4 ms·

It's next to impossible to have privacy in societies where there are large swaths of population who want to do others harm. This is why privacy is doomed in "m

by Jerry2 11y ago

It's next to impossible to have privacy in societies where there are large swaths of population who want to do others harm. This is why privacy is doomed in "multicultural" societies.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago
I assert that it is possible to have a multicultural society without having large swaths of population who want to do others harm.
- Jerry2 11y ago
  There isn't a single one in the history of the world that lasted for long time. There's so much research out there that shows that multiculturalism is the root of conflicts. For example [0] and see references too. Just look at the current French republic and how that worked out for them. [1] [0] http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1409 http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1409 [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11995821/Paris-attacks-have-put-a-dagger-through-the-heart-of-liberal-Europe.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/1199...
  - cryoshon 11y ago
    What about the US, then? We have a form of multiculturalism where minorities are on average oppressed, but integrate rather than lash out (usually). I'm not saying we're a shining model or anything, but we have a ton of different cultures living together more or less harmoniously, even taking into account the habitual blacks vs whites squabble.
    - soylentcola 11y ago
      Humanity also has a pretty extensive history of conflict, even in more mono-cultural societies. Hell, you could take any mass of people, all from the same background, race, ethnicity, religion, etc (take your pick), put them on an island for a hundred years or two, and you'll get factions. You'll get people fighting over how they think the place ought to be run. You'll get people fighting over who gets what and why these guys have all this stuff and we have less stuff. If nothing else, it comes down to availability of resources and numbers of people (along the lines of Dunbar's number and all that). Sure, ethnicity, race, and religion are convenient signifiers of groups of people and usually when you have two or more groups with significantly different cultures, you've probably got two or more groups with some level of inequality and power imbalance so you're already halfway there. But even if you don't start out with cultural differences, they'll pop up eventually. Groups of people over a certain size will always have a harder time avoiding conflict when things get tough. It's almost in our nature to split into "us" and "them" just to manage it all.
      - vlehto 11y ago
        Europe is currently pretty much ordered itself into nation states. It required some bleeding over the centuries. If you look at Swiss and Germans, they can hate each other and be internally fine. Both are using 2% of their GDP in defense to fend of each other proactively. There is balance of power, which result very little violence. Now if both countries would import so much people from middle east that they would constitute something like 30% of the population of each country. Now ethnic Germans and Swiss seem to be "the same group" compared to Muslims. If shit hit's the fan, there is new pressure to readjust the borders. And move the people. Usually that stuff causes bleeding. You could say that "if" is completely unrealistic right now. I agree. Nothing that has happened in Europe during past 15 years really warrants any policy change regarding immigration. The point was largely theoretical, just like your island.
  - vectorjohn 11y ago
    That is absolutely absurd. And probably simply points to your own intolerance. We have many proofs of example (I mean, such a sweeping statement should apply to any society with more than "one culture" whatever that even means). And even if you were right, that it hasn't happened before, you could say that about anything that didn't work the first time. "It never worked before, so it is doomed."
- vegabook 11y ago
  > I assert that it is possible to have a multicultural society without having large swaths of population who want to do others harm. I (wish) that it is possible to have a multicultural society without having large swaths of population who want to do others harm
- vlehto 11y ago
  I assert that there is no way to guarantee it. No real progress in stopping multicultural violence has been made since slavery was abolished. People are less violent overall when life is comfortable. But Balkans war and Syrian civil war show that nothing fundamental changes with few generations of peaceful living.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    You should look at the Balkans in a slightly different light. Under Tito Yugoslavia was held together much like a steel band can hold together a compressed spring. As soon as Tito's influence disappeared the spring reverted to its prior shape, and a lot of people decided to continue with their 'unfinished business', the feuds of many years past. There are other regions in the world for which such a description would be fairly accurate, Iraq under Saddam Hussain was another. Now both Sadam and Tito were not exactly nice people (to put it very nicely, both had the blood of numerous people on their hands) but they did manage to contain at least some local strife (with an iron fist and lots of casualties). Even today there is lots of animosity in the Balkans and Iraq is still embroiled in what can only be termed a civil war. A power vacuum is a dangerous thing.
jacquesm 11y ago
Canada does extremely well in this respect.

by Jerry2 11y ago

It's next to impossible to have privacy in societies where there are large swaths of population who want to do others harm. This is why privacy is doomed in "multicultural" societies.

