6 ms·

What happens when they start to see their ethnicity or culture as political and fight to impose it, including using violence? Because at some point it will happ

What happens when they start to see their ethnicity or culture as political and fight to impose it, including using violence? Because at some point it will happen - democracy incentivizes clientelism and tribalism. The USA, which is often touted as a "successful" melting pot model, is rife with similar problems.

deleted 4mo ago
[deleted]
tastyface 4mo ago
Civil strife? If it comes to violence, I (a white person) certainly won't be on the side of the white nationalists. Same for most of my peers. Many of us love living in multicultural societies and will fight to protect our neighbors and our way of life.
- Saline9515 4mo ago
  Why is "civil war" the default situation here? How about domestic terrorism for instance? Will you be on the side of the muslim terrorists who beheaded teachers and priests (among others), and killed 132 concert-goers (and injured 413 others) at the Bataclan in 2015? Will you tell the french people who were slaughtered that it was the price to live in a multicultural society?Damn. Even if you don't go as far as terrorism, it's simple: multi-ethnic societies favor either identity politics (aka clientelism) or authoritarianism (only way to avoid it). The USA is a great example for this: the previous administration played identity politics to the maximum, and the new one used it to impose authoritarianism. It's very hard, if not impossible to escape this loop once you are in a minority-only society. And of course you have to deal with collapsing social trust. The USA isn't the ultimate lawyer society, and the most armed one by pure chance. It's a logical consequence.
  - tastyface 4mo ago
    What do the Bataclan terrorists have to do with 99.9999% of the Muslim population? Absolutely nothing. (Or, at least, as much as neo-Nazis have to do with the native white population.) Fact is, most people are extremely normal and just want to live in peace. I'll be on the side of my nice Muslim neighbors (who did nothing wrong to anyone) against the red-faced white supremacist mobs. It is very obviously the correct moral position and will be viewed as such by our descendants. In the US, the most heavily armed communities also tend to be the least diverse. It is largely a consequence of insular paranoia and hatred stoked by right-wing media.
    - snackerblues 4mo ago
      [flagged]
      - tastyface 4mo ago
        I'm actually a Christian from a conservative branch of the faith, but thanks for your input.
    - Saline9515 4mo ago
      > What do the Bataclan terrorists have to do with 99.9999% of the Muslim population? They share the same religion and ethnicity. French muslims were actually a large contingent in Daesh forces. This is a classic "no true scotsman" fallacy. Every muslim will tell you that the Charlie Hebdo covers about Muhammad were "haram" - because that's exactly what their religion says. Not that they are all bad people, just like you had nice soviets, or I'm sure that there a nice North Korean Juche party members, too. You seem to be acting like an ostrich, putting your head in the sand to avoid problems. Face reality and read about Islam, which is inherently a political religion. Read also about the Muslim Brotherhood (or similar orgs). > US armed communities. How about latino gangs? Are they operating with nerf guns? Besides, the safest places in the US are those that are monoethnic, such as New Hampshire.
      - constantius 4mo ago
        Your observation about multi-ethnic societies is rather interesting (though I would add slme caveats), but then you unfortunately are blinded by your preconceptions. The parent comment is right about 99.9...% of Muslims not being in any way related to terrorism. A large country with 10% of Muslims being a large minority in a small terrorist force is not surprising. I would bet that Americans and foreigners in general are a large minority in Canadian far-right groups, for example. The drawings of Muhammad were objectively haram, as you say, but almost none of the people who'd agree to that would also agree that murder was the right answer. You can be anti-immigration without descending into racism and Islamophobia, actually it would greatly reinforce your points.
mrtesthah 4mo ago
>democracy incentivizes clientelism and tribalism Cite your peer reviewed sources.
- Saline9515 4mo ago
  This is a good intro by recognized researchers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dictator%27s_Handbook https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dictator%27s_Handbook If you want me to be more precise, I would say that clientelism and tribalism are especially rewarded for politicians in a multi-ethnic society. Also a good definition: https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/clientelism/E23ABE885BA3D5DF0D3ABD1260D492D0 https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/clientelism/E23ABE88...
  - zimpenfish 4mo ago
    "Michael C. Moynihan reviewing the book for The Wall Street Journal stated that the writing style is similar to that of Freakonomics." Ouch. If someone said that about a book I'd written, I would simply move to a forest and never write a single word again. Quite the damning review.
    - Saline9515 4mo ago
      I told you that it was an intro. Here is the more serious book, by the same authors: https://direct.mit.edu/books/monograph/2425/The-Logic-of-Political-Survival https://direct.mit.edu/books/monograph/2425/The-Logic-of-Pol... And there is nothing wrong with vulgarization, aside from comments from pedantic HNers.
      - zimpenfish 4mo ago
        > And there is nothing wrong with vulgarization My comment wasn't about vulgarisation - it was about Freakonomics' loose approach to rigour and consequent debunking of, IIRC, most of the book. A quick search for "Bruce Bueno de Mesquita" throws up similar debunkings[0] and yeah, I'll not be reading his books after seeing how grandiose his claims are compared with the actuality of what happened. [0] Including one which recommends Dan Ariely - somewhat awkward nowadays.

deleted 4mo ago

[deleted]

tastyface 4mo ago

Civil strife? If it comes to violence, I (a white person) certainly won't be on the side of the white nationalists. Same for most of my peers. Many of us love living in multicultural societies and will fight to protect our neighbors and our way of life.

