Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 31 to 53 of 53

Thread: Christchurch massacre

  1. #31
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    12,833

    Default Re: Christchurch massacre

    Quote Originally Posted by Strike For The South View Post
    So, que sera sera? Let the chips fall where they may? Time to take a bow? Unable or unwilling to change?
    No, you confront it.

    However, you need to do so in a measured way - with carefully considered responses.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  2. #32
    Ni dieu ni maître! Senior Member a completely inoffensive name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    I live on the org, feeding off of what few thanks are tossed at my posts. It is up to you to make sure I don't starve.
    Posts
    8,304
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Christchurch massacre

    The Spongebob quote is "What is today but yesterday's tomorrow."

    You whole arguement clearly falls apart.
    In all these papers we see a love of honest work, an aversion to shams, a caution in the enunciation of conclusions, a distrust of rash generalizations and speculations based on uncertain premises. He was never anxious to add one more guess on doubtful matters in the hope of hitting the truth, or what might pass as such for a time, but was always ready to take infinite pains in the most careful testing of every theory. With these qualities was united a modesty which forbade the pushing of his own claims and desired no reputation except the unsought tribute of competent judges.

    Member thankful for this post:



  3. #33
    Ni dieu ni maître! Senior Member a completely inoffensive name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    I live on the org, feeding off of what few thanks are tossed at my posts. It is up to you to make sure I don't starve.
    Posts
    8,304
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Christchurch massacre

    Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
    The point is that the social fabric is already rather thin. About the only thing most people can agree on these days is not killing each other and in America even that's not a given.

    No shared culture, no shared religion... Some countries like the UK have a monarch to rally behind but that's an inconsistent glue at best.

    Basically, our lack of extremism makes us vulnerable to extremism. Kinda "virtue is a double-sided sword" situation.
    Your description in the first chunk seems to be a general description of human society in all its forms.

    What exactly makes pluralistic societies any weaker than homogeneous ones? Are we to believe that violence and tension in society only became a thing about when 20th century multiculturalism arrived?
    In all these papers we see a love of honest work, an aversion to shams, a caution in the enunciation of conclusions, a distrust of rash generalizations and speculations based on uncertain premises. He was never anxious to add one more guess on doubtful matters in the hope of hitting the truth, or what might pass as such for a time, but was always ready to take infinite pains in the most careful testing of every theory. With these qualities was united a modesty which forbade the pushing of his own claims and desired no reputation except the unsought tribute of competent judges.

  4. #34
    Backordered Member CrossLOPER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Brass heart.
    Posts
    2,265

    Default Re: Christchurch massacre

    Quote Originally Posted by Husar View Post
    I think it was 8chan, not 4chan.
    4chan, in general, has a large amount of boards, some of them serving as containment cells for more annoying or extreme content. /pol/, for example, is an extension of /news/ which was killed TWICE because it became a stormfronter haven. The newer board basically holds all the frog memes, while /r9k/ holds all the incels.

    There are other boards dedicated to nature and animals, transpeople, various types of (specifically legal) porn, and computer hardware.

    8chan essentially consists of loli porn and fascist memes.
    Requesting suggestions for new sig.

    -><- GOGOGO GOGOGO WINLAND WINLAND ALL HAIL TECHNOVIKING!SCHUMACHER!
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    WHY AM I NOT BEING PAID FOR THIS???

  5. #35
    Hǫrđar Member Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hordaland, Norway
    Posts
    6,317

    Default Re: Christchurch massacre

    Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
    Your description in the first chunk seems to be a general description of human society in all its forms.

    What exactly makes pluralistic societies any weaker than homogeneous ones? Are we to believe that violence and tension in society only became a thing about when 20th century multiculturalism arrived?
    You are to believe that heterogeneous societies on average are more violent and less functional than homogeneous societies.


    When you look at the 2018 Human Development Index, you'll notice that the top is dominated by relatively ethnically homogeneous societies (Switzerland's position is interesting, but that's ironically also a country that banned the construction of new minarets in a popular referendum).

    One could also note that the list is dominated by countries from the West and Europe. At the same time, a large and resourceful country like Russia scores well below all the other European big powers. Incidentally, by many measures, Russia is also the most ethnically diverse European country, with several of its republics dominated demographically by ethnicities other than the Russian one.



    If I did my counting right, among the European countries that used to be part of the Eastern Bloc, 9 score better than Russia (Czechia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Poland, Latvia, Croatia, Hungary, Lithuania and Estonia) and 10 score worse (Bulgaria, Romania, Montenegro, Ukraine, Belarus, Albania, Serbia, Northern Macedonia, Bosnia, Moldova).

    Of the 10 countries scoring worse, 4 (Montenegro, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Northern Macedonia) were part of the multi-ethnic disaster that was Yugoslavia, and the country that retains the most ethnic diversity of these, Bosnia and Herzegovina, scores the fourth lowest among all European countries.

    The lowest-scoring European country is Moldova, which incidentally contains the frozen conflict zone of Transnistria, which has a significantly different ethnic composition compared to the rest of the country (Russians and Ukrainians form more than half of the population in Transnistria). The country scoring second lowest is Ukraine, which also has significant ethnicity-related tension between the eastern and western parts, and between Crimea and the rest. The third lowest is Northern Macedonia, which is also very ethnically heterogeneous, with ethnic Macedonians forming only 60-70% of the population.


    On the other side of the divide, you mostly find relatively ethnically homogeneous countries: Poland, Hungary, Czechia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Lithuania and Croatia. You also find Latvia and Estonia, which both have sizeable Russian minorities, but I get the impression that both of these countries have successfully been building nation states based on the Latvian and Estonian ethnicities, respectively, rather than opting for a more inclusive model.

    Similarly, you can say that the US traditionally have been building a nation state centred on predominant European ancestry (perhaps we can also add the adjective Protestant), a project that only recently truly has been reshaped into to something less European-centric and generally more pluralistic, together with a massive change in demographics. Not long afterwards, the US got Trump as president. I don't think that is a coincidence.
    Last edited by Viking; 03-20-2019 at 13:22.
    Runes for good luck:

    [1 - exp(i*2π)]^-1

  6. #36
    Member Member Gilrandir's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    3,724

    Default Re: Christchurch massacre

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post

    The country scoring second lowest is Ukraine, which also has significant ethnicity-related tension between the eastern and western parts, and between Crimea and the rest.
    It is not correct. Nowhere in Ukraine (except the now occupied Сrimea) Russians dominate.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	400px-Russians_Ukraine_2001.PNG 
Views:	10 
Size:	94.4 KB 
ID:	22340

    Moreover, "tensions" is too strong a word. "Differences" would be closer to the mark, and they are rather worldview- than ethnicity-related.
    Quote Originally Posted by Suraknar View Post
    The article exists for a reason yes, I did not write it...

