssen
Member
+99|1858

Dilbert_X wrote:

^ The 'Greek Bailout' was not a bailout of Greece, it was a bailout of the stupid German banks - not my analysis but Michael Lewis, a reasonably well respected financial commentator.
Without it the German banks and German economy would have been in dire straits, there would have been no 'cascade' beyond there, why should the rest of the EU have to pay for commercial mistakes in Germany?
The EU should never have grown beyond the common market, not into a bureaucratic behemoth which seemed predicated on keeping the Deutschmark artificially low to ensure German dominance of the bloc.
Its the socialist multiculturalists who have overstepped and wrecked Europe, nobody else.
That analysis is far too limited. It was about some German banks, a lot of French investments and the fear of a domino effect into the entire Italian economy + the effect on the euro value. Letting Greece fail could've ultimately plunged the entire eurozone into recession.

As if 27 member states let themselves be misled by a few shrewd Germans lol.

Last edited by Larssen (2019-08-06 00:39:45)

Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6077|eXtreme to the maX
It wasn't 'a few shrewd Germans', Germany has dominated the EU since its inception.

Bailing out Greece and the austerity required across the EU did plunge the Eurozone into recession.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2019-08-06 01:37:56)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5329|London, England

Larssen wrote:

uziq wrote:

my point being that 'the Left' in actual political philosophy denotes that branch of politics that, you know, wants to redistribute wealth and property, not insist on giving you a list of preferred pronouns. identity politics has been widely criticised by actual leftist philosophers (e.g. zizek) as a failure of liberalism. it's a sort of minor piffle leftover after all the actual social democratic ground was ceded to the right.
I agree but there probably is a huge group of lgbtq, minority & gender activists who will absolutely rage out of their minds at the above. Can't imagine Zizek being a popular personality in those circles. The whole point to them is that society still is extremely inequal with many identity groups left behind the dominant one (i.e. white people/men).

Personally I have a hard time following the endless identity squabbles - for one while I understand the arguments for it I've found it almost indefensible how positive discrimination has become the norm in certain fields as a means to 'level the playing field'. It paradoxically feels like divides are being entrenched as well, with especially more rural and poorer communities increasingly voting for old school nationalists. Which in turn feeds the 'racist white males' narrative of the rich urban multicultural elite, further radicalising both groups. I'm a centre-lefty but for many in the rural communities I can't help but agree their anger at this is justified in many ways.
When people are told often enough that they are worthless and they are ostracized for the color of their skin or their religion, most will simply tune out. Some will seek comfort in groups that will accept them as they are. Extremists are waiting with open arms on both sides for these people. Some further will become radicalized and lash out.

Tell a poor white person about white privilege and they will tell you to fuck off. It's easy to go from there to "white people built this great society of ours" and embrace white identity politics. The identitarians have been playing with fire.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6077|eXtreme to the maX
'The Left' has been telling white people they're worthless and should be ashamed of their history, when it really is white people who created the modern world, industrial age etc.
In response they elected Trump, so there you go.

How long is it before political discourse descends to exchange of antagonistic memes?
Can't be long now.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+634|3690
Where are all of the gay mass shooters? Where are all the black and Hispanic crazed gunmen? Extremely rare, right? Surely those people have a lot to be angry about but never go on indiscriminate killing sprees about it.

I was going to say that white guys are unique in the fact that they create online communities that encourage mass murder but that's not true. Muslims also create online communities where they plan or encourage mass violence. The government of the U.S. spends a lot of time and money destroying those networks and websites despite Islamist having as much of a right to freedom of speech as any of us.

It's a valid point of complaint that the U.S. refuses to do anything to combat white supremacist ideology. As I said before, too many Americans sympathize with the ideas for us to really do much about it. Dilbert and Jay are proof of that. Basically excusing a guy's radicalization because he also hates the SJW you see on YouTube.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6077|eXtreme to the maX
The bottom line is multiculturalism doesn't work, it makes people too angry, hence we have mass shootings, election of Trump, Brexit etc.

