16 ms·

Im conflicted about this - I enjoy the multicultural aspects of my own town (Seattle) but I also sympathise with this idea of having a home culture.

sjw-attack 7y ago
Dats racist. Let me go tweet something
sjwcannibals 7y ago
You might be racist
rectang 7y ago
Is it really multiculturalism, in either Seattle or Japan? In multiculturalism, immigrants form enclaves that are durable and do not readily assimilate. That's not generally what happens in the US -- even second generation immigrant children speak English as a first language and are largely Americanized.
- SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
  >immigrants form enclaves that are durable and do not readily assimilate. That's not generally what happens in the US I’ve spent some time in Michigan or Minnesota and haven’t taken away the same conclusions. Maybe we could agree or disagree on “generally”.
  - rectang 7y ago
    I live in San Diego, 20 miles from the Mexican border. If you want to speak Spanish in Chula Vista or other immigrant enclaves, you'll find plenty of people who speak it. However, the number of second generation immigrants who speak Spanish exclusively is as far as I can tell, negligible. There are just too many benefits to assimilating. This isn't Quebec.
    - wcunning 7y ago
      Speaking in support of the gp's point: Dearborn's community of Middle Easterners (more than just Muslims, also heavily Chaldean) speaks an awful lot of Arabic and not so much English. Similarly, the Chinese community in Ann Arbor is very insular and sticks heavily to Chinese over English. This is not a normative statement to say that this is bad, but in this region there are immigrant groups that aren't assimilating as quickly or thoroughly as groups in other areas. Some of that is enforced temporary-ness in the case of the Chinese community in Ann Arbor, but some of it is the sheer size of the community in Dearborn -- the largest Muslim population in the Western world, not even mentioning the huge Chaldean group. (Might no longer be true after the recent refugee movement into Europe, but was true very recently.)
      - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
        Give it time. How many Polish only speakers do you see in Hamtramck in spite of the large Polish-descended population there?
        SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
        Do you think that has anything to do with the pols in this case and Mexicans in the GP example - that they are both Christian cultures assimilating into other Christian cultures?
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        ThrowawayR2 7y ago
        You're kidding, right? The Polish, by and large, are staunch Roman Catholics whereas the United States is primarily various Protestant denominations. There's a long, long history of enmity and violence between those branches of Christianity.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- ousta 7y ago
  Immigration is the leftist liberal version of slavery. The history of liberals has always been one of contradictions. the long belief of the left, legalizing abortion (I am not against) to the point of making it normal (I am against) but at the same time forcing unwanted father to pay alimony, praising "empowered" women who prefer work and think they are oppressed by patriarchy in a developed country and at the same time treating woman that chose to give their time to raise a family like outcast or even "radicals". those liberals that will turn their countries into an ideology where freedom means myself first and the ability to do anything I want, well those people will finally bring into their countries thousands of thousands of young male immigrants - coming from third world countries where woman have no rights and people that do not fit into the image of heterosexual male are treated at best like their voice do not matter at worst murdered, jailed - those leftists that brought those thousands of males because they felt pity and thought that they needed people to take care of the low paying jobs, calling that giving a chance to underpriviliged africans,asians and eastert europeans, those people will tip them 15% hapily, thinking they did the right thing, and then they will move from the neighborhoods that they created (aka: california) and bring their ideology to places with more traditional values. They will leave because they will be scared of putting their kids into public schools with those other people, sharing the same buildings, having to deal with neighborhood where the main food will be ethnic and people will dress like from their home countries, they will never admit it but you could just tell by looking at their eyes that all they need are some slaves to use for cheap.
- mantas 7y ago
  Multiculturalism feels more like monoculture where people have different visual features. But "multi" part ends at that. The true multiculturalism would be to embrace different cultures to stay different. Rather than mix to become a single homogeneous global culture. The easiest way to that would be ensuring self-governance for each culture. Which is easiest by ensuring each culture has it's own state. To have it's own state, it'd be easiest for each culture to live separately geographically.
- sadris 7y ago
  47% of California households do not speak English at home.
  - rectang 7y ago
    So? There are still huge benefits to learning English, and so nearly all immigrants do -- within one generation. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/05/21/millions-of-u-s-citizens-dont-speak-english-to-each-other-thats-not-a-problem/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/05/21/milli...
allemagne 7y ago
I sympathize with the general desire to preserve a sense of cultural identity, but ultimately any attempt to keep a society static through time will slip through your fingers. No exceptions. At some point, especially at the pace the modern world is changing, we need to ask ourselves how much better off we'd be if we stopped putting so much meaning into an idea that's ultimately just a nice momentary illusion at best.
- slang800 7y ago
  Maybe we need to care less about keeping up the pace at which the modern world is changing and more about maintaining a nice culture. I'd be willing to take a reduction in the GDP or a slow down in scientific advancement if it meant that the society I lived in was more coherent.
- mantas 7y ago
  It's not about keeping the culture static. It's about organic evolution vs drastic changes brought in from outside, resulting in cultural clashes. The world is us. It's not a separate entity that we have to learn to work with. We don't have to adapt to XYZ. We can act in one way or another and the world will look accordingly.
- cloakandswagger 7y ago
  The familiar nihilist refrain of globalism. "We live in a global world now, homogeneity is futile." And they wonder, after presenting their ideology as an unstoppable, all-consuming force of nature, why people take issue with it. As humans we have the agency to control our nations and their respective cultures and genetic makeups. This only becomes impossible when you adopt a Western value system that makes never-ending economic growth your only goal.
Pmop 7y ago
I'm not only conflicted. I'm annoyed. Immigration is being sold as a solution to aging and shrinking population. While opening to immigrants certainly helps solving the shrinking workfoce problem, it is nothing more than a duct tape over what is happening: people no longer want to have kids. After it's been long enough that immigrants are not even called this anymore, if we discover that young workforce is still shrinking because people are still not having enough kids, what excuses we're going to use? I can agree that immigration is nice and all—hell, immigrants helped to build my country, Japanese included. But, can we search for solutions to the real problem? What can we do, to help people doing things humans are supposed to do? To have children, to have a family, to be healthy, worldwide.
- firethief 7y ago
  I think you have it backwards. The question we should be asking is, how can the rest of the world march as slowly toward Malthusian hell as Japan?
- whytaka 7y ago
  Why does that matter to you? I don't know if I'll have children and if I do, it'll certainly be <= replacement rate. It's often said that people used to have a lot of kids in order to insure against child mortality. I understand financial stress et al may be one reason for the lower reproduction rate but less kids can also be a sign of success.
  - slang800 7y ago
    If successful people are having fewer kids than unsuccessful people then haven't we created a dysgenic system?
    - CptFribble 7y ago
      This view is popular, even if in jest like "haha Idiocracy was right guise!!" but in real life it smacks of eugenics and the Divine Right Of The Rich. Success correlates well with things like wealth, education level of your parents, early-age nutrition, and other things that can be considered "inherited" in a way, but children of poor and "unsuccessful" people can become financially and socially important as well, it just happens at a lower rate. Suggesting that more poor children than wealthy children will impoverish society in more than just a statistical sense implies there's something immeasurably special about the people who become wealthy and famous, as if the mere act of breeding with them will produce superior humans.
propertius 7y ago
The culture in multiculturalism seems to boil down to restaurant and pop (i.e industrial) culture choices. If it is anything beyond that, it is utilitarianism: the rule of numbers, economics. Capitalism in other words. Any attempt to assimilate the cultural change happening today to that of the past, or to validate it by what happened in the past, is fraud and diversion.