  7. #37
    Hǫrđar Member Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hordaland, Norway
    Posts
    6,317

    Default Re: Christchurch massacre

    I did not say that ethnic Russians dominate in the east, but that there is a difference between the west and the east in terms of ethnic identity, which has had an impact on national politics. As your map shows, there are clear gradients relating to ethnic identity (north-south could also be mentioned, I forgot about Odesa).

    Whether you want to use the word ethnicity or not is more a question of definition: small regional differences and groups of people that have had separate lineages and no direct contact for thousands of years are all on a spectrum.
    Runes for good luck:

    [1 - exp(i*2π)]^-1

  8. #38
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    12,833

    Default Re: Christchurch massacre

    Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
    Your description in the first chunk seems to be a general description of human society in all its forms.

    What exactly makes pluralistic societies any weaker than homogeneous ones? Are we to believe that violence and tension in society only became a thing about when 20th century multiculturalism arrived?
    We define what we are by what we are not. We suppress our differences by emphasising the differences we share with another "out" group.

    For the Greeks and Romans this was the Barbarians; for the Christians, the Pagans (and later the Muslims); for the Europeans it was the non-whites.

    Now we suppress the instinct to other people - we are all equal, all beliefs, all cultural practises are equally valid. This emphasises all our differences, which undermines social cohesion.

    That's not a problem when everyone has enough money and enough to eat - it becomes a problem if/when times are hard.

    We got Trump, and Macron, and Brexit, in part because times are hard and in part because our societies are fragmented and therefore our social currents have become unpredictable.

    This guy picked his out-group - Muslims - and he then went ahead and started killing them because they threaten his in-group (non Muslims). How do Muslims threaten non Muslims you ask? Simple, Islam is a missionary faith that seeks to subsume all of humanity and the Christians are no longer actively trying to stop them (via counter-conversions).

    You want my advice? We should all be less accepting and more tollerant.

    Now, can we talk about saving your eternal soul from fiery damnation? Or would you prefer to discuss reintegrating america into the Empire?

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    I mean SPQR, obviously.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."

    Members thankful for this post (2):



  9. #39
    Ni dieu ni maître! Senior Member a completely inoffensive name's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    I live on the org, feeding off of what few thanks are tossed at my posts. It is up to you to make sure I don't starve.
    Posts
    8,304
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default Re: Christchurch massacre

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    You are to believe that heterogeneous societies on average are more violent and less functional than homogeneous societies.


    When you look at the 2018 Human Development Index, you'll notice that the top is dominated by relatively ethnically homogeneous societies (Switzerland's position is interesting, but that's ironically also a country that banned the construction of new minarets in a popular referendum).

    One could also note that the list is dominated by countries from the West and Europe. At the same time, a large and resourceful country like Russia scores well below all the other European big powers. Incidentally, by many measures, Russia is also the most ethnically diverse European country, with several of its republics dominated demographically by ethnicities other than the Russian one.

    If I did my counting right, among the European countries that used to be part of the Eastern Bloc, 9 score better than Russia (Czechia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Poland, Latvia, Croatia, Hungary, Lithuania and Estonia) and 10 score worse (Bulgaria, Romania, Montenegro, Ukraine, Belarus, Albania, Serbia, Northern Macedonia, Bosnia, Moldova).

    Of the 10 countries scoring worse, 4 (Montenegro, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Northern Macedonia) were part of the multi-ethnic disaster that was Yugoslavia, and the country that retains the most ethnic diversity of these, Bosnia and Herzegovina, scores the fourth lowest among all European countries.

    The lowest-scoring European country is Moldova, which incidentally contains the frozen conflict zone of Transnistria, which has a significantly different ethnic composition compared to the rest of the country (Russians and Ukrainians form more than half of the population in Transnistria). The country scoring second lowest is Ukraine, which also has significant ethnicity-related tension between the eastern and western parts, and between Crimea and the rest. The third lowest is Northern Macedonia, which is also very ethnically heterogeneous, with ethnic Macedonians forming only 60-70% of the population.


    On the other side of the divide, you mostly find relatively ethnically homogeneous countries: Poland, Hungary, Czechia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Lithuania and Croatia. You also find Latvia and Estonia, which both have sizeable Russian minorities, but I get the impression that both of these countries have successfully been building nation states based on the Latvian and Estonian ethnicities, respectively, rather than opting for a more inclusive model.

    Similarly, you can say that the US traditionally have been building a nation state centred on predominant European ancestry (perhaps we can also add the adjective Protestant), a project that only recently truly has been reshaped into to something less European-centric and generally more pluralistic, together with a massive change in demographics. Not long afterwards, the US got Trump as president. I don't think that is a coincidence.
    This a lot of conjecture and half cocked assertions. Your argument looks weak when you make a generalization like that. We would need to take that list and deep dive into the data country by country, to see if there exists a real correlation with demographic composition.
    Australia is #3 and according to it's 2011 census has 26% of its residents born overseas. native born citizens with one foreign born parent make up another 20% of the population.

    For Germany at #5 20% of the population has foreign roots (i.e. not ethnically German). Singapore at #9 is a 75-14-9 breakdown for Chinese, Malay, and Indian. This is just a sample of what stood out to me in the top 10. Are these not multicultural countries?

    The evidence presented is essentially that the remnants of Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union and countries under the Iron Curtain, which under went civil war and economic collapse (respectively) twenty five years ago are lower on the index...because of multiculturalism?
    Viking, I don't mean to sound dismissive, but the argument has to be better than this. Russia is struggling because of it has an oligarchical economy and a tyrannical government interested in preserving the oligarchy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
    We define what we are by what we are not. We suppress our differences by emphasising the differences we share with another "out" group.

    For the Greeks and Romans this was the Barbarians; for the Christians, the Pagans (and later the Muslims); for the Europeans it was the non-whites.

    Now we suppress the instinct to other people - we are all equal, all beliefs, all cultural practises are equally valid. This emphasises all our differences, which undermines social cohesion.

    That's not a problem when everyone has enough money and enough to eat - it becomes a problem if/when times are hard.

    We got Trump, and Macron, and Brexit, in part because times are hard and in part because our societies are fragmented and therefore our social currents have become unpredictable.

    This guy picked his out-group - Muslims - and he then went ahead and started killing them because they threaten his in-group (non Muslims). How do Muslims threaten non Muslims you ask? Simple, Islam is a missionary faith that seeks to subsume all of humanity and the Christians are no longer actively trying to stop them (via counter-conversions).

    You want my advice? We should all be less accepting and more tollerant.

    Now, can we talk about saving your eternal soul from fiery damnation? Or would you prefer to discuss reintegrating america into the Empire?

