U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-05-2014, 02:28 AM
 
Location: Las Vegas,Nevada
9,427 posts, read 5,545,081 times
Reputation: 1530

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Votre_Chef View Post
There was no way to illegally immigrate at the time. For someone who overuses the term "non sequitur" you just provided a great example of one.



Actually, at the time, they literally bought votes.

And the arguments that are being used on this thread are nearly the exact same ones used against every other immigrant group that ever came here. Just more crude.
Did they have a welfare system that enable it?

Any they was a massive problem with people coming here illegally then.

No, ours are valid.

We also have 140 years have seeing what works and what does not. Clearly we are doing is not and can not work.

 
Old 08-05-2014, 02:33 AM
 
2,687 posts, read 1,773,226 times
Reputation: 1459
Quote:
Originally Posted by gunlover View Post
Did they have a welfare system that enable it?
In a way. They had lucrative political patronage they used as a reward for favors. They had political graft and they flat-out paid cash for votes. There was no civil service system back in the day, all government jobs were by appointment and many of them were lucrative.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunlover View Post
Any they was a massive problem with people coming here illegally then.
Are you saying there was or wasn't a problem back then? People like you seemed to think it was a huge problem back then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gunlover View Post
No, ours are valid.

We also have 140 years have seeing what works and what does not. Clearly we are doing is not and can not work.
What you have is hysteria and nothing more.
 
Old 08-05-2014, 02:37 AM
 
Location: Las Vegas,Nevada
9,427 posts, read 5,545,081 times
Reputation: 1530
Quote:
Originally Posted by Votre_Chef View Post
In a way. They had lucrative political patronage they used as a reward for favors. They had political graft and they flat-out paid cash for votes. There was no civil service system back in the day, all government jobs were by appointment and many of them were lucrative.
No did they have welfare the enable immigration?

Quote:
Are you saying there was or wasn't a problem back then? People like you seemed to think it was a huge problem back then.

It was a problem, and it was solved by stopping the flow of immigration to reasonable levels.


Quote:
What you have is hysteria and nothing more.
What you have is emotionalism and voter block importation and nothing more.
 
Old 08-05-2014, 02:45 AM
 
2,687 posts, read 1,773,226 times
Reputation: 1459
Quote:
Originally Posted by gunlover View Post
No did they have welfare the enable immigration?
Free land. Does that count? What other country was giving out free land?




Quote:
Originally Posted by gunlover View Post
It was a problem, and it was solved by stopping the flow of immigration to reasonable levels.
It wasn't a problem.



Quote:
Originally Posted by gunlover View Post
What you have is emotionalism and voter block importation and nothing more.
I'm not the one getting emotional and employing hyperbole, liberally no less.
 
Old 08-05-2014, 02:50 AM
 
10,346 posts, read 7,631,051 times
Reputation: 4520
Diversity and multiculturalism is not something to like or not like---it simply IS.

The state of the world or any nation is by nature diverse and multicultural. You can't mandate, or politicize it away.

Political forces like the Third Reich tried to force a homogeneous culture on a country, and look what happened there.
 
Old 08-05-2014, 07:52 AM
 
20,611 posts, read 12,350,866 times
Reputation: 5895
Quote:
Originally Posted by Votre_Chef View Post
I liked this argument better the first time I heard it, when it was being used in the late 1840s by the Know-Nothings against the Irish. The Know-Nothings had a panache and style that modern day far right extremists just seem to lack.
I'm of Irish family. Tho some of my people came here in the 1840's; I don't care. I'm NOT a hooligan or a drunkard and, I'd GLADLY call the cops against their kind if my "ancestors" came here in 2014 acting the fool.
 
Old 08-05-2014, 08:36 AM
 
1,736 posts, read 1,423,426 times
Reputation: 521
Furthering the OP's point, its also no wonder that states with the most segregated schools are in predominantly blue/liberal states:


The most segregated schools may not be in the states you’d expect - The Washington Post

In a very blue county in Maryland, the top school systems are also facing this dilemma as well with faltering test scores, even among racial groups with a widening achievement gap:

Those ‘great’ Montgomery County schools? They were once. Maybe they can be again.
 
Old 08-05-2014, 08:52 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
7,192 posts, read 4,346,058 times
Reputation: 2647
Quote:
Originally Posted by ellemint View Post
Diversity and multiculturalism is not something to like or not like---it simply IS.

The state of the world or any nation is by nature diverse and multicultural. You can't mandate, or politicize it away.

Political forces like the Third Reich tried to force a homogeneous culture on a country, and look what happened there.

My view isn't in opposition to diversity and multiculturalism on any principle. I just believe that diversity and multiculturalism are completely artificial. Diversity and multiculturalism really only exists as a product of government intervention. In a "natural state" of humanity, people tend to be at least mildly hostile towards people who are dissimilar from them(especially culturally).

The natural state of the world is "tribal", ethnocentric, and family-oriented(IE your ancestry, which relates somewhat to race).


If we were to wake up tomorrow without government, multiculturalism would disappear. It cannot exist without government. And those who try to force it on society, are trying to recreate humanity in some idealistic vision. Which completely ignores "human-nature". And the irony of diversity and multiculturalism, is that over the long-term it can only produce one of two things, a new mono-culture(an amalgamation of the former cultures), or perpetual tension.


Basically, if you think diversity is important, the best thing you can do is create strong separations of diverse people, to prevent acculturation. If you do not, in time, all diversity will be lost.

Acculturation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If the policy of diversity and multiculturalism was to continue. Then at some point in the future, there will be only one language, one culture, and nothing but "brown-people". All diversity will necessarily be lost.

The irony is that, only those people who are hostile to diversity, will actually be able to sustain diversity.