AnimalMuppet 11y ago

I assert that it is possible to have a multicultural society without having large swaths of population who want to do others harm.

Jerry2 11y ago
There isn't a single one in the history of the world that lasted for long time. There's so much research out there that shows that multiculturalism is the root of conflicts. For example [0] and see references too. Just look at the current French republic and how that worked out for them. [1] [0] http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1409 http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.1409 [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11995821/Paris-attacks-have-put-a-dagger-through-the-heart-of-liberal-Europe.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/1199...
- cryoshon 11y ago
  What about the US, then? We have a form of multiculturalism where minorities are on average oppressed, but integrate rather than lash out (usually). I'm not saying we're a shining model or anything, but we have a ton of different cultures living together more or less harmoniously, even taking into account the habitual blacks vs whites squabble.
  - soylentcola 11y ago
    Humanity also has a pretty extensive history of conflict, even in more mono-cultural societies. Hell, you could take any mass of people, all from the same background, race, ethnicity, religion, etc (take your pick), put them on an island for a hundred years or two, and you'll get factions. You'll get people fighting over how they think the place ought to be run. You'll get people fighting over who gets what and why these guys have all this stuff and we have less stuff. If nothing else, it comes down to availability of resources and numbers of people (along the lines of Dunbar's number and all that). Sure, ethnicity, race, and religion are convenient signifiers of groups of people and usually when you have two or more groups with significantly different cultures, you've probably got two or more groups with some level of inequality and power imbalance so you're already halfway there. But even if you don't start out with cultural differences, they'll pop up eventually. Groups of people over a certain size will always have a harder time avoiding conflict when things get tough. It's almost in our nature to split into "us" and "them" just to manage it all.
    - vlehto 11y ago
      Europe is currently pretty much ordered itself into nation states. It required some bleeding over the centuries. If you look at Swiss and Germans, they can hate each other and be internally fine. Both are using 2% of their GDP in defense to fend of each other proactively. There is balance of power, which result very little violence. Now if both countries would import so much people from middle east that they would constitute something like 30% of the population of each country. Now ethnic Germans and Swiss seem to be "the same group" compared to Muslims. If shit hit's the fan, there is new pressure to readjust the borders. And move the people. Usually that stuff causes bleeding. You could say that "if" is completely unrealistic right now. I agree. Nothing that has happened in Europe during past 15 years really warrants any policy change regarding immigration. The point was largely theoretical, just like your island.
- vectorjohn 11y ago
  That is absolutely absurd. And probably simply points to your own intolerance. We have many proofs of example (I mean, such a sweeping statement should apply to any society with more than "one culture" whatever that even means). And even if you were right, that it hasn't happened before, you could say that about anything that didn't work the first time. "It never worked before, so it is doomed."
vegabook 11y ago
> I assert that it is possible to have a multicultural society without having large swaths of population who want to do others harm. I (wish) that it is possible to have a multicultural society without having large swaths of population who want to do others harm
vlehto 11y ago
I assert that there is no way to guarantee it. No real progress in stopping multicultural violence has been made since slavery was abolished. People are less violent overall when life is comfortable. But Balkans war and Syrian civil war show that nothing fundamental changes with few generations of peaceful living.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  You should look at the Balkans in a slightly different light. Under Tito Yugoslavia was held together much like a steel band can hold together a compressed spring. As soon as Tito's influence disappeared the spring reverted to its prior shape, and a lot of people decided to continue with their 'unfinished business', the feuds of many years past. There are other regions in the world for which such a description would be fairly accurate, Iraq under Saddam Hussain was another. Now both Sadam and Tito were not exactly nice people (to put it very nicely, both had the blood of numerous people on their hands) but they did manage to contain at least some local strife (with an iron fist and lots of casualties). Even today there is lots of animosity in the Balkans and Iraq is still embroiled in what can only be termed a civil war. A power vacuum is a dangerous thing.

jacquesm 11y ago

Canada does extremely well in this respect.