French Presidential Election

[Husar]

Like?

Russia, Iran, North Korea, you, ....

As would, then, any diverse country.

Not if there only was one country.

It also heavily involved empires (often a heterogeneous lot) and monarchies with dubious democratic credentials, and was sparked by someone who wanted to join the territories of a people geographically disunited.

Who was the latter? Russia? And the Empires were quite homogeneous in terms of the makeup of the people who actually had a say in them.
It was very easy to declare the other people whatever terrible stereotype the rulers could come up with because the population usually had no contacts or friends in the other group. Even worse things happened in WW2 when the NSDAP began to declare an in-group and began to teach all kinds of stereotypes about those outside that group. And it wasn't just the jews, they said similar things about blacks, slavs, etc. The US also wasn't nice to the Japanese with all the mass internment and propaganda. Now they didn't start a war based on it, but they performed injustices based on these ideas. Gangs and many other social interactions work in a similar way.

Time here is money, lives and stability.

Which may just as well just be a short term view once more, using more Co2 is also good for the money in the short term, doesn't mean it's wise to do it.

[Viking]

"I think a world composed of homogeneous nation states would be much more peaceful " Due to the number of civil wars we French had in the past, I am not sure of this.

Diverse countries have a lot of civil wars too (between majority factions, with separatism on top of this), and the odd genocide every now and then. I suspect that recent or current authoritarian rule could be a factor in many civil wars.

Russia

Very diverse; many relatively recent imperial acquisitions still under control.

Iran

Seemingly pretty diverse, also a theocracy.

North Korea

One of the most extreme dictatorships in history.

Not if there only was one country.

Then you could have larger ethnicities dominating smaller ones.

Who was the latter? Russia?

The Serb assassin.

And the Empires were quite homogeneous in terms of the makeup of the people who actually had a say in them.

Those other groups typically went for independence when they saw a chance, either with or without violence, instead of focusing on representation.

the population usually had no contacts or friends in the other group.

In typical democratic countries: a question of technology as much as anything else.

Even worse things happened in WW2 when the NSDAP began to declare an in-group and began to teach all kinds of stereotypes about those outside that group. And it wasn't just the jews, they said similar things about blacks, slavs, etc. The US also wasn't nice to the Japanese with all the mass internment and propaganda. Now they didn't start a war based on it, but they performed injustices based on these ideas. Gangs and many other social interactions work in a similar way.

You'll note that the 'worst' things typically were carried out by dictatorships.

EDIT: Also somewhat ironic to bring up the US, where the majority population consists of mixed immigrant populations. A new nation grew to replace the old ones.

Which may just as well just be a short term view once more, using more Co2 is also good for the money in the short term, doesn't mean it's wise to do it.

A strategy can be better than another both in the short and long term if the other strategy is sufficiently bad.

[Brenus]

"Is banning religions any better?" Much better. Russian is not an ideology. Religions are ideologies and based on very dodgy texts, to say it mildly...

[Husar]

Diverse countries have a lot of civil wars too (between majority factions, with separatism on top of this), and the odd genocide every now and then. I suspect that recent or current authoritarian rule could be a factor in many civil wars.

So nations should all be based around ancient tribes and basically only perform inbreeding?
What if two family members are "too diverse" to be able to stand eachother?
Where does it end?

Very diverse; many relatively recent imperial acquisitions still under control.

Seemingly pretty diverse, also a theocracy.
One of the most extreme dictatorships in history.[/QUOTE]

Russia is not very diverse, keeping imperial acquisitions under control is not necessarily a matter of different ethnicities.
And unless I forgot something, you just entered the system of government as a second factor and basically moved the goalposts?

Might as well name the current USA and Poland though. The first creates a non-ethnic but national homogeneity (in the context of that debate, the heterogeneity of the nation usually plays no role) and currently blames China, Mexico, ISIS, etc. for all of its problems, the second flat out refuses most immigration for the reasons you name and still blames a lot of its problems on Russia, Germany or both.

The only thing I see here is that people who prefer homogeneity also blame all their problems on others.

Then you could have larger ethnicities dominating smaller ones.

You always have larger groups dominating smaller ones, you can have one ethnicity where the conservatives dominate the progressives, how is that any better?

The Serb assassin.

Gross oversimplification, but even if we ignore that, it only shows that people who want homogeneity always cause trouble, it says nothing about the quality of their ideals.

Those other groups typically went for independence when they saw a chance, either with or without violence, instead of focusing on representation.

That doesn't make it a good idea. People also typically went for empire building over isolationism when they saw a chance, thus increasing diversity.

In typical democratic countries: a question of technology as much as anything else.

I don't think that having a chat buddy is quite the same as having a girlfriend in another country, but the latter would be a "threat to homogeneity", no?

You'll note that the 'worst' things typically were carried out by dictatorships.

So democracy and not homogeneity is the issue here?

EDIT: Also somewhat ironic to bring up the US, where the majority population consists of mixed immigrant populations. A new nation grew to replace the old ones.

The US still creates a quasi-homogeneity, especially when it comes to international relations. You say yourself that it has a majority population, so you seem to acknowledge that that group has some kind of homogeneity. Was their civil war an immigration problem now? If so, how?

A strategy can be better than another both in the short and long term if the other strategy is sufficiently bad.

Indeed, that's why most democracies don't go for the idea of soft ethnic cleansing.

[Gilrandir]

"Is banning religions any better?" Much better. Russian is not an ideology. Religions are ideologies and based on very dodgy texts, to say it mildly...

So you would second banning an ideology? The communist one, for instance, and the party that propagates its tenets?

[Brenus]

I am to ban any ideology based which is against human rights, promotes inequality, violent expansion and didn't change their original texts. If the ideology changed and became in line with the laws, no.
So, communist one in a modern version as it is in the main democratic countries is not be banned.
I do not want to banm ideology on past actions. Same applies for others ideologies.
However, contrary to ideologies being written by humans so can be amended, changed and improved, ideologies based on revealed and sacred texts spoken by a deity cannot be amended, changed or modified, or under the admittance that the deity was wrong at the first audience.
In you want to ban communism, you have to came with the actual platform and shows where this platform breach the human right laws.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I am to ban any ideology based which is against human rights, promotes inequality, violent expansion and didn't change their original texts. If the ideology changed and became in line with the laws, no.
So, communist one in a modern version as it is in the main democratic countries is not be banned.
I do not want to banm ideology on past actions. Same applies for others ideologies.
However, contrary to ideologies being written by humans so can be amended, changed and improved, ideologies based on revealed and sacred texts spoken by a deity cannot be amended, changed or modified, or under the admittance that the deity was wrong at the first audience.
In you want to ban communism, you have to came with the actual platform and shows where this platform breach the human right laws.

You'll have banned Capitalism, then.

[Brenus]

Good question but irrelevant. Where is the ideological book describing Capitalism? The consequences of bad capitalism (or bad communism) are not in the platform but in the actions of states or individuals. Is Condor operation inscribe in capitalism? Or was it H Kissinger decision?

[Gilrandir]

I am to ban any ideology based which is against human rights, promotes inequality, violent expansion and didn't change their original texts.

If communists promoted "expropriation of expropriators", e.i. taking away private property to make everyone equal, is it the way to promote equality?

Is not the tenet of the export of revolution a kind of expansion?

So, communist one in a modern version as it is in the main democratic countries is not be banned. I do not want to banm ideology on past actions. Same applies for others ideologies.

So if nazis come up with some modern version of their ideology (and perhaps they already have), will you stand for their right to be represented on the political arena?

However, contrary to ideologies being written by humans so can be amended, changed and improved, ideologies based on revealed and sacred texts spoken by a deity cannot be amended, changed or modified, or under the admittance that the deity was wrong at the first audience.

Religions have been always subject to modification which resulted in appearance of new religions, for instance judaism and christianity, or new confessions of the same religions (shia and sunni islam).

In you want to ban communism, you have to came with the actual platform and shows where this platform breach the human right laws.

So whatever communists at power did, you can't ban the ideology they steered by?

But whatever reasons for banning religion(s) you may forward, what about the people who will persist in worshipping them? What will you do with them? Proclaim them outlaws? Persecute them?

[Viking]

So nations should all be based around ancient tribes and basically only perform inbreeding?

A bit late for this solution of yours.

What if two family members are "too diverse" to be able to stand eachother?

I don't think the solution involves mass-immigration.

Russia is not very diverse, keeping imperial acquisitions under control is not necessarily a matter of different ethnicities.

In Russia's case, it is. Forgotten about Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan? That's just the beginning.

And unless I forgot something, you just entered the system of government as a second factor and basically moved the goalposts?

The ultimate point has of course to be how diversity and homogeneity has affected the outcome. The hostile rhetoric of the North Korean government can be seen as a way to justify the extreme authoritarianism and seems primarily to be directed at ideological rather than ethnic enemies.

Might as well name the current USA and Poland though. The first creates a non-ethnic but national homogeneity (in the context of that debate, the heterogeneity of the nation usually plays no role) and currently blames China, Mexico, ISIS, etc. for all of its problems, the second flat out refuses most immigration for the reasons you name and still blames a lot of its problems on Russia, Germany or both.


The only thing I see here is that people who prefer homogeneity also blame all their problems on others.

The US is still very diverse, and it seems quite normal for populists in any country to blame problems on outside forces.

You always have larger groups dominating smaller ones, you can have one ethnicity where the conservatives dominate the progressives, how is that any better?

You can chose which party to join, but you cannot chose your ethnicity.

Gross oversimplification, but even if we ignore that, it only shows that people who want homogeneity always cause trouble, it says nothing about the quality of their ideals.

I would say that is having it upside down. Such people come into existence when an ethnic group is scattered over several different countries in a region (and preferably where it forms a minority, or the use of force would be more difficult to justify). If that weren't the case, they wouldn't have any unification to fight for.

That doesn't make it a good idea. People also typically went for empire building over isolationism when they saw a chance, thus increasing diversity.

It is what tends to happen; diverse entities created by force or without the support of the people it includes seems to often be rather unstable in the long run. Once the reelvant people actually get to have their voices heard, they tend to want independence. And that's not strange if they form a minority - their risk becoming outvoted on many or most issues important to them. If they form a majority, the current rulers would probably rather let them go than give them numerically fair representation (think of the British parliament dominated by MPs from India; not a very probable or stable scenario).

I don't think that having a chat buddy is quite the same as having a girlfriend in another country, but the latter would be a "threat to homogeneity", no?

Unlikely, and people can migrate even if the borders are open for free movement; it would just (in my scenario) be in much smaller amounts (at least for permanent settlement). If migration levels are sufficiently low and from sufficiently similar cultures, assimilation would be very high for just a couple of generations.

So democracy and not homogeneity is the issue here?

Dicatorships in general seem to do the more extreme things like these. Stalin deported entire ethnic groups that were thought of as unreliable, and he came from a minority population himself (Georgian) within a diverse empire.

The US still creates a quasi-homogeneity, especially when it comes to international relations. You say yourself that it has a majority population, so you seem to acknowledge that that group has some kind of homogeneity.

Yes, but this homogeneous (not necessarily in all senses) came from a heterogeneous population, so this new homogeneous population did not at all become any more tolerant just because it has no concept of a nation stretching back more a thousand years or more.

Was their civil war an immigration problem now? If so, how?

I just said that some civil wars are between majority factions.

Indeed, that's why most democracies don't go for the idea of soft ethnic cleansing.

Democracies don't really have any solid long-term strategy, they can zigzag like a person with a split personality from election to election. Democracies are probably not the best source for long-term strategies (not the typical dictatorship, either).

[Husar]

A bit late for this solution of yours.

*of mine.

I don't think the solution involves mass-immigration.

Why? They should adopt 12 Afroasian children IMO.

In Russia's case, it is. Forgotten about Chechnya, Ingushetia and Dagestan? That's just the beginning.

How are theses cases comparable to the effects of the current migrant crisis?

The US is still very diverse, and it seems quite normal for populists in any country to blame problems on outside forces.

And who usually votes for populists in the first place?

You can chose which party to join, but you cannot chose your ethnicity.

Is that really a choice or the predictable outcome of your environment and circumstances?
How likely is it for a Communist party member to make the choice to join the NSDAP?
And don't say Horst Mahler.

I would say that is having it upside down. Such people come into existence when an ethnic group is scattered over several different countries in a region (and preferably where it forms a minority, or the use of force would be more difficult to justify). If that weren't the case, they wouldn't have any unification to fight for.

No, you're having it upside down. These people come into existance because they and the people around them still care about ethnicity in the first place. There may be an innate desire to form in-groups, but it doesn't necessarily have to be based on ethnicity. It's not like you're best friends with every Norwegian, or is it?
Otherwise we'll get back to the best husband being your cousin and so on... Or would you call that normal/desirable human behavior now?
Ethnicity itself is an artificial social construct, family is a biological/natural one. Might even say at this point that you can choose your ethnicity as much as the party to join.

It is what tends to happen; diverse entities created by force or without the support of the people it includes seems to often be rather unstable in the long run. Once the reelvant people actually get to have their voices heard, they tend to want independence. And that's not strange if they form a minority - their risk becoming outvoted on many or most issues important to them. If they form a majority, the current rulers would probably rather let them go than give them numerically fair representation (think of the British parliament dominated by MPs from India; not a very probable or stable scenario).

That's all learned behavior again, your opinion on ethnicity is a choice. You talk about it as though it were unchangeable. You even exclude cases where the mixing has "the support of the people it includes", so you basically acknowledge the existence of people who can just live and let live instead of making a big fuss for no good reason.

Unlikely, and people can migrate even if the borders are open for free movement; it would just (in my scenario) be in much smaller amounts (at least for permanent settlement). If migration levels are sufficiently low and from sufficiently similar cultures, assimilation would be very high for just a couple of generations.

I do not disagree that long-term migration should not be as high as it was in 2015 or 2016, but there are plenty of other reasons for that besides peoples' irrational fears of the boogeyman. The other issue is that migration is so high in the first place because we have so many individual competing nations and the losers don't all just want to sit on their asses and wait until they die. The same reason that made people vote for Trump is why sub-saharan Africans want to come to Europe (and Mexicans to the US). they lost in the economic game and want a job. The only question is which one of the losers succeeds in beating the other losers before the machines make us all lose anyway.

Yes, but this homogeneous (not necessarily in all senses) came from a heterogeneous population, so this new homogeneous population did not at all become any more tolerant just because it has no concept of a nation stretching back more a thousand years or more.

Which was never relevant anyway. The groups that made up the new majority had plenty of ethnic infighting in the beginning, the immigrants were always blamed until new immigrants came and the old immigrants became part of the in-group. Which just goes to show that ethnic differences are a choice/based on circumstances and should usually not be seen as some kind of universal truth.

[Viking]

*of mine.

Yes, of thine (aka straw manning).

How are theses cases comparable to the effects of the current migrant crisis?

Just follow the chain of quotes:

The problem with homogeneous groups of people is that they tend to blame all their problems on some outside group and this leads to more and more conflict.

Is Putin blaming the Chechens and the Ingush? No, he is blaming you and your homosexual goldfish. This is Dagestan:

The Avars form the largest ethnic group and account for about a fifth of the population. A further substantial proportion is made up of Dargins, Kumyks and Lezgins. About 10 per cent are ethnic Russians. There are also Laks, Tabasarans and Nogai, to name but a few of the other significant groups.

The republic's constitution declares the protection of the interests of all of Dagestan's peoples to be a fundamental principle. It is a delicate balance to maintain, in what is Russia's most ethnically diverse province.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/co...es/3659904.stm

In 2011, a BBC article proclaimed Dagestan to be the most dangerous place in Europe:

Once it was Chechnya, today it is the republic of Dagestan on the Caspian Sea that is the most explosive place in Russia - and in Europe. There are bomb attacks almost daily, shootouts between police and militants, tales of torture and of people going missing.

Sounds a bit like Malmö, maybe on steroids.

And who usually votes for populists in the first place?

Homo sapiens sapiens.

Is that really a choice or the predictable outcome of your environment and circumstances?

Many signals for ethnic belonging are genetic; and even when they aren't, they can be difficult to fake (like language and accent).

How likely is it for a Communist party member to make the choice to join the NSDAP?
And don't say Horst Mahler.

If you want to take part in the camaraderie and corruption, just sign up to join the party. No cosmetic surgery needed.

Ethnicity itself is an artificial social construct, family is a biological/natural one.

[...]

That's all learned behavior again, your opinion on ethnicity is a choice. You talk about it as though it were unchangeable.

In theory, you can separate the biology (phenotype) and culture of an ethnicity, but in practice, it's typically not quite that simple.

(in the same sense as ethnicity being an 'artificial social construct', so is humanity: a collection of organisms that happen to share a lot of DNA and that can often interbreed)

You even exclude cases where the mixing has "the support of the people it includes", so you basically acknowledge the existence of people who can just live and let live instead of making a big fuss for no good reason.

Not quite sure what you are referring to here.

I do not disagree that long-term migration should not be as high as it was in 2015 or 2016

I think the immigration rates in previous years have also been too high in many countries; the current issues in countries like France, Sweden and the UK are primarily not about the last couple of years of immigration, but go back a long time.

Which was never relevant anyway. The groups that made up the new majority had plenty of ethnic infighting in the beginning, the immigrants were always blamed until new immigrants came and the old immigrants became part of the in-group. Which just goes to show that ethnic differences are a choice/based on circumstances and should usually not be seen as some kind of universal truth.

They were all from Europe, so it's not very shocking that the assimilation was swift. Since Mexico also has been heavily influenced by a European culture (Spain), including in terms of religion, they too might not have a hard time assimilating, although many of them might be more strongly tagged as out-group by looking differently (and again, concerns about too many immigrating over a too short period of time don't go away).

[Brenus]

"If communists promoted "expropriation of expropriators", e.i. taking away private property to make everyone equal, is it the way to promote equality?" Expropriate is a right that any State got in their laws. I think the one who invented the notion in France was Napoleon III in 1852, hardly a communist.

"Is not the tenet of the export of revolution a kind of expansion?" It was not a tenet of Communism, but a debate within the Communist Party. I sort of remember that Stalin was against, Trotsky for. Stalin won.
Now, you have to show me in a nowadays communist platform where the "export of revolution by force" is written.

"So if nazis come up with some modern version of their ideology (and perhaps they already have), will you stand for their right to be represented on the political arena?" Depending of the modern version of their ideology. However, the basis of Nazi ideology being the same than ISIL, racism, inequality, cult of death and violence and porn, if they change all these items, they won't be anymore Nazi... So the question is not really one...

"Religions have been always subject to modification which resulted in appearance of new religions, for instance judaism and christianity, or new confessions of the same religions (shia and sunni islam)." They still refer to the same books accepting slavery, inequality, slaughters and aggression. So until they come with an explanation how their Gods were wrong the 1st time he/she/it came up with the holy texts... Jesus recognise the Old Testament, so does Islam. The difference between Shia and Sunni is mainly due to a different opinion about who was the heir of Mohammed, not the core of the text.

"So whatever communists at power did, you can't ban the ideology they steered by?" Yes, because there are different streams in communism as you know. Putting in the same bags the Communist executed by Stalin with Stalin is ridiculous. And this is the most best known example. Do you want to ban Social Democrat Parties in the world because dictatorship this ideology imposed in Europe (Greece, Portugal, France, etc)?

"But whatever reasons for banning religion(s) you may forward, what about the people who will persist in worshipping them? What will you do with them? Proclaim them outlaws? Persecute them?" Didn't say it was possible. I just said in order to avoid a good reason for war would be the vanishing of religions. They will hopefully disappeared, but it will under the flamethrower of knowledge and reason, Inch'allah...

"You can't say God is a made up idea and then say religion is still different to any other philosophy or ideology." And it is why I didn't say so. I am saying Religions are based on books their followers claim being the word of God. So, as such, God being truthful and by definition incapable of mistake, it can't be change. So if God said few centuries ago it is ok to have slaves, to rape and conquered others lands, it is valid for ever as God never specify a end date. So, Religions have option one to declare God was wrong, not good, option two, hiding the fact God was wrong, much better. Problem with option 2 is when some idiots come-up with original texts and argue rightly God never oppose slavery, rape, genocide and conquests.
But the way, didn't Jesus expelled the priest from the Temple with a whip? Is it the "absolute pacifism" he preached for? They were just earning the crust...
"Don't imagine that I came to bring peace to the earth! I came not to bring peace, but a sword." Matthew 10:34

[Husar]

Just follow the chain of quotes:

Is Putin blaming the Chechens and the Ingush? No, he is blaming you and your homosexual goldfish. This is Dagestan:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/co...es/3659904.stm

In 2011, a BBC article proclaimed Dagestan to be the most dangerous place in Europe:

Sounds a bit like Malmö, maybe on steroids.

Where is the mass immigration and the huge ethnic difference?

Many signals for ethnic belonging are genetic; and even when they aren't, they can be difficult to fake (like language and accent).

If you want to take part in the camaraderie and corruption, just sign up to join the party. No cosmetic surgery needed.

What about black-skinned people who grew up here and have our culture?
Do they need cosmetic surgery to get our ethnicity? Bleach their skin?

In theory, you can separate the biology (phenotype) and culture of an ethnicity, but in practice, it's typically not quite that simple.

(in the same sense as ethnicity being an 'artificial social construct', so is humanity: a collection of organisms that happen to share a lot of DNA and that can often interbreed)

So we can just continue immigration if we just stop making a big deal out of it?
The inter-ethnic hatred is not an unchangeable fact after all and we have the choice to just stop it.
Yay!

Not quite sure what you are referring to here.

Mixed-ethnic marriages for example. They don't seem to inevitably murder eachother whereas you seem to say that this were the case when you mix ethnicities on a national level. My point is that you can mix them as long as the people on both sides do not make a big deal about it, which is a decision on the part of those people, a matter of education, upbringing or whatever (we hardly discuss that part here it seems).

I think the immigration rates in previous years have also been too high in many countries; the current issues in countries like France, Sweden and the UK are primarily not about the last couple of years of immigration, but go back a long time.

I think the way immigration has been treated as a self-solving issue of sorts was wrong.
Immigrants are treated the wrong way, are not introduced to and held to our basic standards and neither was much being done about the hostility they received early on from the side of the natives. There was lots of ghettoization and group-building around ethnic lines, that just exaggerates the differences. That is why I say the problem are not the ethnicities but how people handle them. Surely the "ethnic" hardliners who do not want to talk should be sent back home, I applaud e.g. the decision of the European court not to allow Muslims to remove their girls from swimming lectures just because they want everything to be more like home where girls and boys are seperated. People who come here should be willing to accept the basic tenets of our culture.

They were all from Europe, so it's not very shocking that the assimilation was swift. Since Mexico also has been heavily influenced by a European culture (Spain), including in terms of religion, they too might not have a hard time assimilating, although many of them might be more strongly tagged as out-group by looking differently (and again, concerns about too many immigrating over a too short period of time don't go away).

Then I'm sure the assimilation of the areas conquered by Russia will be swift as well, they only assimilate neighbors after all.