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    I mean SPQR, obviously.
    Western liberal democracies by their nature hold certain philosophies above others. We define ourselves by those philosophical underpinnings and against those who do not share those same values.

    In my opinion, the emphasis on managing race/demographics is the endgame for those that commit these shootings. We are feeding into their plan and further undermine social cohesion by framing the situation in this way.
    We already have a perfectly suitable framework of competing ideas regarding individualistic expression and the relationship of a population and their government with which we can call ourselves "us" and other nations/groups "them".

    Those that are German are the ones who believe in upholding the German constitution and the values it espouses. Same with the Americans, and the British...
    When you start to worry about law abiding "paki's" who are there to live in peace, in accordance with the law, simply because their appearance and behavior in society is no longer statistically insignificant leads us to policies that can only result in the type of racial policing ripe for Nazi's/bigots to abuse.

    That's my take on the situation at least.
    Last edited by a completely inoffensive name; 03-21-2019 at 05:47.
    In all these papers we see a love of honest work, an aversion to shams, a caution in the enunciation of conclusions, a distrust of rash generalizations and speculations based on uncertain premises. He was never anxious to add one more guess on doubtful matters in the hope of hitting the truth, or what might pass as such for a time, but was always ready to take infinite pains in the most careful testing of every theory. With these qualities was united a modesty which forbade the pushing of his own claims and desired no reputation except the unsought tribute of competent judges.

    Member thankful for this post:

    Husar 


  10. #40
    Backordered Member CrossLOPER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Brass heart.
    Posts
    2,265

    Default Re: Christchurch massacre

    I would like to interrupt the current line of discussion and ask: "When are we going to arm the Muslims?"

    There have been constant proposals to arm teachers in the wake of school shootings, so why not give guns to Muslims to protect them from Frog Worshipers??
    Requesting suggestions for new sig.

    -><- GOGOGO GOGOGO WINLAND WINLAND ALL HAIL TECHNOVIKING!SCHUMACHER!
    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    WHY AM I NOT BEING PAID FOR THIS???

    Member thankful for this post:

    Husar 


  11. #41
    Hǫrđar Member Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hordaland, Norway
    Posts
    6,317

    Default Re: Christchurch massacre

    Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
    Australia is #3 and according to it's 2011 census has 26% of its residents born overseas. native born citizens with one foreign born parent make up another 20% of the population.

    For Germany at #5 20% of the population has foreign roots (i.e. not ethnically German). Singapore at #9 is a 75-14-9 breakdown for Chinese, Malay, and Indian. This is just a sample of what stood out to me in the top 10. Are these not multicultural countries?
    I distinguish between ethnic diversity that has been part of a country traditionally (for centuries) and ethnic diversity stemming from migration in the last years and decades. This latter type of diversity has had much less time to have an effect on a country. I.e. the legal framework of the country, its form of government and e.g. the amount of trust in society and the state.

    For example, ~12% of Germany's estimated population of September 2018 of about 83 million did not even have German citizenship. I imagine migrant workers constitute a sizeable fraction of this group, most of whom may eventually return to their home countries.

    Singapore is an interesting example, but it's very much an oddball, being a city-state. It's also considered authoritarian by many. If it tried to convert into a liberal democracy, would that work as well?

    The evidence presented is essentially that the remnants of Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union and countries under the Iron Curtain, which under went civil war and economic collapse (respectively) twenty five years ago are lower on the index...because of multiculturalism?
    No, that among countries from the former Eastern Bloc, the more ethnically diverse tend to score the lowest; and that Russia scores poorly despite being so big and resourceful. It has had plenty of time to build and rebuild since the fall of the Soviet Union (I'll return to this topic below).

    This a lot of conjecture and half cocked assertions. Your argument looks weak when you make a generalization like that. We would need to take that list and deep dive into the data country by country, to see if there exists a real correlation with demographic composition.

    [..]

    Viking, I don't mean to sound dismissive, but the argument has to be better than this. Russia is struggling because of it has an oligarchical economy and a tyrannical government interested in preserving the oligarchy.
    The analysis was made on the fly, so it can only go uphill from here..

    It would be interesting to do a more thorough analysis, but there are many different metrics to use, and it's very important to include all relevant variables in the analysis; a sample size of 189 for this kind of complex analysis is rather small, I'd think.

    Comparing countries originating from the former Eastern Bloc has the advantage that they share significant back story, while at the same time being very different in terms of ethnic composition. Comparing countries like, say, Iceland, Spain, Togo and East Timor means accounting for many more variables that do not directly relate to ethnic diversity; something that makes the analysis for all the 189 countries difficult to do. Miss one variable important for just one country, and maybe the conclusion of the analysis changes.


    But why is Russia an authoritarian oligarchy? My hypothesis is that this strongly relates to its traditional ethnic diversity, which has made the Russians not relate to the state as being of and for the (Russian) nation. The Russian state is instead an instrument to keep the ethnically diverse Russian federation together, a relatively intact remnant of the Russian Empire; therefore, the Russian state in its current form can be seen as fulfilling its duties to the Russian people: the empire hasn't crumbled. Quite the opposite, in fact: Crimea was recently reacquired, even if the rest of Ukraine is slipping away, and this gave Putin a popularity boost that makes perfect sense when you view the role of the Russian state this way:

    “After Crimea was annexed, there was a sense of almost universal euphoria,” said Masha Lipman, a Moscow-based independent policy expert. She noted the majority of Russians still feel proud about the annexation of Crimea but “it no longer works the way it had, it does not improve the mood.”

    A poll this month by the Public Opinion Foundation, a Moscow-based survey firm, said most Russians continue to support the annexation, but also indicated an increasing public awareness of its costs.
    If you compare Russia with the UK, you can see that whereas the UK has let go of most of its imperial acquisitions; in some sense, most of the Russian Empire is, as mentioned, still intact. Imagine if the UK contained several Northern Irelands as well as many mini-Waleses and mini-Scotlands, each with its own distinct culture and language. I don't think that would be very good for British democracy at all (even Scotland in its present form manages to complicate matters, not to mention what Northern Ireland does), although it's of course difficult to tell how severe the impact would have been.

    Western liberal democracies by their nature hold certain philosophies above others. We define ourselves by those philosophical underpinnings and against those who do not share those same values.
    If this is all that defines you as a person, you'd be quite a nebulous individual. What about your ideas of good manners and bad manners? What about your views on moral right and wrong? What about your views on appropriateness (or lack thereof)? What about the choices you make about which clothes to wear and which not to? What defines you here? Where does those definitions come from?

    We already have a perfectly suitable framework of competing ideas regarding individualistic expression and the relationship of a population and their government with which we can call ourselves "us" and other nations/groups "them".

