5 ms·

The fact that you describe Switzerland as “mostly homogeneous” really undermines the credibility of your argument.

thereddaikon 3y ago
Switzerland oddly does not collect ethnicity information in its census but it does collect nationality and language information and its pretty easy to conclude that Switzerland is overwhelming white Europeans over 85% of which are German or French speakers.
- comte7092 3y ago
  Ah see now I have clarity. You are indeed making the “things that work in other places won’t work in America because of differences in race and ethnicity” argument. This is a fairly lazy analysis that plays on America’s often unspoken cultural beliefs around race. While it is true that race is a major cultural marker in America, this fact is not innate and the oft repeated argument that “homogenous” societies can do things that we can’t amounts to little more than “we can’t do it because we are different”. The determinants of diversity in the sense that it might be relevant to a discussion on free speech depend on a multitude of cultural factors. You can’t just say “well they aren’t diverse because they don’t match the criteria set out and defined by _America_”. 95% of Americans speak English. If half the country didn’t speak English well that would make for a very different society and culture than the one we have now.
  - MichaelZuo 3y ago
    Not quite true, epigenes have conclusively been shown, at least for a few generations, to be innate, inheritable, heavily modifiable by extreme enough environmental factors (such as starvation, violent crime, war, etc.), and even capable of skipping a generation and re-expressing later on like normal genes Whether or not such changes lasts through several dozen generations is still undecided though.
    - comte7092 3y ago
      What does that have to do with this discussion on free speech?
      - MichaelZuo 3y ago
        > This is a fairly lazy analysis that plays on America’s often unspoken cultural beliefs around race. While it is true that race is a major cultural marker in America, this fact is not innate and the oft repeated argument that “homogenous” societies can do things that we can’t amounts to little more than “we can’t do it because we are different”. You italicized innate so I assumed you meant to put special emphasis on that part? For example, it's at least theoretically possible for someone who had ancestors a few generations ago that were enslaved to suffer some bonafide inherited and disadvantageous epigenetic mutations. Or for those who has ancestors who got shell-shocked in past wars, got involved in serious car crashes, etc... I'm not sure if such factors should be considered legally, lest competition turn it into some kind of pity olympics, but there's a non-zero chance large segments of the population came out of the womb genuinely, innately, disadvantaged slightly.
        comte7092 3y ago
        > For example, it's at least theoretically possible for someone who had ancestors a few generations ago that were enslaved to suffer some bonafide inherited and disadvantageous epigenetic mutations. Emphasis on theoretically. > there's a non-zero chance large segments of the population came out of the womb genuinely, innately, disadvantaged slightly. may be slightly affected. Again, how is this relevant to a discussion on free speech? My point was that there is no innate reason why race would lead to politically divergent opinions, at least not to the degree that it would lead to such major discord that it would require a fundamentally different model of free speech in society.
        MichaelZuo 3y ago
        I agree? That's why I replied with a 'Not quite true' instead of a flat 'No' or 'that's incorrect' or some variation. It's somewhat relevant since these epigenetic mutations can increase the probability of someone being a misanthrope, for example, that just hates other people and who doesn't care about their lack of free speech. Or vice versa, someone with increased anxiety/nervousness/etc., and would be exceedingly disturbed by even small regressions in free speech rights.
