6 ms·

"Peter Thiel wrote a book called The Diversity Myth where he said that race mixing would destroy white culture" This is a lie, and it's exactly the kind of lie

"Peter Thiel wrote a book called The Diversity Myth where he said that race mixing would destroy white culture" This is a lie, and it's exactly the kind of lie that Thiel is trying to call out as insufferable oppression on campus and in intellectual discussion. Having lived in very 'multicultural' places, and fairly homogeneous places, it's clear to me that there are both advantages and disadvantages to each - and to quash all discussion in one direction is totalitarian and oppressive. Japan is the most orderly and civilized place on planet earth and it has a lot to do with the homogenous nature of their culture. Nordic countries, though they are 'intellectually liberal' - are culturally extremely conservative and traditional and 'homogenous' in culture and thinking, and this is one of the key ingredients to their social successes, and why simple socialist policies will not reproduce what they have. Sweden has a very popular Monarchy, and official religion (Christianity), a state Church into which 1% of tax revenues goes. Of course they are not very religious at all, but can you imagine a 'state religion' in America? And 1% of taxes going to it? That would be considered 'extreme, extreme right wing' - and yet it is a very real fact in Sweden. It's one piece of the 'underlying base social fabric' there. I'm not arguing for or against multiculturalism, other than to say there are many drawbacks of multiculturalism, and that in North America especially there is a vicious oppression of ideas and debate in this area, fostered by comments such as the one you made. The issue obviously can be commandeered by populists racists (which is scary), but it never gets that far because someone yells 'racist' and shuts down all intelligent thinking. I grew up in very Multicultural Toronto and thought it was superior. After living around the world I now live in a very 'Quebecois' part of Montreal that is nearly homogenous - and though I'm definitely a 'minority' and not part of that culture, I like it much better. People here are happy, civil, and there is a sense of community that absolutely does not exist in Toronto or Vancouver (or San Francisco, for that matter). So enough with the knee-jerk reactionary hyperbole, try to allow for a little more nuance in issues like this.