    Those that are German are the ones who believe in upholding the German constitution and the values it espouses. Same with the Americans, and the British...
    It's a bit ironic to use the the term individualistic expression in this context, considering that multiculturalism in practice is the opposite of individualism. People tend to follow the culture they grew up in, and to a great extent, the religion they were raised with.

    Regarding laws, often people don't simply want to uphold the them or the constitution, but to change them. Ethnicity can be an important predicting factor for whether an individual want the law changed, and how. What's a German then?
    Last edited by Viking; 03-21-2019 at 11:09.
    Runes for good luck:

    [1 - exp(i*2π)]^-1

  12. #42
    Member Member Gilrandir's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    3,724

    Default Re: Christchurch massacre

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    I did not say that ethnic Russians dominate in the east, but that there is a difference between the west and the east in terms of ethnic identity, which has had an impact on national politics. As your map shows, there are clear gradients relating to ethnic identity (north-south could also be mentioned, I forgot about Odesa).

    Whether you want to use the word ethnicity or not is more a question of definition: small regional differences and groups of people that have had separate lineages and no direct contact for thousands of years are all on a spectrum.
    It was you who inacurately used the word "ethnicity", not me.

    And once again, there is no difference in ethnic identity. The extant differences may relate to language, culture, history, worldview, confession, but not to ethnicity. All of the people who may differ in those still call themselves Ukrainians.
    Quote Originally Posted by Suraknar View Post
    The article exists for a reason yes, I did not write it...

  13. #43
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    12,833

    Default Re: Christchurch massacre

    Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
    That's my take on the situation at least.
    Only Rome and a Good Emperor can save us, ACIN, there is no other way.

    Only when Rome stretches from Sea to Sea and all therein are Roman will we be safe.
    Last edited by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus; 03-21-2019 at 16:55.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  14. #44
    Hǫrđar Member Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hordaland, Norway
    Posts
    6,317

    Default Re: Christchurch massacre

    Quote Originally Posted by Gilrandir View Post
    The extant differences may relate to language, culture, history, worldview, confession [...]
    Precisely such things relate to the concept of ethnicity.
    Runes for good luck:

    [1 - exp(i*2π)]^-1

  15. #45
    Member Member Gilrandir's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    3,724

    Default Re: Christchurch massacre

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    Precisely such things relate to the concept of ethnicity.
    Yet they don't constitute it. People may belong to one ethnicity, but worship different gods, speak different languages, have different views on their history, but acknopwledge the fact that they still have something in common which is not cancelled by these differences.
    Quote Originally Posted by Suraknar View Post
    The article exists for a reason yes, I did not write it...

  16. #46

    Default Re: Christchurch massacre

    Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
    We define what we are by what we are not. We suppress our differences by emphasising the differences we share with another "out" group.

    For the Greeks and Romans this was the Barbarians; for the Christians, the Pagans (and later the Muslims); for the Europeans it was the non-whites.

    Now we suppress the instinct to other people - we are all equal, all beliefs, all cultural practises are equally valid. This emphasises all our differences, which undermines social cohesion.

    That's not a problem when everyone has enough money and enough to eat - it becomes a problem if/when times are hard.

    We got Trump, and Macron, and Brexit, in part because times are hard and in part because our societies are fragmented and therefore our social currents have become unpredictable.
    Modern cohesive factors cut across divisions like European and Muslim, while internally each of these continue to find cohesion historically out of reach. Don't fear the "outsider", the fragmentation was inside us all along!

    Thankfully, one side effect of global civilization has been to widen the moral circle or whatever they call it. Thus new societies will be poised to form from the motley refuse of the old. The SPQR is dead forever, long live &c. Any new project of similar scale will look like Imperium of Man Human Commonwealth.

    Simple, Islam is a missionary faith that seeks to subsume all of humanity and the Christians are no longer actively trying to stop them (via counter-conversions).
    Damn, why do you think Muslims are doing more aggressive missionary work than Christians today? Ongoing missionary efforts in Asia and Africa seems to decisively dispel that impression, even where large-scale conversions in the Western Hemisphere are mostly intrafaith, Catholics being targeted by bastard forms of Calvinism and evangelism.


    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    You are to believe that heterogeneous societies on average are more violent and less functional than homogeneous societies.


    When you look at the 2018 Human Development Index, you'll notice that the top is dominated by relatively ethnically homogeneous societies (Switzerland's position is interesting, but that's ironically also a country that banned the construction of new minarets in a popular referendum).

    One could also note that the list is dominated by countries from the West and Europe. At the same time, a large and resourceful country like Russia scores well below all the other European big powers. Incidentally, by many measures, Russia is also the most ethnically diverse European country, with several of its republics dominated demographically by ethnicities other than the Russian one.
    Generally, what reason is there to abstract "homogeneity/heterogeneity" per se as an important causal factor, compared to others, in postulated dysfunction or violence? Or to the extent that it can be, I think one of the biggest weaknesses in your worldview is to emphasize ethnic dimensions as paramount, when there are actually many meaningful axes. As an example, there is a thesis that Nordic cultural homogeneity on the specific axis of social responsibility norms may in part be linked to large immigrant outflows in the 19th century - or contrarily to the underlying trends and pressures that drove those outflows. See how intricate it all is?

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Australia (#3 for HDI) is in some respects more diverse than the United States, with IIRC the majority of the population being 1st or 2nd generation immigrants. Similar with Canada (#12). Germany, Switzerland, and the UK are famously diverse even with respect to their white European populations. You'll have to be careful to specify in what ways Hong Kong and Singapore are very homogeneous. Is there any correlation between homogeneity (however you mean) and levels of functionality and violence among the countries of the Caribbean and Latin America? Seems like a rich source for comparisons. Countries in Eastern Europe may be more homogenous than those in Western Europe in terms of ethnicity, yet they score lower on HDI. Plus, how are Czechia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Lithuania and Croatia particularly less diverse than Eastern European countries? Hungary and Poland are outliers, far more mono-ethnic than any of the Nordics, really on the extreme end demographically for the continent - interestingly also the vanguard for the European fascist resurgence, corruption, etc. Clearly a monocausal theory is inadequate for explaining why the "multi-ethnic disaster" of Putin's Russia should be fascist, alongside ostensibly near-mono-ethnic Hungary and Poland.

    And do not forget that the large countries of Western Europe - UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain - have always been multi-ethnic.

    More plausible is that there are multiple historical and material contributors to why Europe looks the way it does. If you wanted to reverse-engineer European history by positing an influence of "homogeneity" (which would then have to be specified) in systematic differences or correspondences between states and societies, I think you would be left unable to accurately describe or explain much of European history as it happened. A more worthwhile angle might be to look at how institutions such as those of bureaucracy or mass education arise to mediate diversity.