  - thereddaikon 3y ago
    No that's not the argument I'm making at all. But thanks for putting words in my mouth. It isn't about any intrinsic quality of race. But race does have a component inasmuch as any way to define an in and out group does. White western Europeans have very similar cultures and societal norms due to their shared history. A Frenchman, Swiss and German are likely to have generally similar views on what would be acceptable speech for example. But not all Americans have a shared culture and history that would influence their ideas. That's because, from even the very beginning, we have had a very civic minded form of nationality that 300 years ago was unheard of. And today is still fairly unique. But if I am a Presbyterian New Englander my cultural norms and what would be considered socially acceptable behavior will differ than a Baptist Southerner, A Catholic West coaster or an Atheist Midwesterner. There different regional cultures, religions, and cultural influences from our immigrant ancestors are going to shape things quite a lot. When I was growing up we called this the American melting pot. I don't know if that terminology is still used. When you have a nation of immigrants they are going to have different ideas they want to express. Usually you will have one majority but many majorities. Traditionally that majority was rooted in the descendants of early English colonists. Sometimes derisively called WASPs. America has had a lot of strife between different groups interacting such as the large Irish influx during the potato famine. German and Italians during periods of upheaval in the late 19th century. Chinese immigrants on the west coast around the same time. Interactions and immigration both ways with our northern and southern neighbors. The consequences of the African slave trade. It goes on and on.
brightlancer 3y ago
> The fact that you describe Switzerland as “mostly homogeneous” really undermines the credibility of your argument. I'd love to hear an argument about how Switzerland is heterogeneous, but here's what I found: Switzerland is a country of ~8.5M, or the same population as New York City, or 2/3 the population of the rest of New York State, or less than the population of Virginia and 11 other states. And Switzerland is ~40k km², a bit less than New York State. What I'm saying is it's very small compared to the US, with 330M people across 9M km² of land. As for homogeneity, Switzerland doesn't have birthright citizenship (where the US does), so foreign nationals may remain foreign for multiple generations; it's also part of the Schengen, permitting EU members to travel and reside without a visa or other permission. All of this makes an apples to apples comparison with the US much harder. Switzerland is ~75% Swiss nationals, with ~25% foreign nationals, but ~85% of those are from the Schengen area. About 15% of the US population is foreign born, but almost half of those are naturalized citizens -- there's also 10M+ foreign nationals in the US illegally (more than the pop of Switzerland), though any children they have in the US will be natural-born citizens (unlike in Switzerland). If we include the first US-born generation, it jumps to 28% of the US population. And when we look at where those immigrants come from, two of the top three origins are in Asia (India and China). Again, I don't know how to make an apples to apples comparison. It's likely that Switzerland is more heterogeneous than some places in the US, while less so than others. But if I had to make a broad statement, yeah, Switzerland is much more homogeneous than the US, and I'd love to hear an argument against it.