Whites/Christians want a monoculture, which they've had until recently but now see slipping away
Muslims want a monoculture, which they have in muslim countries and seek to expand their dominance
Jews want a monoculture, and they have one in their isolationist outpost
Chinese want a monoculture, and they have one but they're expansionist

Other cultures would be fine with a monoculture, but they see other cultures as richer and more successful so they seek to invade and usurp them, not imitate.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2019-08-06 04:27:57)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Larssen
Member
+99|1858
Jesus christ Dilbert
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+634|3690
White Christians civilization isn't at risk of getting overthrown in the U.S. The Hispanics that got killed were Christians. And they looked a lot more like Shakira than aboriginals. Hispanics are more conservative than white LGBT gays in San Francisco too. I don't accept that Hispanic people are going to be the downfall of American civilization or an unique invasion. It's just dumb racism to equate Mexicans and Muslims together as part of a grand threat to white people, the right white people.

Speaking of dumb, the El Paso shooter was unemployed, and in his third year of community college. It's always the bottom of the barrel types that go postal.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
uziq
Member
+492|3423
he’s been playing this tune for a while. fallacious arguments, carts before horses, starting with a premise and looking for evidence — the whole cognitive bouillabaisse.

ethnic tensions and the politics of grievance are caused by economic pain, first and foremost. the recession caused the lurch to the right as people felt macroeconomics and geopolitics in their weekly wages and household budget. multiculturalism did not ‘cause brexit’. a large number of people voting for brexit were settled pakistani, indian and west indies british. why??! because their communities are economically abandoned, not because they hate other races.

dilbert you are a dinosaur and your rhetoric goes nowhere. the world is only ever getting smaller. ethnonationalism has to be one of the stupidest ideologies yet in the 21st c.
Larssen
Member
+99|1858
If he had watched the anywhere but westminster video he would've seen this as well.

As far as identity politics go it's true that economic pain, instability, state collapse, destructive austerity and so on can act as causes or catalysts. But what you wrote got me thinking as I've always seen that as too simple an explanation - the same factors have historically been fundamental to the success of any (radical) movement intent on upheaving the status quo. The communists and fascists of the last century, the republicans & revolutionaries of the one before & others before them still - it's generally true that they all found their greatest successes in times of misery. It's an interesting question then to try and figure out how and why the identity rifts and the social battle lines along which people organise themselves today are fundamentally different. Of course the context has changed wildly and the technology of our time undoubtedly plays its part (enabling unprecedented migration), but various social processes have been moving under the surface for some time now.

I remember the identity & immigration debate truly picking up steam in a time when arguably the economy was at its best and society at its most stable - the 1990s. The divides were nonetheless widening and several political figures sprung up in multiple western European countries touting the narrative of cultural incompatibility with the new migrants who had arrived mostly in the 60s and 70s (because of conscious economic policies, decolonisation etc). These movements were gaining popularity before the war on terror or the financial crisis were conceivable futures, both of which only increased their allure to many in the general public.

I've been out of academic circles for a while now but the usual analyses of (violent) conflicts along ethnic lines concentrated on civil wars such as what happened in Northern Ireland, Rwanda and Yugoslavia. In these places the phrase 'narcissism of minor differences' (Freud - the man was right on the money when analysing world war 1) was very applicable as we were talking about social groups who had previously lived as indiscernible neighbours now trying to kill one another, a reality enabled by conscious othering in which symbolism, invented tradition & history suddenly became incredibly important in emphasising that these groups were at odds and violence somehow inevitable. Of course, many other factors were at play such as manipulative leaders intent on cementing the belief in 'age old ethnic hatreds' and in exploiting the toll of war to actively construct an image of monstrous enemies, but it's asking a little too much from my memory to recite the exact how and why for social mobilisation in these cases.