    Studies of ethnic diversity in America often indicate that its long-term social cohesion is bolstered by immigration and the presence of many groups:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    Ethnic diversity is increasing in most advanced countries, driven mostly by sharp increases in immigration. In the long run immigration and diversity are likely to have important cultural, economic, fiscal, and developmental benefits. In the short run, however, immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one's own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer. In the long run, however, successful immigrant societies have overcome such fragmentation by creating new, cross‐cutting forms of social solidarity and more encompassing identities. Illustrations of becoming comfortable with diversity are drawn from the US military, religious institutions, and earlier waves of American immigration.


    At a glance, a more interesting generalization for Nordic countries, city-states, and countries like Japan, UK, United States, etc. (add in Kuwait, Qatar, UAE...) is 2/3 or 3/3 of relatively-small population size, commodity capitalization, and/or maritime-ready geography.

    I distinguish between ethnic diversity that has been part of a country traditionally (for centuries) and ethnic diversity stemming from migration in the last years and decades. This latter type of diversity has had much less time to have an effect on a country. I.e. the legal framework of the country, its form of government and e.g. the amount of trust in society and the state.
    AHA! So what you're saying is, it's a matter of time for social and civic institutions to adapt - and by corollary, for old "homogeneous" arrangements to fragment.

    James Baldwin on "traditional" diversity" in the United States:

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
    This is one of the greatest errors Americans can make. The identity they fought so hard to protect has, by virtue of that battle, undergone a change: Americans are as unlike any other white people in the world as it is possible to be. I do not think, for example, that it is too much to suggest that the American vision of the world — which allows so little reality, generally speaking, for any of the darker forces in human life, which tends until today to paint moral issues in glaring black and white — owes a great deal to the battle waged by Americans to maintain between themselves and black men a human separation which could not be bridged. It is only now beginning to be borne in on us — very faintly, it must be admitted, very slowly, and very much against our will— that this vision of the world is dangerously inaccurate, and perfectly useless. For it protects our moral high-mindedness at the terrible expense of weakening our grasp of reality. People who shut their eyes to reality simply invite their own destruction, and anyone who insists on remaining in a state of innocence long after that innocence is dead turns himself into a monster.

    The time has come to realize that the interracial drama acted out on the American continent has not only created a new black man, it has created a new white man, too. No road whatever will lead Americans back to the simplicity of this European village where white men still have the luxury of looking on me as a stranger. I am not, really, a stranger any longer for any American alive. One of the things that distinguishes Americans from other people is that no other people has ever been so deeply involved in the lives of black men, and vice versa. This fact faced, with all its implications, it can be seen that the history of the American Negro problem is not merely shameful, it is also something of an achievement. For even when the worst has been said, it must also be added that the perpetual challenge posed by this problem was always, somehow, perpetually met. It is precisely this black-white experience which may prove of indispensable value to us in the world we face today. This world is white no longer, and it will never be white again.


    For example, ~12% of Germany's estimated population of September 2018 of about 83 million did not even have German citizenship. I imagine migrant workers constitute a sizeable fraction of this group, most of whom may eventually return to their home countries.
    Speaking of traditional diversity, as mentioned above Germany is famously diverse in the sense of its deeper history. Germans are not "just" Germans - ask Austria. And Bavaria. And...

    Singapore is an interesting example, but it's very much an oddball, being a city-state. It's also considered authoritarian by many. If it tried to convert into a liberal democracy, would that work as well?
    The United States was not really a liberal democracy until basically the 20th century, but certainly not until after the Civil War. I think when local arrangements (whether in terms of granular axes or broad attributes) persist on the scale of decades, we can say that societies have found their equilibrium phase for their extant conditions. For instance I am given to understand that in the Nordics the welfare state, while generous, is stricter than most other Western countries' in pushing applicants to work. You can't mix and match instantaneously and arbitrarily what develops organically. Liberal democracy is neither automatic nor the "highest stage" of political being. If Singapore becomes more socially liberal in governance it will be because of a confluence of external world politics and internal popular upheaval. As for the present, don't take my word for it but my impression is that the general osmosis of recent history has shifted the social baselines for Singapore in many areas (e.g. cultural attitudes toward race/gender egalitarianism, LGBT, resistance to overt government repression). From the top, the interventionist Singaporean government maintains (relatively) decent levels of wealth/income inequality. Money is proven to be one of the best lubricants.


    No, that among countries from the former Eastern Bloc, the more ethnically diverse tend to score the lowest; and that Russia scores poorly despite being so big and resourceful. It has had plenty of time to build and rebuild since the fall of the Soviet Union (I'll return to this topic below).
    Does Russia lack cohesion because of its ethnic diversity - or does it have ethnic diversity because of its geographic extent, which itself depletes cohesion and incentivizes state coercion as the center of gravity?

    Remember that even the core Muscovy at the dawn of the modern era was geographically far-flung, even though it had not yet absorbed the majority of the territory and ethnicities that forms modern-day Russia. If 1520 Muscovy and 2020 Russia follow similar coercive models with top-down control and weak institutions, and 1520 Muscovy was less ethnically diverse in its subjects on paper (in fact modern Russia has the advantage of inheriting from the Soviet Union that state invention called "nation"), then Eurasian geography is probably a stronger factor. It also fits well into models that weigh geography heavily in the formation of states and societies.

    Let's up the ante: Russia gives independence to each of its regions with fewer than 50% ethnic Russians, and all those Russians migrate to the heartland. Or to simplify the scenario, all individuals of Uralic, Turkic, or Caucasian background are deported to reservations. Russia is now even more overwhelmingly mono-ethnic, with maybe a little less total territory.

    What exactly changes? Do you think Russia somehow becomes more coherent and functional? Does Petrograd become a liberal democracy because Moscow is no longer overseeing a client government in Chechnya? What exactly is the relevant positive effect of removing a few million scattered minorities here and there, all of whom are far too few in number to challenge the Russian majority in any way except for the 2 or 3 largest in their enclaves (e.g. Chechnya)?

    In fact, we have a historical scenario for just this kind of retrenchment: the dissolution of the Soviet Union. I don't think the difference between Soviet Russia and Putin's Russia supports your theory.

    Imagine if the UK contained several Northern Irelands as well as many mini-Waleses and mini-Scotlands, each with its own distinct culture and language. I don't think that would be very good for British democracy at all (even Scotland in its present form manages to complicate matters, not to mention what Northern Ireland does), although it's of course difficult to tell how severe the impact would have been.
    Why do you think the existence of governed minorities overseas is itself corrosive to British democracy, rather than the - you know - imperialism. Notably, the point I was making above is that Russia has always been an empire, and that this is tied more to territory and geopolitics than to who inhabits the territory. As long as we're sweepingly theorizing, I contend that a more effective way to make Russia less coercive would be if it lost Siberia and the Far East (overwhelmingly Russian-majority) than if it gave up Chechnya.