tptacek 10y ago
It sounds like you're saying that the lie is that he said what the parent commenter said far more politely than the parent commenter put it.
RCortex 10y ago
Japan is only culturally homogeneous, in the sense that everyone born and raised is japanese.
- tptacek 10y ago
  Japan is also a fiercely racist society, far more so than America.
  - patio11 10y ago
    Can I encourage you to get in the habit of phrasing this in terms of "many (but by no means all) Japanese people", "many Japanese institutions", "many Japanese people in positions of authority", or similar? I think we probably see eye to eye on the scope of the problem, but it is unfortunate to turn it into Japan's problem, because it is very, very important that folks are not presented with the choice "You can either be authentically Japanese or reject racism _but not both_." There are a number of people who believe and instruct that that is a choice; people of good will should give them no aid or comfort.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      We should see perfectly eye to eye on this, because you're who I learned this from. At any rate: that's what I meant by the word "society". When someone composes an appeal to the tranquil monoculturalism of Japan, the thing they should be immediately confronted with is the fierce racism that makes up the core of that culture. Cultures change; Japan's inevitably will get to where ours is today (hopefully we'll keep making it hard for them to completely catch up).
      - RCortex 10y ago
        I disagree, while anecdotal I've seen a number of street interviews done by youtubers. I do know that japan's last "miss japan" was biracial
        10y ago
pryce 10y ago
You're entitled to your personal preferences in where/how you like to live, but none of that changes the facts that: 1. Peter Thiel indeed wrote a book called 'the Diversity Myth' and 2. that book claims that multiculturalism exists to destroy white culture If you're going to argue that the above claim is a "lie", you are obliged to show where that lie is. Your only plausible avenue (as I can see it) is to somehow object that 'multiculturalism' is not essentially the same thing as meant by the term 'race-mixing', but your response here only convinces me that you agree that in this context the two terms mean effectively the same thing .
- vivekd 10y ago
  Amazon link to the book https://www.amazon.com/Diversity-Myth-David-Sacks/dp/0945999763 https://www.amazon.com/Diversity-Myth-David-Sacks/dp/0945999... The book is not arguing against multiculturalism or diversity but rather it is arguing that multiculturalism and diversity are being used as an excuse to stifle free speech and silence dissenting opinions in institutions of higher learning. You are misrepresenting what the book is about.
- edblarney 10y ago
  Your statement referred to 'race mixing' which is quite another thing altogether. It's entirely possible to be 'offended' by the total destruction of one's culture and not so much by any inherent 'race mixing' that may be the result of that. But yes - multiculturalism will definitely 'destroy' any culture wherein it is implemented - white/black/red or brown. That's a simple fact. 'Diversity' in the world is destroyed with multiculturalism. You get a 'rainbow of skin colours and last names' - sure - but you get a narrowing of culture and ideals. You get the lowest common denominator - not 'multiple viewpoints'. You don't get 'more ideas' - you get 'officially sanctioned ideals'. 'Cultures' need 'critical mass' to exist, and they cannot be defined by GDP or social policy. Once there are too many cultures, or culturally secular ideals - the 'local culture' is completely abolished. When you have 'diversity' in a locale - you break down cultural bonds - and replace them with material products - like Starbucks and McDonald's - and culturally secular values. Example: I was in Tunisia recently, I drank a 'Tunisian tea' (what I called it). It was dirt cheap. The Coca-Cola was 2x more expensive. Paradox: selling 'coca cola' is essentially better for the GDP - 2x more dollars changing hands. Culturally secular politicians and economists will see this 'GDP growth' and push hard on it across all consumer and business sectors. New shopping malls with H&M, Zara, Starbucks, Monoprix, Carrefour etc. etc. - are literally up-ending all of the unique culture of some parts of that country. After a while, 'Tunis', 'Toronto' and 'Singapore' will be the same place: same secular laws, same products, same services, same clothes, possibly speaking English, working in cubicles, driving the same cars back and forth. All unique cultural artifacts - and there are many of them - abolished. Tunisia is a very strange place to me - and that's what makes it great. I'm not looking forward to going back in 25 years when it's all been wiped out by globalism. 'Multiculturalism' is really just a very short transition period between 'culture' (i.e. diversity in the world) and 'globalized, culturally secular nation states'. America (and Canada) are obviously special places where multicultural identity means something different than say Germany or Tunisia, nevertheless, the conversation should be allowed to had. We already have a great deal of 'diversity' on planet earth, just get on an airplane! Most attempts to create 'more diversity' in a specific local (usually with the benign objective of wanting people to 'get along better') , actually reduces the 'net diversity' of the world, ironically.
snaily 10y ago
Your example of Sweden having an official religion is no longer current. The Church of Sweden is since 2000 no longer a state church. That said, it's been possible to opt-out since 1868, and since 1996 membership is opt-in (upon baptizing) and not inherited based on the membership of the parents. Slightly less than two thirds of the population are still members, and it is losing members far faster than simple attrition would have it (about one percentage point per year). If you are a member of the Church of Sweden (or any other registered religion), the state will help collect membership taxes for it, but that should be taken more as a measure of Nordic efficiency than as a tacit endorsement of any particular belief.
- edblarney 10y ago
  " the state will help collect membership taxes for it, but that should be taken more as a measure of Nordic efficiency than as a tacit endorsement of any particular belief." I take it as neither. I take it that the 'Church' is a cultural epitaph, not even so much a religious one. It doesn't matter 'what one believes'. It matters a little bit that colocated people share some common faith, and the rituals, prayers, holidays, sense of spirit, goodwill - are synchronous in some way. When those are torn apart - and there is no 'common culture' - some of which is based on 'religion' - then there literally is no ethnicity, and arguably no nation. You mention 'Nordic efficiency'. It's true, Nordic countries are somewhat 'efficient'. But will Sweden be a 'Nordic' country when it's 20% ethnically Swedish, 10% German, 8% American, 5% Norwgian, 5% Somali, 5% Russian etc. etc.? What will make Sweden any different from Norway, which has almost the same ethnic composition, the same rules? The only difference between Norway and Sweden in 100 years might be the colour of your flags. English will be the dominant language, and ethnically, everyone will be 'from somewhere else'. Anyhow - thanks for your correction, but I don't think it changes the nature of my point. Multiculturalism has consequences, and it should be a choice, not something that is foisted upon people as a moral position.
  - snaily 10y ago
    As you rightly point out, my reply was not meant as more than a factual rebuttal - which of course is valuable in and of itself if you want to make a coherent and sound argument. You also conveniently cut out the point that the state will collect membership taxes for the Church of Sweden, just as happily as it will for the local catholic branch or one of two registered islamic congregations. I'm not sure what the rest of your post has to do with mine.
system16 10y ago
> Japan is the most orderly and civilized place on planet earth It's certainly the safest. #2 is Singapore, which also happens to be one of the most multi-cultural places on planet earth.
- torrances 10y ago
  Singapore is definitely multi-cultural, but it's also about 75% Han Chinese.