However, we're obviously not living in violent societies but there's a few things I keep coming back to as I can see some areas worth comparing. Much of the rather hateful right wing rhetoric in supposedly peaceful western society I recognise from what you would read or hear in war zones. Just look at our dear Dilbert's view on the world around him, it fits to a T with the notion that 'differences are insurmountable' and conflict a future certainty. If it's up to him and his I'm fairly certain I can predict the future quite accurately. The difficult part here is that in the multicultural society the narcissism is not just in minor difference, as it's unquestionable migrant communities can maintain starkly contrasting values, religion etc. to the people in destination countries. Difference is also often easier to spot, as many are of distinct ethnic heritage and may dress in a certain way as well. The stupidest part to me is that economic migration policies in the 60s 70s motivated a huge number of low-skilled immigrants to prop up the economies, now leading to the fact that certain identity groups are grossly overrepresented in specific socioeconomic segments of society, supplanting what used to be the worker's class.

The question I have in my mind is have we 'fucked up' beyond repair by creating an intersection between class warfare of old and conflict along ethnic lines as well? I fear for it because that's what I used to think when I look to the debates on racism and identity in the United States, but the European situation seems ever more similar. I'm unsure of what the right analytical tools are and even less of how to propose a solution, if it's even possible. People seem to inevitably slide and entrench themselves in their barricades, intent on deconstructing their relationship constantly underlining inequality, oppression or incompatibility.

Last edited by Larssen (2019-08-06 13:33:08)

Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5329|London, England

Larssen wrote:

If he had watched the anywhere but westminster video he would've seen this as well.

As far as identity politics go it's true that economic pain, instability, state collapse, destructive austerity and so on can act as causes or catalysts. But what you wrote got me thinking as I've always seen that as too simple an explanation - the same factors have historically been fundamental to the success of any (radical) movement intent on upheaving the status quo. The communists and fascists of the last century, the republicans & revolutionaries of the one before & others before them still - it's generally true that they all found their greatest successes in times of misery. It's an interesting question then to try and figure out how and why the identity rifts and the social battle lines along which people organise themselves today are fundamentally different. Of course the context has changed wildly and the technology of our time undoubtedly plays its part (enabling unprecedented migration), but various social processes have been moving under the surface for some time now.

I remember the identity & immigration debate truly picking up steam in a time when arguably the economy was at its best and society at its most stable - the 1990s. The divides were nonetheless widening and several political figures sprung up in multiple western European countries touting the narrative of cultural incompatibility with the new migrants who had arrived mostly in the 60s and 70s (because of conscious economic policies, decolonisation etc). These movements were gaining popularity before the war on terror or the financial crisis were conceivable futures, both of which only increased their allure to many in the general public.

I've been out of academic circles for a while now but the usual analyses of (violent) conflicts along ethnic lines concentrated on civil wars such as what happened in Northern Ireland, Rwanda and Yugoslavia. In these places the phrase 'narcissism of minor differences' (Freud - the man was right on the money when analysing world war 1) was very applicable as we were talking about social groups who had previously lived as indiscernible neighbours now trying to kill one another, a reality enabled by conscious othering in which symbolism, invented tradition & history suddenly became incredibly important in emphasising that these groups were at odds and violence somehow inevitable. Of course, many other factors were at play such as manipulative leaders intent on cementing the belief in 'age old ethnic hatreds' and in exploiting the toll of war to actively construct an image of monstrous enemies, but it's asking a little too much from my memory to recite the exact how and why for social mobilisation in these cases.

However, we're obviously not living in violent societies but there's a few things I keep coming back to as I can see some areas worth comparing. Much of the rather hateful right wing rhetoric in supposedly peaceful western society I recognise from what you would read or hear in war zones. Just look at our dear Dilbert's view on the world around him, it fits to a T with the notion that 'differences are insurmountable' and conflict a future certainty. If it's up to him and his I'm fairly certain I can predict the future quite accurately. The difficult part here is that in the multicultural society the narcissism is not just in minor difference, as it's unquestionable migrant communities can maintain starkly contrasting values, religion etc. to the people in destination countries. Difference is also often easier to spot, as many are of distinct ethnic heritage and may dress in a certain way as well. The stupidest part to me is that economic migration policies in the 60s 70s motivated a huge number of low-skilled immigrants to prop up the economies, now leading to the fact that certain identity groups are grossly overrepresented in specific socioeconomic segments of society, supplanting what used to be the worker's class.