    It's a bit ironic to use the the term individualistic expression in this context, considering that multiculturalism in practice is the opposite of individualism. People tend to follow the culture they grew up in, and to a great extent, the religion they were raised with.
    While it would be fallacious to allege you are conversely implying that cultural exclusivism contributes to individualism, I'd like to establish outright that this is clearly historically untrue (though individuality emerges despite it).

    Independent of that, saying multiculturalism in principle - and here let me point out that pluralism and multiculturalism are not necessarily the same thing - mitigates individualism needs some justification beyond sophistry. First of all, when using "individualism" do you mean as a theoretical social form, as a political or moral philosophy, or some concrete measure of differences between persons?

    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

    Member thankful for this post:

    Husar 


  17. #47
    Apr 04-Nov 11 Senior Member Strike For The South's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Between Louis' sheets
    Posts
    10,304

    Default Re: Christchurch massacre

    Monty wrote a dissertation but I will just add that there is a great book called "From peasants into Frenchmen" that describes how the French nation became so out of a bunch of squabbling polities. Social cohesion is important but it hardly has to come out of a sacred connection of "these people to this land". Historically that has never really been the case, especially for large nations. It is very much a creation of the French revolution, cemented in the imperialist era before the first world war.

    A lot of European issues come from governments saying "oh yes we welcome immigrants" and then essentially creating an underclass of under skilled labor who they then blame (unfairly) for societal ills. There was a great times a while ago about the children of immigrants to Denmark. Part of "becoming Danish" was learning how to celebrate christmas. Which is insane considering they were muslims and christmas is the second most holy day in christendom. So the kids go through all of this "danishization" and the article ends with the parents co workers explaining to them how they will never be Danish. If I was those parents, I would be pretty miffed, to say the least.

    The goal should be social cohesion not some supermajority of whatever your perceived social group is because it was never like that.
    Last edited by Strike For The South; 03-22-2019 at 17:57.
    There, but for the grace of God, goes John Bradford

    My aim, then, was to whip the rebels, to humble their pride, to follow them to their inmost recesses, and make them fear and dread us. Fear is the beginning of wisdom.

    I am tired and sick of war. Its glory is all moonshine. It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood, for vengeance, for desolation.

    Member thankful for this post:

    Husar 


  18. #48
    Formerly Wigferth Ironwall Senior Member Philippus Flavius Homovallumus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Isca
    Posts
    12,833

    Default Re: Christchurch massacre

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Modern cohesive factors cut across divisions like European and Muslim, while internally each of these continue to find cohesion historically out of reach. Don't fear the "outsider", the fragmentation was inside us all along!

    Thankfully, one side effect of global civilization has been to widen the moral circle or whatever they call it. Thus new societies will be poised to form from the motley refuse of the old. The SPQR is dead forever, long live &c. Any new project of similar scale will look like Imperium of Man Human Commonwealth.
    Sadly, my reference flew right over your head.

    "Romanitas" was a function of being Roman, acting like a Roman, dressing like a Roman, talking like a Roman. It did not, in the main, include modern concepts of ethnicity or even religious observance beyond lip service to the Imperial Cult.

    However, Modern Western Society has no such centralised concept of itself, it is a fragmented mish-mash that can mean very different things to different people.

    Damn, why do you think Muslims are doing more aggressive missionary work than Christians today? Ongoing missionary efforts in Asia and Africa seems to decisively dispel that impression, even where large-scale conversions in the Western Hemisphere are mostly intrafaith, Catholics being targeted by bastard forms of Calvinism and evangelism.
    Well, "aggressive" is your word not mine, and I was talking about the West - the arena from which the gunman hails. Westerners often find Islam attractive because it is stricter and more moralistic than forms of Christianity they are usually exposed to. Similarly to Evangelical Christianity, but more so, it fills a need for structure and authority that many people crave.

    Christianity doesn't really offer that anymore in its main guises because it has moved from being tollerant of other beliefs to accepting of them.
    "If it wears trousers generally I don't pay attention."


  19. #49

    Default Re: Christchurch massacre

    Quote Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus View Post
    Sadly, my reference flew right over your head.

    "Romanitas" was a function of being Roman, acting like a Roman, dressing like a Roman, talking like a Roman. It did not, in the main, include modern concepts of ethnicity or even religious observance beyond lip service to the Imperial Cult.

    However, Modern Western Society has no such centralised concept of itself, it is a fragmented mish-mash that can mean very different things to different people.



    Well, "aggressive" is your word not mine, and I was talking about the West - the arena from which the gunman hails. Westerners often find Islam attractive because it is stricter and more moralistic than forms of Christianity they are usually exposed to. Similarly to Evangelical Christianity, but more so, it fills a need for structure and authority that many people crave.

    Christianity doesn't really offer that anymore in its main guises because it has moved from being tollerant of other beliefs to accepting of them.
    What is your evidence that the ancient world had a centralized concept of self beyond that the imperial elite upheld a certain pseudo-traditional image? And do you believe that even this image had all the elements for a comprehensive worldview?

    Check it out, I'd bet Muslim immigrants to Europe leave Islam at a higher rate than Christian or secular Europeans convert to Islam.
    Vitiate Man.

    Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

  20. #50
    BrownWings: AirViceMarshall Member Furunculus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Forever adrift
    Posts
    5,385

    Default Re: Christchurch massacre

    Quote Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name View Post
    Viking, I don't mean to sound dismissive, but the argument has to be better than this. Russia is struggling because of it has an oligarchical economy and a tyrannical government interested in preserving the oligarchy.
    maybe russia has a tyrannical government [because] it struggles to maintain cohesion as a common society in consequence of its heterogeneity? In which case the oligarchical economy is a consequence of a tyrannical (and thus corrupt) government, rather than being directly attributable to heterogeneity in the first instance.
    Furunculus Maneuver: Adopt a highly logical position on a controversial subject where you cannot disagree with the merits of the proposal, only disagree with an opinion based on fundamental values. - Beskar

  21. #51
    Hǫrđar Member Viking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Hordaland, Norway
    Posts
    6,317

    Default Re: Christchurch massacre

    Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
    Generally, what reason is there to abstract "homogeneity/heterogeneity" per se as an important causal factor, compared to others, in postulated dysfunction or violence?
    On a fundamental level, what is it that motivates H. sapiens, or other (social) animals, to act antisocially - i.e. to use violence or cheat - and cooperatively?