Switzerland oddly does not collect ethnicity information in its census but it does collect nationality and language information and its pretty easy to conclude that Switzerland is overwhelming white Europeans over 85% of which are German or French speakers.

comte7092 3y ago
Ah see now I have clarity. You are indeed making the “things that work in other places won’t work in America because of differences in race and ethnicity” argument. This is a fairly lazy analysis that plays on America’s often unspoken cultural beliefs around race. While it is true that race is a major cultural marker in America, this fact is not innate and the oft repeated argument that “homogenous” societies can do things that we can’t amounts to little more than “we can’t do it because we are different”. The determinants of diversity in the sense that it might be relevant to a discussion on free speech depend on a multitude of cultural factors. You can’t just say “well they aren’t diverse because they don’t match the criteria set out and defined by _America_”. 95% of Americans speak English. If half the country didn’t speak English well that would make for a very different society and culture than the one we have now.
- MichaelZuo 3y ago
  Not quite true, epigenes have conclusively been shown, at least for a few generations, to be innate, inheritable, heavily modifiable by extreme enough environmental factors (such as starvation, violent crime, war, etc.), and even capable of skipping a generation and re-expressing later on like normal genes Whether or not such changes lasts through several dozen generations is still undecided though.
  - comte7092 3y ago
    What does that have to do with this discussion on free speech?
    - MichaelZuo 3y ago
      > This is a fairly lazy analysis that plays on America’s often unspoken cultural beliefs around race. While it is true that race is a major cultural marker in America, this fact is not innate and the oft repeated argument that “homogenous” societies can do things that we can’t amounts to little more than “we can’t do it because we are different”. You italicized innate so I assumed you meant to put special emphasis on that part? For example, it's at least theoretically possible for someone who had ancestors a few generations ago that were enslaved to suffer some bonafide inherited and disadvantageous epigenetic mutations. Or for those who has ancestors who got shell-shocked in past wars, got involved in serious car crashes, etc... I'm not sure if such factors should be considered legally, lest competition turn it into some kind of pity olympics, but there's a non-zero chance large segments of the population came out of the womb genuinely, innately, disadvantaged slightly.
      - comte7092 3y ago
        > For example, it's at least theoretically possible for someone who had ancestors a few generations ago that were enslaved to suffer some bonafide inherited and disadvantageous epigenetic mutations. Emphasis on theoretically. > there's a non-zero chance large segments of the population came out of the womb genuinely, innately, disadvantaged slightly. may be slightly affected. Again, how is this relevant to a discussion on free speech? My point was that there is no innate reason why race would lead to politically divergent opinions, at least not to the degree that it would lead to such major discord that it would require a fundamentally different model of free speech in society.
        MichaelZuo 3y ago
        I agree? That's why I replied with a 'Not quite true' instead of a flat 'No' or 'that's incorrect' or some variation. It's somewhat relevant since these epigenetic mutations can increase the probability of someone being a misanthrope, for example, that just hates other people and who doesn't care about their lack of free speech. Or vice versa, someone with increased anxiety/nervousness/etc., and would be exceedingly disturbed by even small regressions in free speech rights.
- thereddaikon 3y ago
  No that's not the argument I'm making at all. But thanks for putting words in my mouth. It isn't about any intrinsic quality of race. But race does have a component inasmuch as any way to define an in and out group does. White western Europeans have very similar cultures and societal norms due to their shared history. A Frenchman, Swiss and German are likely to have generally similar views on what would be acceptable speech for example. But not all Americans have a shared culture and history that would influence their ideas. That's because, from even the very beginning, we have had a very civic minded form of nationality that 300 years ago was unheard of. And today is still fairly unique. But if I am a Presbyterian New Englander my cultural norms and what would be considered socially acceptable behavior will differ than a Baptist Southerner, A Catholic West coaster or an Atheist Midwesterner. There different regional cultures, religions, and cultural influences from our immigrant ancestors are going to shape things quite a lot. When I was growing up we called this the American melting pot. I don't know if that terminology is still used. When you have a nation of immigrants they are going to have different ideas they want to express. Usually you will have one majority but many majorities. Traditionally that majority was rooted in the descendants of early English colonists. Sometimes derisively called WASPs. America has had a lot of strife between different groups interacting such as the large Irish influx during the potato famine. German and Italians during periods of upheaval in the late 19th century. Chinese immigrants on the west coast around the same time. Interactions and immigration both ways with our northern and southern neighbors. The consequences of the African slave trade. It goes on and on.

brightlancer 3y ago

> The fact that you describe Switzerland as “mostly homogeneous” really undermines the credibility of your argument. I'd love to hear an argument about how Switzerland is heterogeneous, but here's what I found: Switzerland is a country of ~8.5M, or the same population as New York City, or 2/3 the population of the rest of New York State, or less than the population of Virginia and 11 other states. And Switzerland is ~40k km², a bit less than New York State. What I'm saying is it's very small compared to the US, with 330M people across 9M km² of land. As for homogeneity, Switzerland doesn't have birthright citizenship (where the US does), so foreign nationals may remain foreign for multiple generations; it's also part of the Schengen, permitting EU members to travel and reside without a visa or other permission. All of this makes an apples to apples comparison with the US much harder. Switzerland is ~75% Swiss nationals, with ~25% foreign nationals, but ~85% of those are from the Schengen area. About 15% of the US population is foreign born, but almost half of those are naturalized citizens -- there's also 10M+ foreign nationals in the US illegally (more than the pop of Switzerland), though any children they have in the US will be natural-born citizens (unlike in Switzerland). If we include the first US-born generation, it jumps to 28% of the US population. And when we look at where those immigrants come from, two of the top three origins are in Asia (India and China). Again, I don't know how to make an apples to apples comparison. It's likely that Switzerland is more heterogeneous than some places in the US, while less so than others. But if I had to make a broad statement, yeah, Switzerland is much more homogeneous than the US, and I'd love to hear an argument against it.