sjw-attack 7y ago

Dats racist. Let me go tweet something

sjwcannibals 7y ago

You might be racist

rectang 7y ago

Is it really multiculturalism, in either Seattle or Japan? In multiculturalism, immigrants form enclaves that are durable and do not readily assimilate. That's not generally what happens in the US -- even second generation immigrant children speak English as a first language and are largely Americanized.

SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
>immigrants form enclaves that are durable and do not readily assimilate. That's not generally what happens in the US I’ve spent some time in Michigan or Minnesota and haven’t taken away the same conclusions. Maybe we could agree or disagree on “generally”.
- rectang 7y ago
  I live in San Diego, 20 miles from the Mexican border. If you want to speak Spanish in Chula Vista or other immigrant enclaves, you'll find plenty of people who speak it. However, the number of second generation immigrants who speak Spanish exclusively is as far as I can tell, negligible. There are just too many benefits to assimilating. This isn't Quebec.
  - wcunning 7y ago
    Speaking in support of the gp's point: Dearborn's community of Middle Easterners (more than just Muslims, also heavily Chaldean) speaks an awful lot of Arabic and not so much English. Similarly, the Chinese community in Ann Arbor is very insular and sticks heavily to Chinese over English. This is not a normative statement to say that this is bad, but in this region there are immigrant groups that aren't assimilating as quickly or thoroughly as groups in other areas. Some of that is enforced temporary-ness in the case of the Chinese community in Ann Arbor, but some of it is the sheer size of the community in Dearborn -- the largest Muslim population in the Western world, not even mentioning the huge Chaldean group. (Might no longer be true after the recent refugee movement into Europe, but was true very recently.)
    - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
      Give it time. How many Polish only speakers do you see in Hamtramck in spite of the large Polish-descended population there?
      - SlowRobotAhead 7y ago
        Do you think that has anything to do with the pols in this case and Mexicans in the GP example - that they are both Christian cultures assimilating into other Christian cultures?
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        ThrowawayR2 7y ago
        You're kidding, right? The Polish, by and large, are staunch Roman Catholics whereas the United States is primarily various Protestant denominations. There's a long, long history of enmity and violence between those branches of Christianity.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
ousta 7y ago
Immigration is the leftist liberal version of slavery. The history of liberals has always been one of contradictions. the long belief of the left, legalizing abortion (I am not against) to the point of making it normal (I am against) but at the same time forcing unwanted father to pay alimony, praising "empowered" women who prefer work and think they are oppressed by patriarchy in a developed country and at the same time treating woman that chose to give their time to raise a family like outcast or even "radicals". those liberals that will turn their countries into an ideology where freedom means myself first and the ability to do anything I want, well those people will finally bring into their countries thousands of thousands of young male immigrants - coming from third world countries where woman have no rights and people that do not fit into the image of heterosexual male are treated at best like their voice do not matter at worst murdered, jailed - those leftists that brought those thousands of males because they felt pity and thought that they needed people to take care of the low paying jobs, calling that giving a chance to underpriviliged africans,asians and eastert europeans, those people will tip them 15% hapily, thinking they did the right thing, and then they will move from the neighborhoods that they created (aka: california) and bring their ideology to places with more traditional values. They will leave because they will be scared of putting their kids into public schools with those other people, sharing the same buildings, having to deal with neighborhood where the main food will be ethnic and people will dress like from their home countries, they will never admit it but you could just tell by looking at their eyes that all they need are some slaves to use for cheap.
mantas 7y ago
Multiculturalism feels more like monoculture where people have different visual features. But "multi" part ends at that. The true multiculturalism would be to embrace different cultures to stay different. Rather than mix to become a single homogeneous global culture. The easiest way to that would be ensuring self-governance for each culture. Which is easiest by ensuring each culture has it's own state. To have it's own state, it'd be easiest for each culture to live separately geographically.
sadris 7y ago
47% of California households do not speak English at home.
- rectang 7y ago
  So? There are still huge benefits to learning English, and so nearly all immigrants do -- within one generation. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/05/21/millions-of-u-s-citizens-dont-speak-english-to-each-other-thats-not-a-problem/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/05/21/milli...