Which comes to the problem with the argument over diversity. Over the short-term, diversity and multiculturalism is a nightmare for society. It creates nothing but violence and hatred. But you could argue that it is the beginning of a process which will eventually "unite the world". Which would lower the possibility of "war". Or even intercultural violence(IE genocides).

Though it would have significant economic and political benefits. Where international corporations will have better and more stable access to resources and markets.


Which comes to my position on the world itself. I HATE when people talk about how humans are "evolving", or that "society is evolving". The word is both incorrect, as well as deleterious to reality.


The truth is, humans are not evolving. They may be changing or adapting. But they are not evolving. People are people, and they have a "human-nature". Which is very "social". The happiness of people relies almost entirely on their relationships with other people. The rest mostly derives from their expectations from life. Material well-being plays a very minor role.


The sort of epitome of human happiness would be small-scale and/or tribal. It is what humans lived in for hundreds of thousands of years until very recent history. The departure from that dynamic is having profound emotional and social effects.


Which is why in a bit of irony, the Amish are significantly more happy than the average person.

Which comes to my next point. There is the question about, if you could live in any time in history, when would it be?

Most people, upon analyzing that question, realize that they like the current time the most. And they believe strongly that if they were to live in pretty much any other time in history, they would be miserable. And to some extent, they would be correct. But does that mean their ancestors were miserable?


The truth is, it is highly likely that in many times in history, our ancestors were much happier on average than we are. Even the hard life of a peasant, serf, or even a slave, was probably more happy than most of the people who are so unhappy with life, that they get on the internet and constantly complain about it.

Basically, if you had been born 1,000 years ago, you would probably have lived a much more contented life than you do now.

Were peasants happy? : AskHistorians

BBC NEWS | Health | Medieval diets 'far more healthy'

Preindustrial workers worked fewer hours than today's


Which leaves us with the old statement "Religion is an opiate for the masses".

Opium of the people - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Karl Marx's criticism of religion, is that man created religion as a means to deal with the cruelty of the world. His objective was to eliminate all the bad in the world, thereby making religion unnecessary. Which is a noble goal, but also an impossible one. You cannot take an imperfect being and make him perfect. Death is an inevitability.

Thus, sadly, religion makes us happy. Community makes us happy. A feeling of place in the world makes us happy. And family makes us happy. Any departure from that is counterproductive.

Religious Beliefs Make People Happier

Dan Gilbert: The surprising science of happiness | Talk Video | TED.com


I find the "natural state of the world" to most closely align with what humans naturally desire. And the products of government, to stand in stark opposition to human happiness. Diversity and multiculturalism is just a small part of my overall hatred of government intervention and social-engineering.

The difficulty here, is trying to convince people that those things that they think make them happy, don't actually make them happy. In fact, they are in most cases the cause of their unhappiness. We have been indoctrinated to believe that stuff makes us happy. And if only we had more stuff, we would be more happy. It is the hedonic treadmill. And it is a fallacy.

One of my favorite quotes is by Adam Smith. You should read the entire quote. But I'll try to sum it up.

Quote by Adam Smith:

It basically says, "For those people who think the grass is always greener on the other side. Not only are they miserable, but in most cases, they are also the source of misery for the rest of humanity."


I say, just leave people alone.
 
Old 08-05-2014, 09:14 AM
 
9,224 posts, read 5,717,374 times
Reputation: 5304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Backspace View Post
I don't hate diversity or multiculturalism at all, I'm just against forcing it on people when it doesn't naturally happen because all that does is create tension and division between groups of people.
Pretty much this in a nutshell..
 
Old 08-05-2014, 10:27 AM
 
5,695 posts, read 2,151,164 times
Reputation: 2970
I think the key point that has been glossed over in this thread and in the larger "diversity, or not diversity, that is the question" discussion is that the people either claiming to claim to "hate" diversity or being credited/blamed for being haters don't hate difference so much as they hate BEING FORCED into believing and participating in the entire cult of diversity/multiculturalism which itself is based on skin color more than culture to begin with.

Very rare is the person who is all "speak English or DIE!!" (props to Scott Ian for such poetry), and much more common is the "Okie doke, don't learn English, but don't force me to change my entire way of life to accommodate your desire to not assimilate to the national culture that was here before your immigrated here."

That's where most people labeled haters fall...be whatever/whoever/however you want, but don't force me to buy it, like it, be part of it, whatever.

Do I think kwanzaa is a bunch of fruit loop nonsense invented by a domestic terrorist? Yep. So don't make me "honor it" for something it isn't. Do athesist think my beliefs about Christmas are the same kind of fruit loop nonsense? Probably, but I am not asking an atheist to accept, like or honor my beliefs regarding Christmas. My skin color, religion, gender, sexual preference, etc do not give me license to force others to believe as I do or honor my beliefs as they would their own. Nobody's skin color, religion, gender or sexual preference does. And that is what is opposed. Being forced to honor, change, adapt, etc to people who want their own separate chunk of America bent to their will.

What is going on in America is a more peaceful version of the Middle East. Some distant overlord somewhere has decided to jam different tribes together, ordered them to all get along, and never once has asked anyone in the tribes at large how they feel about it. It is engineered resentment foisted on us by government meddling into affairs that are none of their concern. That is what people "hate" and what they object to.

If I want to be friends with people who look different from me, it should be completely my choice. If I want to be friends with only people who are exactly like me, that too should be my choice. If I want to think Kwanzaa is retarded, that should be my choice. If I want to not associate with gay people, or left handed people, or people who wear too much aftershave....all my choice, or at least should be. It's forcing people to like each other by government mandate...that's what people hate. Diversity and multiculturalism are government ordering the children to be friends even if they don't really like each other or want to. It's forced association, and people generally don't like it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top