The question I have in my mind is have we 'fucked up' beyond repair by creating an intersection between class warfare of old and conflict along ethnic lines as well? I fear for it because that's what I see when I look to the debates on racism and identity in the United States. I'm unsure of what the right analytical tools are and even less of how to propose a solution, if it's even possible. People seem to inevitably slide and entrench themselves in their barricades, intent on deconstructing their relationship constantly underlining inequality, oppression or incompatibility.
It boils down to trust. People of a shared socioeconomic and cultural background tend to be more trusting towards each other. This worked well for centuries right up until the start of mass urbanization. In urban societies relationships and communities are transient. You may meet a person one time and never again after. This removes any social consequences from actions in people's minds and lends itself to poor behavior. Cut someone off and give him the finger in a small town and you might have him and his buddies at your house that evening. Do it in a city and you are anonymous.

This anonymity is the real problem. When people are anonymous it is easy to categorize them by how they look, talk or dress and assign blame to the entire group for the actions of singular individuals. This is how the human mind works. We learn from past experience and categorize threats. In an urban setting your fallback to protect you from boorish, asshole behavior is not the social ostracism of the offender as would've happened in the past, but the police, whom few trust.

Positive social capital is built between individuals and groups by fair dealing and trustworthiness, and it is destroyed instantly when violated. It's fragile. Many on the right feel that the intellectual left have given a pass to immigrant groups and cultures that behave boorishly by Western standards by adopting morally relativist positions towards their behavior. This prevents assimilation, now a dirty word, and trust building. For a society to function properly without massive oversight there has to be a universal culture or trust will disintegrate.

This has happened and largely explains identity politics. People are breaking themselves down into smaller and smaller subgroups that they can build trusting relationships with. The downside is that they then other every other group and cause even further division.

Last edited by Jay (2019-08-06 14:05:27)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6077|eXtreme to the maX
Yes, ethnic tensions in the Balkans were invented recently by opportunistic politicians...

When the economy is at its best thats when there is most pressure from immigrants to gain access to successful economies, its not surprising thats when ethnic tensions start to heat up, when the economy slips back thats when they boil over.

The bottom line is being part of a delineated group, and seeking to achieve dominance of that group is instinctive human behaviour.
Whether its the Romans or Mongols sweeping continents and wiping out or enslaving all before them, or white supremacists sweeping across North America, its unchanged since the dawn of human civilisation.
If people don't feel part of a group they'll find one to be part of, religion, soccer, whatever, then they'll use any ends to achieve dominance.

Whats unusual is this recent period where multiculturalism and dominance of minority groups and people from other nations has been forced on the majority.
It hasn't worked and has not been accepted, hence we have Trump elected in America in a 'surprise' result, Brexit being the 'surprise' popular choice in the UK, and conservatives achieving a 'surprise' election result in Australia.
Mass-killings by the dominant groups and terror attacks by the minority groups seeking to achieve dominance are both symptoms of multiculturalism not working. I suppose a surprise is that the attacks by the dominant groups are 'lone-wolf' attacks and don't involve more people in groups. I guess if someone can get hold of an AR15 and a dozen magazines they don't feel the need to team up.

Liberals, social justice warriors etc can complain forever people should accept a new reality, but its going against tens of thousands of years of instinctive human behaviour.
Jay's comments about micro-behaviour are valid but it takes intense effort to keep a lid on ethnic tensions. Corrupt and racist police, selective unemployment by race, a racist pot-stirring President etc are not part of the solution.