    I'd imagine that the expectation of reciprocation is key here, and that individuals expect more reciprocation from individuals that are similar to themselves. The homogeneity of a society should correlate strongly with the expectation of reciprocation in the average social interaction. Thus, the amount of both cooperative and antisocial behaviour in a society should correlate strongly with its homogeneity.

    Or to the extent that it can be, I think one of the biggest weaknesses in your worldview is to emphasize ethnic dimensions as paramount, when there are actually many meaningful axes. As an example, there is a thesis that Nordic cultural homogeneity on the specific axis of social responsibility norms may in part be linked to large immigrant outflows in the 19th century - or contrarily to the underlying trends and pressures that drove those outflows. See how intricate it all is?
    I classify homogeneity not as paramount, but as fundamentally important. I am not familiar the thesis you refer to.

    Is there any correlation between homogeneity (however you mean) and levels of functionality and violence among the countries of the Caribbean and Latin America? Seems like a rich source for comparisons.
    Haven't looked at those yet, may do so later.

    Countries in Eastern Europe may be more homogenous than those in Western Europe in terms of ethnicity, yet they score lower on HDI. Plus, how are Czechia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Lithuania and Croatia particularly less diverse than Eastern European countries? Hungary and Poland are outliers, far more mono-ethnic than any of the Nordics, really on the extreme end demographically for the continent - interestingly also the vanguard for the European fascist resurgence, corruption, etc. Clearly a monocausal theory is inadequate for explaining why the "multi-ethnic disaster" of Putin's Russia should be fascist, alongside ostensibly near-mono-ethnic Hungary and Poland.
    Homogeneity is not a panacea. The countries of the former Eastern Bloc have some catching up to do after the end of the Cold War, and that may take a while. The democracies of Eastern Europe tend to be relatively young, and I think that democracy needs some time to become properly entrenched in a country, and that first and foremost time spent as a relatively well-functioning democracy (minimal amounts of rigging, and so on) counts toward that goal. My prediction is that the less diverse countries of Central and Eastern Europe on average will catch up sooner than the more diverse ones.

    And do not forget that the large countries of Western Europe - UK, Germany, France, Italy, Spain - have always been multi-ethnic.

    [...]

    Speaking of traditional diversity, as mentioned above Germany is famously diverse in the sense of its deeper history. Germans are not "just" Germans - ask Austria. And Bavaria. And...
    Diversity relating to ethnicity comes in many forms. To start with Germany, the concept of a German ethnicity is so strong that subdivisions are entirely glossed over in many contexts. What is the ethnicity of Merkel? How easy is it not to forget that the leader of one of the most ethnicity-intolerant countries in world history had his roots in a neighbouring country?

    I already touched on this when I mentioned the US in the first post, namely the construction of new a new larger ethnicity from smaller existing ones. The same applies to the rest of the countries you mention, and you can note that many of them have troubles relating to mergers that never happened or didn't go far enough. Spain, for instance, have had significant issues and continues to do so.

    The most important thing is that the vast majority of people either identify with the new ethnicity, or at least don't identify themselves too strongly in opposition to it.

    Creating new ethnicities was easier in the past, when states were more authoritarian (can openly suppress languages and other expression of cultural identity), people were less educated and had fewer legal rights.


    Studies of ethnic diversity in America often indicate that its long-term social cohesion is bolstered by immigration and the presence of many groups:
    In the abstract, there is this sentence

    In the long run immigration and diversity are likely to have important cultural, economic, fiscal, and developmental benefits.
    The section titled "The Prospects and Benefits of Immigration and Ethnic Diversity" seems to be the part that is supposed to elaborates this. The supposed benefits are a diverse bunch, so I'll address them one by one.

    The first point (creativity) does not directly distinguish between different sources of immigration, which is crucial for a proper analysis.

    The second point (economic growth) doesn't make this distinction either, and it is not explicitly made clear that this also concerns the longer term (which I imagine would also be difficult to measure).

    The third point (ageing populations) is tricky, you risk just postponing the problems.

    The last point doesn't even concern the country that is becoming more diverse, but the countries where the immigrants come from.

    Liberal democracy is neither automatic nor the "highest stage" of political being. If Singapore becomes more socially liberal in governance it will be because of a confluence of external world politics and internal popular upheaval. As for the present, don't take my word for it but my impression is that the general osmosis of recent history has shifted the social baselines for Singapore in many areas (e.g. cultural attitudes toward race/gender egalitarianism, LGBT, resistance to overt government repression). From the top, the interventionist Singaporean government maintains (relatively) decent levels of wealth/income inequality. Money is proven to be one of the best lubricants.
    Liberal democracy is referenced here as a presumed favoured form of governance among the participants of the debate.

    I presume that a liberal social order works the best for a homogeneous population, because then the extra freedoms afforded to the individual will have less severe consequences for the social cohesion. That is so because the majority of the population will still lead relatively similar lives. Per definition, the aspirations of people will be more similar in a homogeneous than a heterogeneous society.

    Does Russia lack cohesion because of its ethnic diversity - or does it have ethnic diversity because of its geographic extent, which itself depletes cohesion and incentivizes state coercion as the center of gravity?
    It could be interesting to note here that Denmark and Norway have a very similar population size, but are very different in terms of area. Both countries are among the smaller ones in Europe in terms of population size, but Denmark is also among the smaller countries in terms of area, while Norway is actually among the largest, being larger than countries like Italy and the UK (and even Germany if you include the archipelago of Svalbard).

    Yet I don't see that the difference in social cohesion between Denmark and Norway has ever been that very large. Iceland is also in a similar situation as Norway: it is among the very smallest European countries by population size, but medium-sized in terms of area; and it ranks very well.

    Granted, Russia is huge; but so is Canada, and fares much better.

    Let's up the ante: Russia gives independence to each of its regions with fewer than 50% ethnic Russians, and all those Russians migrate to the heartland. Or to simplify the scenario, all individuals of Uralic, Turkic, or Caucasian background are deported to reservations. Russia is now even more overwhelmingly mono-ethnic, with maybe a little less total territory.

    What exactly changes? Do you think Russia somehow becomes more coherent and functional? Does Petrograd become a liberal democracy because Moscow is no longer overseeing a client government in Chechnya? What exactly is the relevant positive effect of removing a few million scattered minorities here and there, all of whom are far too few in number to challenge the Russian majority in any way except for the 2 or 3 largest in their enclaves (e.g. Chechnya)?
    There would be a change in the metrics that the Russians subconsciously and consciously evaluate the Russian government by.

    More or less since its inception, insurgency within the borders of the Russian Federation remains a threat that its military has to be prepared to deal with. The prospect of an open revolt withing the borders of a country is never a good one; if many soldiers die every year to fight insurgency, that is going to have an impact on a country. Depending on the exact hypothetical scenario, this threat could be eliminated, and keeping the peace internally in Russia through militarily means would no longer be necessary. This change should have a big impact on what kind of people are deemed eligible to lead the country, and what kind of policies that seem sensible to implement.