tptacek 10y ago

It sounds like you're saying that the lie is that he said what the parent commenter said far more politely than the parent commenter put it.

RCortex 10y ago

Japan is only culturally homogeneous, in the sense that everyone born and raised is japanese.

tptacek 10y ago
Japan is also a fiercely racist society, far more so than America.
- patio11 10y ago
  Can I encourage you to get in the habit of phrasing this in terms of "many (but by no means all) Japanese people", "many Japanese institutions", "many Japanese people in positions of authority", or similar? I think we probably see eye to eye on the scope of the problem, but it is unfortunate to turn it into Japan's problem, because it is very, very important that folks are not presented with the choice "You can either be authentically Japanese or reject racism _but not both_." There are a number of people who believe and instruct that that is a choice; people of good will should give them no aid or comfort.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    We should see perfectly eye to eye on this, because you're who I learned this from. At any rate: that's what I meant by the word "society". When someone composes an appeal to the tranquil monoculturalism of Japan, the thing they should be immediately confronted with is the fierce racism that makes up the core of that culture. Cultures change; Japan's inevitably will get to where ours is today (hopefully we'll keep making it hard for them to completely catch up).
    - RCortex 10y ago
      I disagree, while anecdotal I've seen a number of street interviews done by youtubers. I do know that japan's last "miss japan" was biracial
      - 10y ago

pryce 10y ago

You're entitled to your personal preferences in where/how you like to live, but none of that changes the facts that: 1. Peter Thiel indeed wrote a book called 'the Diversity Myth' and 2. that book claims that multiculturalism exists to destroy white culture If you're going to argue that the above claim is a "lie", you are obliged to show where that lie is. Your only plausible avenue (as I can see it) is to somehow object that 'multiculturalism' is not essentially the same thing as meant by the term 'race-mixing', but your response here only convinces me that you agree that in this context the two terms mean effectively the same thing .

