3 ms·

It has been shown many times that integration reduces bias, see studies on the contact hypothesis. Racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, and other examples of bias

It has been shown many times that integration reduces bias, see studies on the contact hypothesis. Racism, homophobia, Islamophobia, and other examples of bias have been shown by many studies to be dramatically reduced in an integrated context. So long as many of these groups are subject to bias, discrimination, and worse, it is important to engender empathy and understanding among the majority class (white, heterosexual, etc), and move towards equity and justice as a society -- and integrated communities are one of the best ways to achieve this. You can say, "I'm not 'shapeist', but I do live in a community with a strong majority 'square' population", which I'll readily believe -- but there's no substitute for actually talking and living and working with the "triangles" to achieve a deep level of understanding and empathy for their worldview, experiences, and needs. Moreover, your arguments taken to the logical conclusion have been the basis of some of history's worst atrocities, and I would advise you to do more research before seeding this particular thought pool.

p-e-w 3y ago
> It has been shown many times that integration reduces bias Strawman. Integration isn't the same thing as diversity, and doesn't automatically follow from it either. Different kinds of people living in the same locality doesn't mean they form an "integrated society". Almost every large city is a testament to that. The idea that city people are more empathetic and understanding than villagers because they live in a more diverse environment flies in the face of everyday experience. > Moreover, your arguments taken to the logical conclusion have been the basis of some of history's worst atrocities Appeal to consequences, and thus irrelevant to whether my arguments are correct or not. Not that I accept the ridiculous assertion that my arguments are in any way comparable to the ones you are linking them to. > and I would advise you to do more research before seeding this particular thought pool. Sorry, but I'm not swayed by such pretentious moralizing. In fact, the suppression of inquiry that you are attempting here seems much more in line with "this particular thought pool" than what I wrote.
- drewdevault 3y ago
  > Strawman. Integration isn't the same thing as diversity, and doesn't automatically follow from it either. Different kinds of people living in the same locality doesn't mean they form an "integrated society". Almost every large city is a testament to that. The idea that city people are more empathetic and understanding than villagers because they live in a more diverse environment flies in the face of everyday experience. You are calling for empiricism but mixing your arguments with anecdotes and "everyday experience". The empirical argument looks at questions like integrated communities as a form of diversity, and finds that it has socially beneficial consequences -- exactly what kind of diversity are you referring to which is distinguishable from integration? Do elaborate so that we can examine that in an empirical lens. > Appeal to consequences, and thus irrelevant to whether my arguments are correct or not. Not that I accept the ridiculous assertion that my arguments are in any way comparable to the ones you are linking them to. Let me draw the connection for you: do you agree or disagree that your initial line of reasoning would support the conclusion that ethnostates are morally neutral? When this reasoning is placed in a historical context, are you blind to the means by which ethnostates have historically arisen?
  - pwdisswordfishc 3y ago
    > You are calling for empiricism but mixing your arguments with anecdotes and "everyday experience" Well… duh? It would have been distinctly anti-empirical to ignore those.
  - p-e-w 3y ago
    > exactly what kind of diversity are you referring to which is distinguishable from integration? The kind you can find in most cities today. Where your neighbors come from many cultural backgrounds, but you don't even know their names, and they don't know yours. Such societies are diverse statistically, but they are not integrated. In fact, it can reasonably be questioned whether they are "societies" at all. > do you agree or disagree that your initial line of reasoning would support the conclusion that ethnostates are morally neutral? "Ethnostates" are states dominated by a particular ethnic group. Which by definition includes states that are ethnically uniform. According to [1], many states existing today have essentially no ethnic diversity, including Japan, South Korea, Portugal, and Norway. Meanwhile, the most ethnically diverse countries include such luminaries as Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Ivory Coast. In fact, if you look at the accompanying map[2], you will immediately notice a strong inverse correlation between diversity and living standard. Assuming the underlying analysis of diversity level is accurate, this map itself is a condemnation of the entire ideology surrounding diversity. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_ranked_by_ethnic_and_cultural_diversity_level https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_ranked_by_et... [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:List_of_countries_ranked_by_ethnic_and_cultural_diversity_level,_List_based_on_Fearon%27s_analysis.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:List_of_countries_ra...

p-e-w 3y ago

> It has been shown many times that integration reduces bias Strawman. Integration isn't the same thing as diversity, and doesn't automatically follow from it either. Different kinds of people living in the same locality doesn't mean they form an "integrated society". Almost every large city is a testament to that. The idea that city people are more empathetic and understanding than villagers because they live in a more diverse environment flies in the face of everyday experience. > Moreover, your arguments taken to the logical conclusion have been the basis of some of history's worst atrocities Appeal to consequences, and thus irrelevant to whether my arguments are correct or not. Not that I accept the ridiculous assertion that my arguments are in any way comparable to the ones you are linking them to. > and I would advise you to do more research before seeding this particular thought pool. Sorry, but I'm not swayed by such pretentious moralizing. In fact, the suppression of inquiry that you are attempting here seems much more in line with "this particular thought pool" than what I wrote.

drewdevault 3y ago
> Strawman. Integration isn't the same thing as diversity, and doesn't automatically follow from it either. Different kinds of people living in the same locality doesn't mean they form an "integrated society". Almost every large city is a testament to that. The idea that city people are more empathetic and understanding than villagers because they live in a more diverse environment flies in the face of everyday experience. You are calling for empiricism but mixing your arguments with anecdotes and "everyday experience". The empirical argument looks at questions like integrated communities as a form of diversity, and finds that it has socially beneficial consequences -- exactly what kind of diversity are you referring to which is distinguishable from integration? Do elaborate so that we can examine that in an empirical lens. > Appeal to consequences, and thus irrelevant to whether my arguments are correct or not. Not that I accept the ridiculous assertion that my arguments are in any way comparable to the ones you are linking them to. Let me draw the connection for you: do you agree or disagree that your initial line of reasoning would support the conclusion that ethnostates are morally neutral? When this reasoning is placed in a historical context, are you blind to the means by which ethnostates have historically arisen?
- pwdisswordfishc 3y ago
  > You are calling for empiricism but mixing your arguments with anecdotes and "everyday experience" Well… duh? It would have been distinctly anti-empirical to ignore those.
- p-e-w 3y ago
  > exactly what kind of diversity are you referring to which is distinguishable from integration? The kind you can find in most cities today. Where your neighbors come from many cultural backgrounds, but you don't even know their names, and they don't know yours. Such societies are diverse statistically, but they are not integrated. In fact, it can reasonably be questioned whether they are "societies" at all. > do you agree or disagree that your initial line of reasoning would support the conclusion that ethnostates are morally neutral? "Ethnostates" are states dominated by a particular ethnic group. Which by definition includes states that are ethnically uniform. According to [1], many states existing today have essentially no ethnic diversity, including Japan, South Korea, Portugal, and Norway. Meanwhile, the most ethnically diverse countries include such luminaries as Liberia, Sierra Leone, and Ivory Coast. In fact, if you look at the accompanying map[2], you will immediately notice a strong inverse correlation between diversity and living standard. Assuming the underlying analysis of diversity level is accurate, this map itself is a condemnation of the entire ideology surrounding diversity. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_ranked_by_ethnic_and_cultural_diversity_level https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_ranked_by_et... [2] https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:List_of_countries_ranked_by_ethnic_and_cultural_diversity_level,_List_based_on_Fearon%27s_analysis.png https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:List_of_countries_ra...