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2019-08-08 03:46:40)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+634|3690

Dilbert wrote:

It hasn't worked and has not been accepted, hence we have Trump elected in America in a 'surprise' result, Brexit being the 'surprise' popular choice in the UK, and conservatives achieving a 'surprise' election result in Australia.
Those are all English speaking Protestant nations. Right wing and populist parties took control in a lot of other European and industrialized countries but without putting the most unqualified person (senile Donald Trump) in office or blowing up their political system (Brexit). English speaking countries seem unique in the fact that their citizens are willing to knowingly hurt themselves in order to stick it to cultural enemies.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5329|London, England

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Dilbert wrote:

It hasn't worked and has not been accepted, hence we have Trump elected in America in a 'surprise' result, Brexit being the 'surprise' popular choice in the UK, and conservatives achieving a 'surprise' election result in Australia.
Those are all English speaking Protestant nations. Right wing and populist parties took control in a lot of other European and industrialized countries but without putting the most unqualified person (senile Donald Trump) in office or blowing up their political system (Brexit). English speaking countries seem unique in the fact that their citizens are willing to knowingly hurt themselves in order to stick it to cultural enemies.
Don't look now, but Italy, Hungary, Germany, Poland, Austria, and Sweden have all seen surges in populist "right wing" support due to the mass immigration of a few years ago.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
uziq
Member
+492|3423
don’t confuse the refugee crisis with multiculturalism. most people electing right-wing nationalists into power in europe are working-class people who got sold down the river by the banking-european elites with their austerity. africans and arabs crossing the med are not the cause of their problems.

you’ll note that dilbert lives in arguably the most multicultural country in the world. arguably one of the healthiest and best-functioning democracies in terms of equality and social mobility. a country built by irish, english, greeks, vietnamese, chinese, etc. if multiculturalism is a woo act foisted on people by elites, why is it working so well there?

Last edited by uziq (2019-08-08 10:14:40)

SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+634|3690

Jay wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Dilbert wrote:

It hasn't worked and has not been accepted, hence we have Trump elected in America in a 'surprise' result, Brexit being the 'surprise' popular choice in the UK, and conservatives achieving a 'surprise' election result in Australia.
Those are all English speaking Protestant nations. Right wing and populist parties took control in a lot of other European and industrialized countries but without putting the most unqualified person (senile Donald Trump) in office or blowing up their political system (Brexit). English speaking countries seem unique in the fact that their citizens are willing to knowingly hurt themselves in order to stick it to cultural enemies.
Don't look now, but Italy, Hungary, Germany, Poland, Austria, and Sweden have all seen surges in populist "right wing" support due to the mass immigration of a few years ago.
Not all of those countries have been taken over by right populist. Further the populist leaders of those places were politicians before being put in power and not T.V. stars. Finally and most importantly, the populist there actually worked on reducing immigration and not trying to dismantle the social safety nets. Trump ran on destroying the Affordable Care Act and cutting taxes. Middle class and poor Americans picked a person who promised to make their economic wellbeing worse. Absolutely retarded.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+634|3690
Dogs have better survival instincts than poor republican voters.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5329|London, England

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Dogs have better survival instincts than poor republican voters.
ACA is sustainable? No. Tax cuts should've been paired with massive spending decreases. Agreed.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+634|3690
Rip out the subsidies for coverage and medicaid expansion and there is still a lot of good in the ACA. Nationally uniform medical insurance policies and simplified individual purchasing systems are a lot more "fiscally responsible" than the state by state, company by company free for all we had before.
https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5329|London, England

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Rip out the subsidies for coverage and medicaid expansion and there is still a lot of good in the ACA. Nationally uniform medical insurance policies and simplified individual purchasing systems are a lot more "fiscally responsible" than the state by state, company by company free for all we had before.
Sort of, but the states still kept their markets and their rules in place which contain tons of regulations that fuck over the public. Obamacare just added another agency and another pile of regulatory bullshit on top of the mountain that already existed.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Larssen
Member
+99|1858

Jay wrote:

It boils down to trust. People of a shared socioeconomic and cultural background tend to be more trusting towards each other. This worked well for centuries right up until the start of mass urbanization. In urban societies relationships and communities are transient. You may meet a person one time and never again after. This removes any social consequences from actions in people's minds and lends itself to poor behavior. Cut someone off and give him the finger in a small town and you might have him and his buddies at your house that evening. Do it in a city and you are anonymous.