vivekd 10y ago
Amazon link to the book https://www.amazon.com/Diversity-Myth-David-Sacks/dp/0945999763 https://www.amazon.com/Diversity-Myth-David-Sacks/dp/0945999... The book is not arguing against multiculturalism or diversity but rather it is arguing that multiculturalism and diversity are being used as an excuse to stifle free speech and silence dissenting opinions in institutions of higher learning. You are misrepresenting what the book is about.
edblarney 10y ago
Your statement referred to 'race mixing' which is quite another thing altogether. It's entirely possible to be 'offended' by the total destruction of one's culture and not so much by any inherent 'race mixing' that may be the result of that. But yes - multiculturalism will definitely 'destroy' any culture wherein it is implemented - white/black/red or brown. That's a simple fact. 'Diversity' in the world is destroyed with multiculturalism. You get a 'rainbow of skin colours and last names' - sure - but you get a narrowing of culture and ideals. You get the lowest common denominator - not 'multiple viewpoints'. You don't get 'more ideas' - you get 'officially sanctioned ideals'. 'Cultures' need 'critical mass' to exist, and they cannot be defined by GDP or social policy. Once there are too many cultures, or culturally secular ideals - the 'local culture' is completely abolished. When you have 'diversity' in a locale - you break down cultural bonds - and replace them with material products - like Starbucks and McDonald's - and culturally secular values. Example: I was in Tunisia recently, I drank a 'Tunisian tea' (what I called it). It was dirt cheap. The Coca-Cola was 2x more expensive. Paradox: selling 'coca cola' is essentially better for the GDP - 2x more dollars changing hands. Culturally secular politicians and economists will see this 'GDP growth' and push hard on it across all consumer and business sectors. New shopping malls with H&M, Zara, Starbucks, Monoprix, Carrefour etc. etc. - are literally up-ending all of the unique culture of some parts of that country. After a while, 'Tunis', 'Toronto' and 'Singapore' will be the same place: same secular laws, same products, same services, same clothes, possibly speaking English, working in cubicles, driving the same cars back and forth. All unique cultural artifacts - and there are many of them - abolished. Tunisia is a very strange place to me - and that's what makes it great. I'm not looking forward to going back in 25 years when it's all been wiped out by globalism. 'Multiculturalism' is really just a very short transition period between 'culture' (i.e. diversity in the world) and 'globalized, culturally secular nation states'. America (and Canada) are obviously special places where multicultural identity means something different than say Germany or Tunisia, nevertheless, the conversation should be allowed to had. We already have a great deal of 'diversity' on planet earth, just get on an airplane! Most attempts to create 'more diversity' in a specific local (usually with the benign objective of wanting people to 'get along better') , actually reduces the 'net diversity' of the world, ironically.

snaily 10y ago

Your example of Sweden having an official religion is no longer current. The Church of Sweden is since 2000 no longer a state church. That said, it's been possible to opt-out since 1868, and since 1996 membership is opt-in (upon baptizing) and not inherited based on the membership of the parents. Slightly less than two thirds of the population are still members, and it is losing members far faster than simple attrition would have it (about one percentage point per year). If you are a member of the Church of Sweden (or any other registered religion), the state will help collect membership taxes for it, but that should be taken more as a measure of Nordic efficiency than as a tacit endorsement of any particular belief.

edblarney 10y ago
" the state will help collect membership taxes for it, but that should be taken more as a measure of Nordic efficiency than as a tacit endorsement of any particular belief." I take it as neither. I take it that the 'Church' is a cultural epitaph, not even so much a religious one. It doesn't matter 'what one believes'. It matters a little bit that colocated people share some common faith, and the rituals, prayers, holidays, sense of spirit, goodwill - are synchronous in some way. When those are torn apart - and there is no 'common culture' - some of which is based on 'religion' - then there literally is no ethnicity, and arguably no nation. You mention 'Nordic efficiency'. It's true, Nordic countries are somewhat 'efficient'. But will Sweden be a 'Nordic' country when it's 20% ethnically Swedish, 10% German, 8% American, 5% Norwgian, 5% Somali, 5% Russian etc. etc.? What will make Sweden any different from Norway, which has almost the same ethnic composition, the same rules? The only difference between Norway and Sweden in 100 years might be the colour of your flags. English will be the dominant language, and ethnically, everyone will be 'from somewhere else'. Anyhow - thanks for your correction, but I don't think it changes the nature of my point. Multiculturalism has consequences, and it should be a choice, not something that is foisted upon people as a moral position.
- snaily 10y ago
  As you rightly point out, my reply was not meant as more than a factual rebuttal - which of course is valuable in and of itself if you want to make a coherent and sound argument. You also conveniently cut out the point that the state will collect membership taxes for the Church of Sweden, just as happily as it will for the local catholic branch or one of two registered islamic congregations. I'm not sure what the rest of your post has to do with mine.

system16 10y ago

> Japan is the most orderly and civilized place on planet earth It's certainly the safest. #2 is Singapore, which also happens to be one of the most multi-cultural places on planet earth.

torrances 10y ago
Singapore is definitely multi-cultural, but it's also about 75% Han Chinese.