Does Diversity DESTROYS Social Cohesion in the West?
For the Germans/Europeans nearby among you, that might interest you as well:
Germany Crosses the Demographic RUBICON: 20-35's a MINORITY by 2020
I don't have time to watch the entire video, but if I'm reading this correct, what you're saying is that by 2020 in this age group, native Germans will be a minority.
Statements like these have actually been made for about as long as I've been aware of my surrounding. During the conflict in Yugoslavia similar sensationalist numbers were put forth over here, claiming that by some future date Swedes would be a minority due to the influx of immigrants (turned out to not actually happen, as the conflict actually, surprise surprise, ended). When I skipped to a part in the video where he talked about immigration numbers, he seem to assume that the conflict in Syria won't end, and that there will be a constant influx of people from the region. This is a, to put it mildly, strange statement. First of all, the conflict will end. Second point to consider is that there's a finite amount of people living in Syria, and those willing to leave will likely have tried to leave before the 5th year of the conflict.
Also, the "keeping our culture" argument. i don't buy it. Our cultures have borrowed liberally from each other for as long as humans have been around. Their culture becomes our culture, and our culture becomes their culture. The only real difference is that the process is faster these days.
Comment has been collapsed.
Sweden facing severe problems due to high migration & former political policies
and you're trying to tell me all's going to "play out" fine?
Ok ... if that is your tolerant point of view, i don't know what to reply.
Its not only refugees from Syria who apparently amount roughly (if even correct at all) ~1/3 of all the migration in 2015:
Mapped-How-many-migrants-entered-the-EU-and-applied-for-asylum-in-2015
Comment has been collapsed.
You're not only twisting my words there, you're bringing up an entirely different point than what I said in an attempt to invalidate my counter-argument. I was talking about the claim that in the year X group Y will be a minority. A large amount of people entering a country will always cause issues, it did during the conflict in former Yugoslavia, and it does now (and heck, it did during WW2 as well). These are short term issues though, issues that you can deal with (but you need to deal with it in a better way than basically putting people into semi-gated communities, because that's something that causes long term issues).
1/3 of all immigrants is still a very large number. And the calculations seem to be based on this 1/3 remaining constant. Making an argument based on that is dishonest.
Comment has been collapsed.
Here is the thing, you can't compare the migration caused by the conflicts in former Yugoslavia, with the current migration.
They are nothing alike - in numbers (populace/ones seeking asylum/extent), geographically, cause and probable duration.
First of all, the conflict will end. Second point to consider is that there's a finite amount of people living in Syria,
and those willing to leave will likely have tried to leave before the 5th year of the conflict.
Syria Population:
17,951,639 in 2014, a massive decline due to nearly 4 million Syrian refugees leaving the country because
of the Syrian Civil War and furthermore because of the death in the war. This is a drop of 9.7% from the previous year.
Age structure: 0–14 years: 35.2% (male 4,066,109/female 3,865,817) / 15–64 years: 61% (male 6,985,067/female 6,753,619)
It will end ... but when? And where do you get that assumption they will leave before the 5th year - and why would that matter at the current rate + reunions long afterwards? Its not as if the video-guy assumes it would not, but at some point where assumably 25%+ already might have left their former country for good ... but that isn't the only issue, the other is that only 1/3 off all the migration (2015) was Syrian ... and were not talking as if Syria was the only migrational influx recently.
Comment has been collapsed.
Bottom line, it doesn't matter. Humans are well on their way to destroying this planet with war and pollution, until those REAL issues are addressed properly, these idiots on either side of this and other PC arguments are just wasting their lives until we all are destroyed. Humans can't live in peace across oceans or in different countries when they have different opinions on things so why do people think people living in the same area will get along if they're forced to coexist?
Comment has been collapsed.
Fortunately the planet will be just fine, it will just be ourselves and probably a large portion of other life (possibly all life in the worst case scenario) that will be eradicated. Even if global nuclear war broke out, some animals would likely survive (most likely not us) and 10 or 100 thousand years later the remnants of that war would be gone, and the conditions could support life like ourselves again. Although there are things we could do that could probably destroy the atmosphere, it's almost certain that we would die out as a species long before that stage was reached, due to the massive (to us, not the planet) changes to the environment (e.g. change the average temperature of the planet by just a few degrees and our crops start providing terrible yields, which in turn will most likely wipe out a huge percentage of the human population due to starvation, not to mention cause global conflicts that will wipe out many more of us).
But yeah, I agree with your point. Much of what we argue and debate is completely trivial in light of what will very likely end our species in the coming centuries.
Comment has been collapsed.
I grew up in Old Trafford, a very diverse community. We all got on, and still do 20 years later. If you have an issue with social cohesion maybe you should be looking closer to home.
If I was an immigrant, I wouldn't want to integrate with someone who spouts right-wing propaganda either.
Comment has been collapsed.
Ye olde Trafford, where all is good ey?
. . .
Never heard of it.
Being a former migrant myself, i can relate even from experience ... to condense it a single sentence:
you don't get into any disputes with western natives easily their way too tolerant and reasonably socialized
for most parts, but don't expect that to be the case with "non western valued" citizen.
Comment has been collapsed.
Old Trafford is an area within Manchester, England. It's quite famous to fans of certain sports as the football (soccer) team, Manchetser United play there, and the stadium is called Old Trafford. Just down the road is another stadium called Old Trafford, but this one is for cricket and the England team sometimes play there.
I grew up very close to there myself. It has a bit of a rep for crime and gangs. Not as bad as Moss Side and Hulme, which it borders, but it's part of the same general area. This is old, and of course not everyone there is like this, but it might give you a bit of an insight into how some from round there glorify the gangster kind of lifestyle - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CTX-s5eGtLw
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm not going to say much about it, since i refuse to talk about politics much, but i think diversity is not the problem, only fools refusing the other as equals and trying to learn and teach another their culture, and if everyone would have an stubborn excluding mind-set we would still be living in pre-medieval conditions with pretty much war everywhere and next to non cultural and technological progress.
Comment has been collapsed.
Regardless of whether diversity is positive or negative factor is irrelevant at this point I think. The world today isn't as segregated as it used to be. With the progress of technology, especially the internet, the world is becoming more and more connected, to the point where there's so much cultural overlap and connectedness, and being separate is becoming a much more challenging task. So I think at this point diversity is a permanent fixture and important aspect of today's globalized culture, so we might as well embrace it.
Comment has been collapsed.
There are millions of Japanese and Chinise casualties (a great number of civilians were also killed). There were African and Afro-American soldiers. I doubt only one race suffered from the war (WW2).
Also killing people during a war is only viewed as "crime" if you kill large numbers of civilians or war captives.
Comment has been collapsed.
Crime as a word was not literal but in jest like "black on black crime". I used the word most: 27 mill Russian, 2 mill French, 7 mill German, 6 mill poland, us Brit 1 mill ..... Most were white ... Orchestrated by whites. This flimsy topic was about social diversity and cohesion .... Same race kills indiscriminately was my extreme point.
Comment has been collapsed.
Everyone knows whats going to cause WW3 ... the crash of current global economics and
yeah diversity at that point won't matter, as each will fight for their own - whatever remains
will arise as the next state. Going from diversity to WW3 is far fetched, social unrest and
worsened prospects with a slew of negative changes are not.
Comment has been collapsed.
The European people killing each other weren't all one and the same. They were and are diverse from each other as well which is why they formed their own countries. 'European' isn't one big catch-all group.
Comment has been collapsed.
really i didnt know that being from Europe myself ... maybe it is because the European Union seems to want to block that idea [sarcasm off].
Read the original topic: He infers Western cohesion decreasing due to increased social diversity. It is as flimsy as a flip flop when not considering Religious / Cultural / economic diversity as part of social cohesion.
I mentioned WW1 / 2 as it occurred when social diversity was "lower" than the more globalized world now; that is all.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes. Thinking about social cohesion I can not think about the migrant crisis that my contry is living, which in a short-term time will cause a salary dumping. Meaning that category that will soffer more for this are workers without any study titles or specialistic degree, thus making workers fighting each other for a job that pretty much taste like slavery. That's what migrant acceptance is. There is no good deeds or sentimentalism, just desperate people to exploit (the famous reserve army of labour, a concept born from a COMMUNIST). On a long-term time it's even worst, and it's called miscegenation. People without an homeland, without the love for it, without cultural root, are easily controlled people (and the Unites State of Europe will a thing). The only thing that can save Europe as now is nationalism. And walls. Of the big kind (your country got it right here).
And I can say that even here in Italy even now the newborn annual number has returned pretty much at the 50' years value. Ironically these numbers are used by our democrat communist-ish politician from behind theyr ivory tower to promote the acceptance of the migrants because if we don't let them in (quoting theyr original bullshit): "we will never be 66 million in the 2055"(???) "they will pay our pension" and (the best one, right after the Bruxelles attacks) "The only answer to the horror come from integration of the migrants" (seriously. What the actual fuck). Things like this.
Apologize for my english.
Comment has been collapsed.
Also about your country, you probably have no idea of the shit and hate that italian mass media is throwing at you. It's like if the whole Austria has become a nazi state out from nowhere. Politicians say that you are all racist and that your country doesn't have the right to decide ffor themself (like if France don't wake up on a morning and decide to bomb Lybia thus opening the gates of the mediterranean to a biblical emigration or like Germany don't decide the deficit limit or to make coins for theyr own. This zio-europe is sooo fucked up...)
Comment has been collapsed.
you probably have no idea of the shit and hate that italian mass media is throwing at you. It's like if the whole Austria has become a nazi state out from nowhere. Politicians say that you are all racist and that your country doesn't have the right to decide ffor themself
Yeah not surprised, as politics here are "running scared" too.
Comment has been collapsed.
white listing all who votes yes...oh, crap, we are minority already...
Comment has been collapsed.
Kind of a pointless question, no? What's the point of "social cohesion" if it doesn't work with diversity? You'd have to rebuild your social cohesion to incorporate that diversity first. It is like saying something like "Considering other countries destroys peace". I mean, sure, if the entire world was made up of the same nationality/race/religion/ethnic group, there would be probably be more peace, but...that's not what peace means.
Comment has been collapsed.
Social cohesion works on a global level but not in your neighbourhood, that's what the video is about. A very diverse population in a city, town, neighbourhood is bad because groups will be formed and there won't be a unity. Small numbers of diversity are good as stated in the video, but should not be big enough to form gorups, which we naturally form since we want to be beside people who are similar to us.
If we from our countries like that then there will be more trust between our citizens and that will resault in having more trust towards other nations, which are different which will resault in better "global peace".
Comment has been collapsed.
Was just using the country thing as a scaled up example to point out how it doesn't work. And I'm not sure your statement itself supports your argument, for the same reason: diverse population in a city is bad because they'll form groups and stick with their groups, which is bad, but diverse population in countries is good because they'll form groups and stick with their groups, which is good?
Somehow I don't think that a country with almost exclusively native german people and a country with almost exclusively native spanish people, for example, would have more trust between each other for having that exclusivity (as an example).
Comment has been collapsed.
You seeing people from a different culture in your city is a lot different then in a foreign country, since it is expected that they will have a different culture. If I go to Kazakhstan, China, Brazil I expect that people will be different but seeing them in my city will be kinda strange but also very interesting. The problem becomes when there are so many of ferigners in your country that they start to form groups, which means that they are harder to get to know and that they will just keep with their culture and not accept culture from your city/country.
Comment has been collapsed.
17th century
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_Golden_Age
Comment has been collapsed.
Oh please ... how does that very specific kind of migration back from centuries ago (1585 - 1648)
compare to the uncontrolled migration of recent times?
Under the terms of the surrender of Antwerp in 1585, the Protestant population (if unwilling to reconvert) were given four years to settle their affairs before leaving the city and Habsburg territory. ...
In addition to the mass migration of natives from the Southern Netherlands, there were also significant influxes of non-native refugees who had previously fled from religious persecution, particularly Sephardi Jews from Portugal and Spain, and later Huguenots from France. The Pilgrim Fathers also spent time there before their voyage to the New World.
Comment has been collapsed.
The US had a large influx of uneducated workers and they succeeded. The Netherlands had an influx of skilled workers and they succeeded. Syrian refugees are both. So what makes you think they'll destabalise the 'social cohesion' whatever that is? Plus, what makes you think we have a social cohesion right now? These arguments aren't new, they've been spewed for centuries.
Comment has been collapsed.
So what makes you think they'll destabalise the 'social cohesion' whatever that is?
Again its not only Syrian migration but nevertheless:
Low education, vastly different culture/values, ethics and ideology - the more come and stay in a
short period of time the worse they'll ever be integrated into the foreign society. Not to mention that
doesn't change over night but slowly and gradually.
Oh and since you mentioned the US - are you sure about that "succeeded thing"?
But sure it works for them with national pride and a uniting positive American
identity that is a thing in the USA - which it is not really the case and a thing in Europe.
Comment has been collapsed.
Not all refugees have low education at all.
And they indeed have a vastly different culture. And you know what? The most radical anti-immigrant regions in my country are the ones with the least percentage of immigrants. People tend to radicalise when they only hear the same opinions they have. They tend to be much more moderate when they hear different voices.
I've lived near Polish, Carribean and Somalian immigrants for about a year. The only reason I don't anymore is because my relationship blew up. They are very helpful, say hello and their children are much better raised than ours. Almost none of the Dutch residents did any of that whilst I lived there. The only problems I had is that the Polish immigrants tend to get drunk more often, that's it. I once had to call the cops because a Polish guy was drunk out of his mind and was harassing people. Guess why he was that way? A Dutch woman had screwed him over and he lost his appartment. I know because he once lived across the hallway.
I agree that the current state of the US is messed up. I wouldn't want to live there. But it is still true that it once flourished due to immigrants. And those were certainly not all dressed nicely and polite.
Not all immigrants are bad, not all differences in cultures are bad.
Comment has been collapsed.
The US has succeeded. We solved our food problems decades ago that still plague most of the world. We provide enough support to prevent hundreds of millions from dying around the world.
We catch and prosecute our criminals and have a place to house them.
The gun laws are being turned back over time, so more people are getting access to the human right of protecting themselves from criminals.
High crime is mostly in areas with decades of Democratic party mismanagement. Anti-police/racist(Black Lives Matter) policies acting under the guise of human rights organizations. There are also high crime areas from cities that flipped sides during this administration, which will eventually improve under a more even-handed management.
Not much can be done with the wars and debt thing until we change the administration. The bankers are still not running the US, like they are doing for a bunch of Socialist countries (PIGS+++) in Europe. A tiny 1% cut in overall spending can reverse the debt in a few years.
The old stuff got fixed over a century ago. There are still a number of countries that still practice some form of slavery and/or commit genocide while still being ignored, in order to support their double standard.
Comment has been collapsed.
Highest prisoner per capita is because of capitalism, not social cohesion or immigration
federal government gives grants to police departments based on crime statistics; more arrests means higher crime statistics, means more money. Private prison corporations spend large amounts of money lobbying for, and advertising for, long mandatory sentences
"self regulation" is more of a cultural thing, the origin of which is the wild west era, where people did need to have guns for self defense. Beyond that, I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say.
high crime rates are not everywhere where communities are highly diversified, it tends to be where communities are very poor. (1) because poor people commit more crime, and (2) because of the spoiler text above. It has nothing to do with diversity.
Wars everywhere... can't really argue with that, though that probably has more to do with the U.S. being one of the dominant superpowers for the past 75 years. The prior superpowers (France and England in the 19th century; before that the Ottoman empire; before that in prior years the Dutch, Portuguese, Spanish, Huns, Mongol, Roman, Persian, Egyptian not to mention the far east) were easily just as bad, if not worse
Debt.... economics is a separate discussion I'm not going to get into right now. let's just stick with "it's complicated"
Genocide, Slavery.... gee, do you think the U.S. was the first, or the last, country to do either of those?
Comment has been collapsed.
high crime rates are not everywhere where communities are highly diversified, it tends to be where communities are very poor. (1) because poor people commit more crime, and (2) because of the spoiler text above.
It has nothing to do with diversity.
... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States
^ This suggests otherwise ... although "most" crime is done
black on black, there is also a lot of black on white crime.
So you're telling me that has nothing to do with diversity?
You'll have to reconsider once looking up the term that clearly comprises that ...
In sociology and political studies, the term diversity (or diverse) is used to describe political entities
(neighborhoods, student bodies, etc.) with members who have identifiable differences in their cultural backgrounds or lifestyles.
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.
Netherlands traded in slaves back then, sure you can call them immigrants. xD
Comment has been collapsed.
The thing is... humans form their most basic values and opinions in early childhood. They may later realize it doesn't work like that in other countries, and even agree to it, and realize it may be better that way, but the damage is done by that time already. Imagine for example a person who is abused by parents, told every day that he's useless and good for nothing. He may grow up into useful, intelligent and handsome young man, but his self esteem will always be shit, even if he realizes he's worth so much more than his parents told him. That's just analogy. Some cultures propagate unnecessary violence, some cultures don't give a shit about women's opinions, some even have laws that state clearly how little a woman's opinion or experience matters compared to a man's. People grown up in these cultures will always have some of that in their subconscious, even if they try hard to overcome it, and that's a big if because big part of them don't think there's nothing wrong with it, while by western standards, some of the stuff in Sharia law is barbaric. And this is why it's quite problematic to try mixing people. It may have some long term benefits though, maybe one day people get over their religious issues, but until then, "yes" is an objective fact, nothing to do with anyone's personal opinion about it.
Comment has been collapsed.
It may have some long term benefits though, maybe one day people get over their religious
issues, but until then, "yes" is an objective fact, nothing to do anyone's personal opinion about it.
I agree pretty much on everything - their socialization, culture, ethics that get passed on to
their future children don't change overnight if at all, it gets adapted over several generations ...
And yes that poll serves no real purpose, nor would its outcome change facts/reality/history and
recent scientific research - but its still good for lulz and a unreliable way of quickly-measuring the "mood" here.
Comment has been collapsed.
What if there already is no social cohesion at all?
Comment has been collapsed.
Humans are social beings, "no cohesion at all" is never the case,
even if you'd jumble up a group of people from "everywhere".
However once you got a set of recurring differences across the
members they'll group themselves accordingly and segregate ...
Comment has been collapsed.
I have not, but one state does not represent all ~50.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm English. A decent number of my countrymen move to Spain, either to the Costa Del Sol or around the Alicante and Benidorm areas. Many of them set up British pubs, little shops that sell imported British food, and other businesses designed to serve fellow Brits. They often don't learn Spanish, stream the BBC with a VPN rather than watching Spanish tv etc. They strongly prefer to socialise with each other in their own little communities and have little to do with Spaniards other than when there's no alternative. The one's that live like this, and there's quite a few of them, don't exactly do much for social cohesion over there.
Do I blame them for doing the above? Well on one hand it'd be nice if they made an effort, but then I think that their self-segregation is somewhat natural. I see the same thing happening with groups that move here too.
Comment has been collapsed.
Diversity is not a problem itself. Failing to manage it IS a problem though. Turning migration into a source of cultural and economic growth rather than ignoring it and letting it become a source of trouble is no small challenge for a government, but one that needs to be addressed ASAP.
Of course, there are some behaviors that migrants need to leave behind when moving into another country (especially the ones who conflict with legality and civil rights, namely the role of women in the society, religious freedom, or the right of not being discriminated because of one's sexuality, political or social beliefs, which are non-existent in most countries migrants originate from). Civil rights are a pillar of social and economical progress of the West, and failing to accept this should award a one-way ticket to North Korea (or someplace like that, where civil rights are a non-issue, for educational purpose).
Comment has been collapsed.
I had to look up social cohesion. Two first definitions to pop up in Google were:
Social cohesion is defined as the willingness of members of a society to cooperate with each other in order to survive and prosper.
and
A cohesive society works towards the well-being of all its members, fights exclusion and marginalisation, creates a sense of belonging, promotes trust, and offers its members the opportunity of upward mobility.
I'll ignore the second because it probably won't sit well with right wingers. Sticking with the first, I'd say that diversity might have some negative effect on this, but certainly it's minor compared to, say, right wing thought. Right wingers will be divisive no matter what. If everyone is the same colour they'd divide based on country of origin. If everyone has the same origin they'd divide by religion. If everyone has the same religion they'd divide by social status, and so on. They need this "us" and "them" for their self definition.
In some respect that does lead to social cohesion in the first sense. This kind of thinking leads to conflict, which puts people in a place where survival is not guaranteed, and when survival is at stake people tend to cooperate more in some ways. Of course the global result is general misery and less prosperity, but at a local level there's some slapping on the back and congratulations on the strength of the society vs. adversity.
Comment has been collapsed.
2,656 Comments - Last post 1 minute ago by MeguminShiro
16,859 Comments - Last post 4 minutes ago by Inkyyy
391 Comments - Last post 14 minutes ago by kiseli
6 Comments - Last post 22 minutes ago by pb1
1,179 Comments - Last post 49 minutes ago by Formidolosus
300 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by CutieTheRooster
20 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by ziuq
61 Comments - Last post 42 seconds ago by Moony1986
1,568 Comments - Last post 2 minutes ago by MouseWithBeer
79 Comments - Last post 3 minutes ago by anakin90
66 Comments - Last post 18 minutes ago by GoatPimp
151 Comments - Last post 30 minutes ago by Beauregarde
1,719 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by A10i
8,623 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by Butterkatt
Diversity DESTROYS Social Cohesion in the West
Seen this video yesterday and it rubbed me the way it should ... thought i'd share
this one in particular, to see what you might think (best after having watched it).
Note1: There is also quite a lot of studies and scientific research behind this.
Best look up some of the sources.
Also very intriguing in this context: IQ | racism and the Consverative
Bottom line: The way this political correct tale with outright lies is being spun, is irresponsible and hypocritical.
Social "problems" only get fixed well, once their acknowledged by the majority of a society.
Subtopic:
For the Germans/Europeans nearby among you, that might interest you as well:
Germany Crosses the Demographic RUBICON: 20-35's a MINORITY by 2020
What do you think ? Personally I find it quite unsettling to know, that your populace might become
a minority in the future ... as i am fond of the modern german culture and ethics as a whole.
Note2: Don't assume because of the country in my steam profile i'm a straight up native
from there (not that it would change anything in my view) - the fellow citizens around here,
are for most parts the nice "political correct"-guys as you know them form "everywhere".
Giveaway - might add more later:
sentinels-of-the-multiverse lvl1 | the-marvellous-mistake lvl3 | tulpa lvl1
Thanks to all participating!
The thread is closed now, as that sufficed to get a picture. :-D
Comment has been collapsed.