This anonymity is the real problem. When people are anonymous it is easy to categorize them by how they look, talk or dress and assign blame to the entire group for the actions of singular individuals. This is how the human mind works. We learn from past experience and categorize threats. In an urban setting your fallback to protect you from boorish, asshole behavior is not the social ostracism of the offender as would've happened in the past, but the police, whom few trust.

Positive social capital is built between individuals and groups by fair dealing and trustworthiness, and it is destroyed instantly when violated. It's fragile. Many on the right feel that the intellectual left have given a pass to immigrant groups and cultures that behave boorishly by Western standards by adopting morally relativist positions towards their behavior. This prevents assimilation, now a dirty word, and trust building. For a society to function properly without massive oversight there has to be a universal culture or trust will disintegrate.

This has happened and largely explains identity politics. People are breaking themselves down into smaller and smaller subgroups that they can build trusting relationships with. The downside is that they then other every other group and cause even further division.
Well made point, but:

On the first part of your post, the transience of relationships in the 21st century has more to do with many other 'advances' than urbanisation. Let's not forget that urban centres have for milennia acted as places where ideas and cultures are constantly exchanged. The close proximity and shared futures of everyone within cities actually facilitated cooperation, creativity and community-building. The decline in long term relationships or any social bonds in people's lives, increased anonimity and antisocial behaviour have more to do with factors such as the 'entzauberung der welt', the replacement of community safety nets by the welfare state, the death of the nuclear family, the invention of the internet, people's increased mobility and financial independence and/or economic systems which can reward selfish pursuit of profit over cooperation. We have slowly but surely stripped away or discarded many things that were provided by & which defined traditional communities.

I agree that it's a problem - but not one connected to identity politics, at least not in the way you describe. The nationalist/'cultural superiority' politics we know today is actually a response to all of the above. While our communities and defined nation-states are dying and losing relevance in a globalised world, there's some unifying force to be found in defining an outsider or even common adversary of sorts.

I disagree on assimilation. Assimilation is a fairytale. Cultures can blend, change and metamorphose into a new shared culture, we've seen that the world over thousands of times. It's not always been a smooth process, but it happens and it's a natural evolution. What doesn't happen is people completely abandoning their cultural identity upon entering a new environment. Don't let the possible influence of one culture on another be a reason for more conservatism though. What is actually unnatural is trying to set identity into stone. Cultures continually change, from within and without.


Dilbert_X wrote:

Yes, ethnic tensions in the Balkans were invented recently by opportunistic politicians...

When the economy is at its best thats when there is most pressure from immigrants to gain access to successful economies, its not surprising thats when ethnic tensions start to heat up, when the economy slips back thats when they boil over.

The bottom line is being part of a delineated group, and seeking to achieve dominance of that group is instinctive human behaviour.
Whether its the Romans or Mongols sweeping continents and wiping out or enslaving all before them, or white supremacists sweeping across North America, its unchanged since the dawn of human civilisation.
If people don't feel part of a group they'll find one to be part of, religion, soccer, whatever, then they'll use any ends to achieve dominance.

Whats unusual is this recent period where multiculturalism and dominance of minority groups and people from other nations has been forced on the majority.
It hasn't worked and has not been accepted, hence we have Trump elected in America in a 'surprise' result, Brexit being the 'surprise' popular choice in the UK, and conservatives achieving a 'surprise' election result in Australia.
Mass-killings by the dominant groups and terror attacks by the minority groups seeking to achieve dominance are both symptoms of multiculturalism not working. I suppose a surprise is that the attacks by the dominant groups are 'lone-wolf' attacks and don't involve more people in groups. I guess if someone can get hold of an AR15 and a dozen magazines they don't feel the need to team up.