Saline9515 4mo ago
Why is "civil war" the default situation here? How about domestic terrorism for instance? Will you be on the side of the muslim terrorists who beheaded teachers and priests (among others), and killed 132 concert-goers (and injured 413 others) at the Bataclan in 2015? Will you tell the french people who were slaughtered that it was the price to live in a multicultural society?Damn. Even if you don't go as far as terrorism, it's simple: multi-ethnic societies favor either identity politics (aka clientelism) or authoritarianism (only way to avoid it). The USA is a great example for this: the previous administration played identity politics to the maximum, and the new one used it to impose authoritarianism. It's very hard, if not impossible to escape this loop once you are in a minority-only society. And of course you have to deal with collapsing social trust. The USA isn't the ultimate lawyer society, and the most armed one by pure chance. It's a logical consequence.
- tastyface 4mo ago
  What do the Bataclan terrorists have to do with 99.9999% of the Muslim population? Absolutely nothing. (Or, at least, as much as neo-Nazis have to do with the native white population.) Fact is, most people are extremely normal and just want to live in peace. I'll be on the side of my nice Muslim neighbors (who did nothing wrong to anyone) against the red-faced white supremacist mobs. It is very obviously the correct moral position and will be viewed as such by our descendants. In the US, the most heavily armed communities also tend to be the least diverse. It is largely a consequence of insular paranoia and hatred stoked by right-wing media.
  - snackerblues 4mo ago
    [flagged]
    - tastyface 4mo ago
      I'm actually a Christian from a conservative branch of the faith, but thanks for your input.
  - Saline9515 4mo ago
    > What do the Bataclan terrorists have to do with 99.9999% of the Muslim population? They share the same religion and ethnicity. French muslims were actually a large contingent in Daesh forces. This is a classic "no true scotsman" fallacy. Every muslim will tell you that the Charlie Hebdo covers about Muhammad were "haram" - because that's exactly what their religion says. Not that they are all bad people, just like you had nice soviets, or I'm sure that there a nice North Korean Juche party members, too. You seem to be acting like an ostrich, putting your head in the sand to avoid problems. Face reality and read about Islam, which is inherently a political religion. Read also about the Muslim Brotherhood (or similar orgs). > US armed communities. How about latino gangs? Are they operating with nerf guns? Besides, the safest places in the US are those that are monoethnic, such as New Hampshire.
    - constantius 4mo ago
      Your observation about multi-ethnic societies is rather interesting (though I would add slme caveats), but then you unfortunately are blinded by your preconceptions. The parent comment is right about 99.9...% of Muslims not being in any way related to terrorism. A large country with 10% of Muslims being a large minority in a small terrorist force is not surprising. I would bet that Americans and foreigners in general are a large minority in Canadian far-right groups, for example. The drawings of Muhammad were objectively haram, as you say, but almost none of the people who'd agree to that would also agree that murder was the right answer. You can be anti-immigration without descending into racism and Islamophobia, actually it would greatly reinforce your points.

mrtesthah 4mo ago

>democracy incentivizes clientelism and tribalism Cite your peer reviewed sources.

Saline9515 4mo ago
This is a good intro by recognized researchers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dictator%27s_Handbook https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dictator%27s_Handbook If you want me to be more precise, I would say that clientelism and tribalism are especially rewarded for politicians in a multi-ethnic society. Also a good definition: https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/clientelism/E23ABE885BA3D5DF0D3ABD1260D492D0 https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/clientelism/E23ABE88...
- zimpenfish 4mo ago
  "Michael C. Moynihan reviewing the book for The Wall Street Journal stated that the writing style is similar to that of Freakonomics." Ouch. If someone said that about a book I'd written, I would simply move to a forest and never write a single word again. Quite the damning review.
  - Saline9515 4mo ago
    I told you that it was an intro. Here is the more serious book, by the same authors: https://direct.mit.edu/books/monograph/2425/The-Logic-of-Political-Survival https://direct.mit.edu/books/monograph/2425/The-Logic-of-Pol... And there is nothing wrong with vulgarization, aside from comments from pedantic HNers.
    - zimpenfish 4mo ago
      > And there is nothing wrong with vulgarization My comment wasn't about vulgarisation - it was about Freakonomics' loose approach to rigour and consequent debunking of, IIRC, most of the book. A quick search for "Bruce Bueno de Mesquita" throws up similar debunkings[0] and yeah, I'll not be reading his books after seeing how grandiose his claims are compared with the actuality of what happened. [0] Including one which recommends Dan Ariely - somewhat awkward nowadays.