allemagne 7y ago

I sympathize with the general desire to preserve a sense of cultural identity, but ultimately any attempt to keep a society static through time will slip through your fingers. No exceptions. At some point, especially at the pace the modern world is changing, we need to ask ourselves how much better off we'd be if we stopped putting so much meaning into an idea that's ultimately just a nice momentary illusion at best.

slang800 7y ago
Maybe we need to care less about keeping up the pace at which the modern world is changing and more about maintaining a nice culture. I'd be willing to take a reduction in the GDP or a slow down in scientific advancement if it meant that the society I lived in was more coherent.
mantas 7y ago
It's not about keeping the culture static. It's about organic evolution vs drastic changes brought in from outside, resulting in cultural clashes. The world is us. It's not a separate entity that we have to learn to work with. We don't have to adapt to XYZ. We can act in one way or another and the world will look accordingly.
cloakandswagger 7y ago
The familiar nihilist refrain of globalism. "We live in a global world now, homogeneity is futile." And they wonder, after presenting their ideology as an unstoppable, all-consuming force of nature, why people take issue with it. As humans we have the agency to control our nations and their respective cultures and genetic makeups. This only becomes impossible when you adopt a Western value system that makes never-ending economic growth your only goal.

Pmop 7y ago

I'm not only conflicted. I'm annoyed. Immigration is being sold as a solution to aging and shrinking population. While opening to immigrants certainly helps solving the shrinking workfoce problem, it is nothing more than a duct tape over what is happening: people no longer want to have kids. After it's been long enough that immigrants are not even called this anymore, if we discover that young workforce is still shrinking because people are still not having enough kids, what excuses we're going to use? I can agree that immigration is nice and all—hell, immigrants helped to build my country, Japanese included. But, can we search for solutions to the real problem? What can we do, to help people doing things humans are supposed to do? To have children, to have a family, to be healthy, worldwide.

firethief 7y ago
I think you have it backwards. The question we should be asking is, how can the rest of the world march as slowly toward Malthusian hell as Japan?
whytaka 7y ago
Why does that matter to you? I don't know if I'll have children and if I do, it'll certainly be <= replacement rate. It's often said that people used to have a lot of kids in order to insure against child mortality. I understand financial stress et al may be one reason for the lower reproduction rate but less kids can also be a sign of success.
- slang800 7y ago
  If successful people are having fewer kids than unsuccessful people then haven't we created a dysgenic system?
  - CptFribble 7y ago
    This view is popular, even if in jest like "haha Idiocracy was right guise!!" but in real life it smacks of eugenics and the Divine Right Of The Rich. Success correlates well with things like wealth, education level of your parents, early-age nutrition, and other things that can be considered "inherited" in a way, but children of poor and "unsuccessful" people can become financially and socially important as well, it just happens at a lower rate. Suggesting that more poor children than wealthy children will impoverish society in more than just a statistical sense implies there's something immeasurably special about the people who become wealthy and famous, as if the mere act of breeding with them will produce superior humans.

propertius 7y ago

The culture in multiculturalism seems to boil down to restaurant and pop (i.e industrial) culture choices. If it is anything beyond that, it is utilitarianism: the rule of numbers, economics. Capitalism in other words. Any attempt to assimilate the cultural change happening today to that of the past, or to validate it by what happened in the past, is fraud and diversion.