    Another impacts relates more directly to homogeneity. There could be more sympathy towards people affected negatively by a dysfunctional state. If the poorest people in a country belong to a different ethnicity than a given person, then that person might be more likely to assume that the poverty is a result of the person belonging to that ethnicity; i.e. the people from that ethnicity and/or their culture are deemed inferior in some way by this person.

    When you do feel sympathy for the poorer and think that poor governance has a lot to blame for it, then you may want to change the governance. The more people that want to change the governance, the more realistic such a change is.

    The sum of these two examples is that it is no longer relevant to show skill in keeping peace internally through military means (something which an authoritarian government might be better at), and more people will feel sympathy with those negatively affected by poor governance (or be more dissatisfied with the way it affects themselves) and more strongly desire a change in governance, and perhaps be willing to take greater risks to achieve it (no need to worry about internal revolts flaring up).

    In fact, we have a historical scenario for just this kind of retrenchment: the dissolution of the Soviet Union. I don't think the difference between Soviet Russia and Putin's Russia supports your theory.
    The Soviet Union was much more authoritarian than the Russian Federation is today. It could also rely much more on ideology to pacify subjects. The Soviet Union could rely on local communist parties, while the Russian Federation relies on the former warlord Kadyrov in Chechnya, and might not be able to do much better. Relying on ideology should be much more preferable.

    Why do you think the existence of governed minorities overseas is itself corrosive to British democracy, rather than the - you know - imperialism. Notably, the point I was making above is that Russia has always been an empire, and that this is tied more to territory and geopolitics than to who inhabits the territory. As long as we're sweepingly theorizing, I contend that a more effective way to make Russia less coercive would be if it lost Siberia and the Far East (overwhelmingly Russian-majority) than if it gave up Chechnya.
    Imperialism doesn't make that much sense without a country subsuming lands dominated by ethnicities other than the ethnicity, if any, dominating the country doing the conquering. Otherwise, you would just be creating a new large national state, like Germany.

    First of all, when using "individualism" do you mean as a theoretical social form, as a political or moral philosophy, or some concrete measure of differences between persons?
    Not sure what you mean by the first, but let's say all of them.

    If you have multiple cultures in a society, then that places an upper bound on individualistic expression, because you need to have a certain number of people adhering to the same (relatively arbitrary) standard, or you wouldn't have multiple cultures.

    Quote Originally Posted by Strike For The South View Post
    There was a great times a while ago about the children of immigrants to Denmark. Part of "becoming Danish" was learning how to celebrate christmas. Which is insane considering they were muslims and christmas is the second most holy day in christendom. So the kids go through all of this "danishization" and the article ends with the parents co workers explaining to them how they will never be Danish. If I was those parents, I would be pretty miffed, to say the least.
    It would be great to have sources so that information can be verified.

    Per definition, they can never become ethnic Danes, which is what effectively defined a 'Dane' in the past. The only type of 'Dane' they can become, is some yet-to-be-determined future concept of 'Dane', one that will probably remain a construction site for a while.

    If you want the concept of a 'Dane' to mean anything, it should be stricter than 'has Danish citizenship', yet, by contemporary standards, excluding people from such a concept is mean, and, ultimately, the math might just not add up. In the end, it's just a word, and a group of people does not become more or less alike other people in a society whether or not you stick a given label on them.

    In theory, anyone can become an 'American', but in practice, I don't know if it's that much easier for a person of non-European descent to become an 'American' than it is to become a 'Dane'.

    Like elsewhere, Christmas in Scandinavia has become a very secular celebration, and it is not necessary to take part in any strictly religious ritual to celebrate it. In Scandinavia, Christmas celebrations has roots that precede the introduction of Christianity, something which is reflected by the fact that the name of the celebration hasn't changed since then.

    Shared celebrations is one of many things that contributes to cohesion in a society, while different groups having different celebrations emphasizes outgroup and ingroup relations.
    Last edited by Viking; Yesterday at 16:02.
    Runes for good luck:

    [1 - exp(i*2π)]^-1

  22. #52
    Iron Fist Senior Member Husar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    15,518

    Default Re: Christchurch massacre

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    On a fundamental level, what is it that motivates H. sapiens, or other (social) animals, to act antisocially - i.e. to use violence or cheat - and cooperatively?

    I'd imagine that the expectation of reciprocation is key here, and that individuals expect more reciprocation from individuals that are similar to themselves. The homogeneity of a society should correlate strongly with the expectation of reciprocation in the average social interaction. Thus, the amount of both cooperative and antisocial behaviour in a society should correlate strongly with its homogeneity.

    [...]

    Homogeneity is not a panacea. The countries of the former Eastern Bloc have some catching up to do after the end of the Cold War, and that may take a while.
    Catching up in what? Socialism should have provided them with a lot more homogeneity than capitalism does. You're making a big argument for socialism here and then you suddenly assume that formerly socialist countries had some kind of disadvantage in homogeneity, as if they had to catch up in inequality to become more homogeneus. Homogeneity can't just be applied to ethnicity after all.

    The DDR for example tried to ban rap music because it was too subversive and threatened the homogeneity of socialist paradise. Would you agree with such measures given that rap is not part of European culture and ethnic identity?


    "Topic is tired and needs a nap." - Tosa Inu

  23. #53
    Member Member Gilrandir's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Ukraine
    Posts
    3,724

    Default Re: Christchurch massacre

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post

    if many soldiers die every year to fight insurgency, that is going to have an impact on a country.
    It depends on how many is many, where is the limit after crossing which the country starts to be dissatisfied. If its population is huge and if the authorities are good at keeping the information on casualties secret (as it happens with Russian casualties in Donbas now) the country may feel fine indefinitely.


    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    The Soviet Union was much more authoritarian than the Russian Federation is today.
    It is a debatable statement. Besides, how can you measure authoritarianism?

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    It could also rely much more on ideology to pacify subjects.
    The ultimate pacifier was KGB and police and even the army (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Novocherkassk_massacre), not the ideology.

    Quote Originally Posted by Viking View Post
    The Soviet Union could rely on local communist parties, while the Russian Federation relies on the former warlord Kadyrov in Chechnya, and might not be able to do much better. Relying on ideology should be much more preferable.Relying on ideology should be much more preferable.
    The communist parties were never local, they were under command of the Central Committee.

    And modern Chechnya (as whole Russia indeed), has ideology all right - the co called staples (skrepy). But that doesn't cancel dependence on the law enforcement bodies or/and former warlords.
    Quote Originally Posted by Suraknar View Post
    The article exists for a reason yes, I did not write it...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO