If you could redraw countries borders today on world what would you change? and resettle people

[Jack V Savage]

That's the definition of racism. Jack can shove his sandy panties up his ass, right along with his unfounded slander.

Now that that's out of the way.

What's wrong with an etno national state if that's what said state was founded on or that's what the citizens want? It's right in line with the self determination of a people principle.

Notice I'm not arguing for such a model in diverse countries. Also notice I'm not arguing for any kind of racial purity anywhere. So where's the racism?

You're the one who is sandy here, friend. And you're trying to simultaneously argue in favor of racism and get mad about the label. "What's wrong with an ethno state?" and "How dare you call me a racist?" aren't sentences that the same person should be typing.

The fundamental tension is here is individuality vs. collectivism.

 

[Islam Imamate]

rac·ism
ˈrāˌsizəm/
noun

1. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
   "a program to combat racism"
   synonyms: racial discrimination, racialism, racial prejudice, xenophobia, chauvinism, bigotry, casteism
   "Aborigines are the main victims of racism in Australia"
   • the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
     noun: racism
     "theories of racism

That's the definition of racism. Jack can shove his sandy panties up his ass, right along with his unfounded slander.

That's the dictionary definition of racism but obviously its use elsewhere can be more complicated. If Israel started segregating Arabs from Jewish Israelis and justified it on security grounds would you object to calling the practice racist? Ostensibly its not making any judgement about the superiority or inferiority of Arabs and Jews.

Now that that's out of the way.

What's wrong with an etno national state if that's what said state was founded on or that's what the citizens want? It's right in line with the self determination of a people principle.

Notice I'm not arguing for such a model in diverse countries. Also notice I'm not arguing for any kind of racial purity anywhere. So where's the racism?

What's wrong with it is just as I said earlier; that in an ethnostate the ideal citizen is conceptualized as those who belong to the preferred ethnic group and ethnicity is tied to race. Again, you said you support properly vetted immigration for both sorts of states but for an ethnonationalist state the race of its immigrants matters and thus their immigration system is going to make value judgements on potential immigrants based on race.

That said I see your point about the self determination of peoples. Its why I like to use Kurdistan as an example, because that movement is pretty clearly a call for an ethnostate of some sort and yet it has support of many across both sides of the aisles. Why is it okay for the Kurds and not the French or the English? I would say due to circumstances on the ground but someone else might not feel there is any significant difference.

 

[Fawlty]

Reading these suggestions is like watching little kids sort colored blocks and shapes.

 

[Soul Crusher]

Well obviously I am use this as an example, but Quebec for example is considerably more homogeneous than many places called the 'old world''.

It's amazing, diversification fucks shit up in Europe but these people will look at the millions of Canadians, Americans and Australians and say I want to now diversify that completely.

They're condemning Canadians, Americans and Australians to the same fate as Europeans.

Demographic changes with the idea that Europeans are colonizers on stolen land floating around is a recipe for disaster.

 

[TheGreatA]

There is absolutely nothing morally wrong or racist about an ethno-state. Most of the world's states are ethno-states, created to preserve a distinct culture and language, separate from the rest.

Take Finland for example. Finland was established as an ethno-state, to preserve Finno-Ugric peoples (who, as a language group, were rapidly disappearing under cultural pressure from Russia and rest of Europe at the time), as well as their sovereignty and freedom to decide for themselves, what is right or wrong to them.

This does not mean that a person cannot visit Finland or feel welcome to live there. It just means that most people that populate Finland are going to be Finnish, speak Finnish and perhaps "act" Finnish. If someone from another country cannot adjust to that, then that is too bad. But I do not see why the Finnish should accommodate other peoples of the world, beyond offering common courtesy, as expected from all populations. If you cannot adjust to Finland's culture then there are literally hundreds and hundreds of different countries to choose from. If we all resided under one common "roof", one world government with one culture and language, then there would only be one choice to make.

Based on everything I've observed, I feel that an ethno-state such as Finland is bound to be more moral in practise, more courteous to one another and more unified under a common cause, than America ever will be. With a strong social pact uniting the people together, relatively little enforcement of the law is required, resulting in a stable, safe and free environment.

Not that there's anything wrong with America either, but we can see the obvious problems resulting from its multi-cultural and multi-ethnic foundations. A multi-ethnic coalition such as China, Russian Federation (previously USSR), America, perhaps EU in the future, etc. is always bound to be more imperial in its international objectives. It's not the small ethno-states, with relatively few grandiose aspirations of world dominance, that are causing the problems.

 

[Bald1]

That's the dictionary definition of racism but obviously its use elsewhere can be more complicated. If Israel started segregating Arabs from Jewish Israelis and justified it on security grounds would you object to calling the practice racist? Ostensibly its not making any judgement about the superiority or inferiority of Arabs and Jews.

What's wrong with it is just as I said earlier; that in an ethnostate the ideal citizen is conceptualized as those who belong to the preferred ethnic group and ethnicity is tied to race. Again, you said you support properly vetted immigration for both sorts of states but for an ethnonationalist state the race of its immigrants matters and thus their immigration system is going to make value judgements on potential immigrants based on race.

That said I see your point about the self determination of peoples. Its why I like to use Kurdistan as an example, because that movement is pretty clearly a call for an ethnostate of some sort and yet it has support of many across both sides of the aisles. Why is it okay for the Kurds and not the French or the English? I would say due to circumstances on the ground but someone else might not feel there is any significant difference.

We're getting into justified discrimination territory here, and muddy waters besides. In general, terrorist threats come from which of the two people you mentioned? Profiling does have its place, but I don't support forced segregation, or one based on racial lines. Besides, I'm one of those people who don't think "Jew" or "Arab" are a race.

Yes properly vetting can mean different things in different countries. Yet even a "xenophobic" nation such as Hungary allows for immigration from south east Asia. Why? Because the newcomers are deemed valuable assets. Nothing wrong with that.

I know you're "into" Japanese culture, or at least parts of it. Do you believe there is value in retaining it the way it is? It's heritage, traditions, peculiarities and culture? Or would you be cool if Japan became populated with a bunch of guys named Steve, swilling Budweiser and watching NASCAR? Sure, "Steve" might turn into the model Japanese citizen and embrace their culture, or the average Japanese Joe might turn Murican, but not likely if their population stays more or less homogeneous.

Am I racist for supporting their immigration policies while at the same time wanting diverse nations retain their diversity? If so we're speaking a language I'm unfamiliar with. Also, sign me up and I'll wear that label with pride.

 

[Soul Crusher]

We're getting into justified discrimination territory here, and muddy waters besides. In general, terrorist threats come from which of the two people you mentioned? Profiling does have its place, but I don't support forced segregation, or one based on racial lines. Besides, I'm one of those people who don't think "Jew" or "Arab" are a race.

Yes properly vetting can mean different things in different countries. Yet even a "xenophobic" nation such as Hungary allows for immigration from south east Asia. Why? Because the newcomers are deemed valuable assets. Nothing wrong with that.

I know you're "into" Japanese culture, or at least parts of it. Do you believe there is value in retaining it the way it is? It's heritage, traditions, peculiarities and culture? Or would you be cool if Japan became populated with a bunch of guys named Steve, swilling Budweiser and watching NASCAR? Sure, "Steve" might turn into the model Japanese citizen and embrace their culture, or the average Japanese Joe might turn Murican, but not likely if their population stays more or less homogeneous.

Am I racist for supporting their immigration policies while at the same time wanting diverse nations retain their diversity? If so we're speaking a language I'm unfamiliar with. Also, sign me up and I'll wear that label with pride.

You got some crazy double standards.

 

[Ice That Jaw]

Give Mexico back to California.

 

[TheGreatA]

We're getting into justified discrimination territory here, and muddy waters besides. In general, terrorist threats come from which of the two people you mentioned? Profiling does have its place, but I don't support forced segregation, or one based on racial lines. Besides, I'm one of those people who don't think "Jew" or "Arab" are a race.

Yes properly vetting can mean different things in different countries. Yet even a "xenophobic" nation such as Hungary allows for immigration from south east Asia. Why? Because the newcomers are deemed valuable assets. Nothing wrong with that.

I know you're "into" Japanese culture, or at least parts of it. Do you believe there is value in retaining it the way it is? It's heritage, traditions, peculiarities and culture? Or would you be cool if Japan became populated with a bunch of guys named Steve, swilling Budweiser and watching NASCAR? Sure, "Steve" might turn into the model Japanese citizen and embrace their culture, or the average Japanese Joe might turn Murican, but not likely if their population stays more or less homogeneous.

Am I racist for supporting their immigration policies while at the same time wanting diverse nations retain their diversity? If so we're speaking a language I'm unfamiliar with. Also, sign me up and I'll wear that label with pride.

If I were to play God, and had a world full of resources and fertile lands, largely unpopulated, why in the hell would I start putting a bunch of them into an island that's populated by 100+ million people as it is? For no other reason than to fuck with them, I suppose.

It doesn't make any rational sense to do that. Japan's immigration policies make perfect sense from their perspective. They're a small island, with relatively few resources, stacked with people who already struggle enough to co-exist with one another, as it is. They operate under very strict social rules, and any departure from those may potentially cause a structural problem. Hell, we're already seeing that structural problem right now as young men and women have grown more "liberal", and less reproductive to the society.

America's relatively more lax immigration policies worked for them in the past, because they had a big, fertile piece of land that was largely unpopulated. One could ask the question whether those sorts of immigration policies are sustainable though as America's population continues to grow (including the population under poverty line). At some point, you need to start focusing on what you've got.

The problem with many Americans (not saying all) is that they feel the need to impose their standards upon all the others, without taking the circumstances into considerations (see their Middle Eastern campaigns). Nobody has really challenged America's position or whatever it is that they want to do amongst each other, in their own lands (maybe Bin Laden did, but he was just one nutty mountain bandit). Unfortunately, the tendency to make decisions for other people is there, and it has caused a lot of bad shit to go down. Some good, but a lot of bad as well.

 

[Islam Imamate]

We're getting into justified discrimination territory here, and muddy waters besides. In general, terrorist threats come from which of the two people you mentioned? Profiling does have its place, but I don't support forced segregation, or one based on racial lines. Besides, I'm one of those people who don't think "Jew" or "Arab" are a race.

Arab and Jew are legitimate ethnic groups. Sure "race" and "ethnicity" aren't entirely interchangeable but would you really argue they're not connected at all? If you saw an Israeli Jew discriminating against an Arab and someone accused him of being racist, would you defend the Jew by saying "well, technically Arabs aren't a race ya know"?

Yes properly vetting can mean different things in different countries. Yet even a "xenophobic" nation such as Hungary allows for immigration from south east Asia. Why? Because the newcomers are deemed valuable assets. Nothing wrong with that.

Newcomers can come and visit but ethnic Hungarians have clear advantages when it comes to citizenship. They don't have birth right citizenship and require at least one parent be Hungarian. That means you can be a 3rd generation immigrant born in Hungary and not have Hungarian citizenship if none of your grandparents are ethnically Hungarian.

I know you're "into" Japanese culture, or at least parts of it. Do you believe there is value in retaining it the way it is? It's heritage, traditions, peculiarities and culture? Or would you be cool if Japan became populated with a bunch of guys named Steve, swilling Budweiser and watching NASCAR? Sure, "Steve" might turn into the model Japanese citizen and embrace their culture, or the average Japanese Joe might turn Murican, but not likely if their population stays more or less homogeneous.

Am I racist for supporting their immigration policies while at the same time wanting diverse nations retain their diversity? If so we're speaking a language I'm unfamiliar with. Also, sign me up and I'll wear that label with pride.

Of course as a weeb I want Japanese culture to be preserved but that doesn't mean I necessarily agree with their immigration policies. And anyway, their biggest threat right now are their low birth rates and they have no one else to blame but themselves. Same with Europeans with low birth rates.

 

[Bald1]

You got some crazy double standards.

Point them out to me.

 

[Islam Imamate]

Point them out to me.

I think he's referring to your different standards for "Old World" vs "New World" states.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Based on everything I've observed, I feel that an ethno-state such as Finland is bound to be more moral in practise, more courteous to one another and more unified under a common cause, than America ever will be.

A) I'd suggest that you observe more broadly.
B) To the extent that there's anything to this, you're likely mixing up cause and effect.

Do you believe there is value in retaining it the way it is? It's heritage, traditions, peculiarities and culture? Or would you be cool if Japan became populated with a bunch of guys named Steve, swilling Budweiser and watching NASCAR? Sure, "Steve" might turn into the model Japanese citizen and embrace their culture, or the average Japanese Joe might turn Murican, but not likely if their population stays more or less homogeneous.

Surely one can see some middle ground between "only racially Asian people should be allowed to live in Asia" and "NASCAR should be forced to be popular in Japan" or whatever this nonsense is. One can believe that citizens of Japan should determine the course of Japan's policies on all issues, including immigration and also that trying to enforce a particular mix of racial demographics is dumb policy supported out of incorrect beliefs about the importance of race.

 

[Soul Crusher]

Point them out to me.

Diversification is fine in Canada, America and Australia but it's not fine in Europe.

 

[Orgasmo]

Murica gets absorbed back into the British Empire.

Come at me rebellious scums!

 

[Jack V Savage]

The problem with many Americans (not saying all) is that they feel the need to impose their standards upon all the others, without taking the circumstances into considerations (see their Middle Eastern campaigns).

It's not a problem to believe that right and wrong and truth and falsity are not affected by time and place (though implementation can be).

 

[Bald1]

Diversification is fine in Canada, America and Australia but it's not fine in Europe.

"Diversification" isn't really the right term when talking about already diverse countries.

Add Africa and Asia to that last bit, as I have since the beginning.

 

[Soul Crusher]

"Diversification" isn't really the right term when talking about already diverse countries.

Add Africa and Asia to that last bit, as I have since the beginning.

Can you name me a country without ex pats and immigrants?

 

[Seaside]

A) I'd suggest that you observe more broadly.
B) To the extent that there's anything to this, you're likely mixing up cause and effect.



Surely one can see some middle ground between "only racially Asian people should be allowed to live in Asia" and "NASCAR should be forced to be popular in Japan" or whatever this nonsense is. One can believe that citizens of Japan should determine the course of Japan's policies on all issues, including immigration and also that trying to enforce a particular mix of racial demographics is dumb policy supported out of incorrect beliefs about the importance of race.

why not. here america and canada can be your multicutturalis paradise and you can leave japan alone and keep it japanese.

Murica gets absorbed back into the British Empire.

Come at me rebellious scums!

lol

If I were to play God, and had a world full of resources and fertile lands, largely unpopulated, why in the hell would I start putting a bunch of them into an island that's populated by 100+ million people as it is? For no other reason than to fuck with them, I suppose.

It doesn't make any rational sense to do that. Japan's immigration policies make perfect sense from their perspective. They're a small island, with relatively few resources, stacked with people who already struggle enough to co-exist with one another, as it is. They operate under very strict social rules, and any departure from those may potentially cause a structural problem. Hell, we're already seeing that structural problem right now as young men and women have grown more "liberal", and less reproductive to the society.

America's relatively more lax immigration policies worked for them in the past, because they had a big, fertile piece of land that was largely unpopulated. One could ask the question whether those sorts of immigration policies are sustainable though as America's population continues to grow (including the population under poverty line). At some point, you need to start focusing on what you've got.

The problem with many Americans (not saying all) is that they feel the need to impose their standards upon all the others, without taking the circumstances into considerations (see their Middle Eastern campaigns). Nobody has really challenged America's position or whatever it is that they want to do amongst each other, in their own lands (maybe Bin Laden did, but he was just one nutty mountain bandit). Unfortunately, the tendency to make decisions for other people is there, and it has caused a lot of bad shit to go down. Some good, but a lot of bad as well.

yeah @Jack V Savage

westernrs are the worst thank god this is happening. There liberal demise coming right wing parties and islam etc will do them out and there low birth rate. the americans push there standards on everyone and they choose shit presidents! and candidates! who promote same thing!

 

[TheGreatA]

A) I'd suggest that you observe more broadly.
B) To the extent that there's anything to this, you're likely mixing up cause and effect.

It all depends on whether you want to live a peaceful, harmonous existence in a tightly-knit together village, or whether you want to live a more "stimulating", experience-filled life in a metropolitan city.

You prefer the latter, obviously, while I prefer the former. The difference is that I'm not trying to strip away your lifestyle from you, while many of your kind (not necessarily you, but many that share your opinions on the subject) would hope to strip my lifestyle away from me.

I personally like to go outside in the night knowing that no one's going to offer me any trouble, walking around the streets and knowing all of the people that I get to meet, and knowing that I can leave my belongings in a public place without having it stolen on a moment's notice, by a thief that I'll never get to know. If I ever lose an important item, such as my wallet, I'm likely to receive a call and have it returned.

That's a good life. A life that I'd prefer to preserve. A life that I'm likely to lose in a multi-ethnic environment, based on all of my experiences.