Liberals, social justice warriors etc can complain forever people should accept a new reality, but its going against tens of thousands of years of instinctive human behaviour.
Jay's comments about micro-behaviour are valid but it takes intense effort to keep a lid on ethnic tensions. Corrupt and racist police, selective unemployment by race, a racist pot-stirring President etc are not part of the solution.
You keep holding on to the wrong assumption that identity is a cause for conflict. It isn't and never was. People don't suddenly start attacking eachother because one is from group X and the other a member of group Y. There's a long string of social processes and dynamics that need to occur for people to talk themselves into defining another group as 'the enemy' and then to rationalise violence against them. It doesn't just happen.

On the topic of the Balkans, it is the war which created the delusion of 'ethnic tensions'. The violence was conducive to the formation of identity boundaries that were not at all clearly visible anywhere prior to the war. Major differences weren't the cause of war, they were created by war. That then led to a cycle of malignant narcissism giving 'reason' to more savagery.

A good thing for you to ask yourself is how you stereotype and portray the specific groups you believe are incompatible with yours. And how much of that image reflects reality?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Whether its the Romans or Mongols sweeping continents and wiping out or enslaving all before them
You may be surprised to know that they didn't. They demanded subjugation, yes, but once loyalty and territory were secured both empires thrived on cultural exchange.

Last edited by Larssen (2019-08-08 13:39:32)

Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5329|London, England

Larssen wrote:

Jay wrote:

It boils down to trust. People of a shared socioeconomic and cultural background tend to be more trusting towards each other. This worked well for centuries right up until the start of mass urbanization. In urban societies relationships and communities are transient. You may meet a person one time and never again after. This removes any social consequences from actions in people's minds and lends itself to poor behavior. Cut someone off and give him the finger in a small town and you might have him and his buddies at your house that evening. Do it in a city and you are anonymous.

This anonymity is the real problem. When people are anonymous it is easy to categorize them by how they look, talk or dress and assign blame to the entire group for the actions of singular individuals. This is how the human mind works. We learn from past experience and categorize threats. In an urban setting your fallback to protect you from boorish, asshole behavior is not the social ostracism of the offender as would've happened in the past, but the police, whom few trust.

Positive social capital is built between individuals and groups by fair dealing and trustworthiness, and it is destroyed instantly when violated. It's fragile. Many on the right feel that the intellectual left have given a pass to immigrant groups and cultures that behave boorishly by Western standards by adopting morally relativist positions towards their behavior. This prevents assimilation, now a dirty word, and trust building. For a society to function properly without massive oversight there has to be a universal culture or trust will disintegrate.

This has happened and largely explains identity politics. People are breaking themselves down into smaller and smaller subgroups that they can build trusting relationships with. The downside is that they then other every other group and cause even further division.
Well made point, but:

On the first part of your post, the transience of relationships in the 21st century has more to do with many other 'advances' than urbanisation. Let's not forget that urban centres have for milennia acted as places where ideas and cultures are constantly exchanged. The close proximity and shared futures of everyone within cities actually facilitated cooperation, creativity and community-building. The decline in long term relationships or any social bonds in people's lives, increased anonimity and antisocial behaviour have more to do with factors such as the 'entzauberung der welt', the replacement of community safety nets by the welfare state, the death of the nuclear family, the invention of the internet, people's increased mobility and financial independence and/or economic systems which can reward selfish pursuit of profit over cooperation. We have slowly but surely stripped away or discarded many things that were provided by & which defined traditional communities.

I agree that it's a problem - but not one connected to identity politics, at least not in the way you describe. The nationalist/'cultural superiority' politics we know today is actually a response to all of the above. While our communities and defined nation-states are dying and losing relevance in a globalised world, there's some unifying force to be found in defining an outsider or even common adversary of sorts.

I disagree on assimilation. Assimilation is a fairytale. Cultures can blend, change and metamorphose into a new shared culture, we've seen that the world over thousands of times. It's not always been a smooth process, but it happens and it's a natural evolution. What doesn't happen is people completely abandoning their cultural identity upon entering a new environment. Don't let the possible influence of one culture on another be a reason for more conservatism though. What is actually unnatural is trying to set identity into stone. Cultures continually change, from within and without.


Dilbert_X wrote:

Yes, ethnic tensions in the Balkans were invented recently by opportunistic politicians...

When the economy is at its best thats when there is most pressure from immigrants to gain access to successful economies, its not surprising thats when ethnic tensions start to heat up, when the economy slips back thats when they boil over.

The bottom line is being part of a delineated group, and seeking to achieve dominance of that group is instinctive human behaviour.
Whether its the Romans or Mongols sweeping continents and wiping out or enslaving all before them, or white supremacists sweeping across North America, its unchanged since the dawn of human civilisation.
If people don't feel part of a group they'll find one to be part of, religion, soccer, whatever, then they'll use any ends to achieve dominance.

Whats unusual is this recent period where multiculturalism and dominance of minority groups and people from other nations has been forced on the majority.
It hasn't worked and has not been accepted, hence we have Trump elected in America in a 'surprise' result, Brexit being the 'surprise' popular choice in the UK, and conservatives achieving a 'surprise' election result in Australia.
Mass-killings by the dominant groups and terror attacks by the minority groups seeking to achieve dominance are both symptoms of multiculturalism not working. I suppose a surprise is that the attacks by the dominant groups are 'lone-wolf' attacks and don't involve more people in groups. I guess if someone can get hold of an AR15 and a dozen magazines they don't feel the need to team up.

Liberals, social justice warriors etc can complain forever people should accept a new reality, but its going against tens of thousands of years of instinctive human behaviour.
Jay's comments about micro-behaviour are valid but it takes intense effort to keep a lid on ethnic tensions. Corrupt and racist police, selective unemployment by race, a racist pot-stirring President etc are not part of the solution.
You keep holding on to the wrong assumption that identity is a cause for conflict. It isn't and never was. People don't suddenly start attacking eachother because one is from group X and the other a member of group Y. There's a long string of social processes and dynamics that need to occur for people to talk themselves into defining another group as 'the enemy' and then to rationalise violence against them. It doesn't just happen.

On the topic of the Balkans, it is the war which created the delusion of 'ethnic tensions'. The violence was conducive to the formation of identity boundaries that were not at all clearly visible anywhere prior to the war. Major differences weren't the cause of war, they were created by war. That then led to a cycle of malignant narcissism giving 'reason' to more savagery.

A good thing for you to ask yourself is how you stereotype and portray the specific groups you believe are incompatible with yours. And how much of that image reflects reality?

Dilbert_X wrote:

Whether its the Romans or Mongols sweeping continents and wiping out or enslaving all before them
You may be surprised to know that they didn't. They demanded subjugation, yes, but once loyalty and territory were secured both empires thrived on cultural exchange.
I'm not going to parse this out because it's a pain to do on a phone.

You point to cities not being new, but they are. Up until the late 1800s anything taller than maybe 2 or 3 stories was a skyscraper. We're denser than ever and have more interactions on a daily basis.

https://www.nap.edu/openbook/18671/xhtml/images/p95-001.jpg

I know that the push is for urbanization and the eradication of suburban sprawl but cities are fucking awful for mental health.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+634|3690

Larssen wrote:

Assimilation is a fairytale.
It's a nebulous term anyway. Like what are we actually talking about when we talk about people assimilating? Get Mexicans to stop eating anything other than Kraft Mac and Cheese, hot dogs, and cheeseburgers? No more Latin night at the local drive bar? Do we close the hookah lounges or force them to sell only monopoly man cigars? Is just speaking English and not committing crime enough? The immigrant and child of immigrant students I have from Egypt have their shit together better than a lot of the drugged up white kids. They are more assimilated into modern society than the lady below even if they don't speak English perfectly.
https://i.imgur.com/8nCHYEG.jpg

Last edited by SuperJail Warden (2019-08-08 14:29:26)

https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg
SuperJail Warden
Gone Forever
+634|3690

the mayor of nyc got into an argument with Sean Hannity

Last edited by SuperJail Warden (2019-08-08 15:51:04)

https://i.imgur.com/xsoGn9X.jpg

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard