Homogeneity allows for more progressive policy. T/F?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That is private conduct that would exist whether progressive policies are in place or not. The OP asked about government policy.

What does it matter?

A progressive policy focuses on finding common ground to solidarize.

Are you more likely to meet that outcome in a society that heterogeneous or homogeneous?

And yes, it boils down to human nature.

omg, people
What happened to basic Psyc and Soc 101?

So the melting pot is a myth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The homogeneity thing is racist.

but it is true, just another aspect of human nature.

200 people killed in airline crash over ukraine and europe ready to do whatever to help, 2000 people killed in palestine and europe shrugs.

people donate to other people that are similar. but for the grace of god go I.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Openness to helping others? The question was whether progressive policies succeed in a heterogeneous environment. Once those policies are enacted, "openness to helping others" is moot. Those policies are law and are no longer dependent on the whims of an individual.

If you want to argue that private actions of individuals tend to be bigoted towards people who are similar, fine. But such behavior has nothing to do with government policy

.

And people are more inclined to HELP others who are like them.

So if the culture is the same, and Progressivism aims to improve the human condition, it's easier to do when you share the same norms.

Behavior has everything to do with it. Humans are greedy at the core. So we seek out others who are like us and who share our views.

I don't see it. If I enact a progressive policy to do job training, tuition subsidies, feeding the homeless, those funds are there and people who are paid to run those programs will do it, whether their clients are from the same background or not.

OP here - the problem is enacting policy. not once policy is enacted. and the policy you can enact is very much dependent on the political landscape.

case in point health care - where the 'compromise' was ocare - far from the progresssive dream of single-payer.

[Anonymous]

OP here - full disclosure, i'm a minority.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That is private conduct that would exist whether progressive policies are in place or not. The OP asked about government policy.

What does it matter?

A progressive policy focuses on finding common ground to solidarize.

Are you more likely to meet that outcome in a society that heterogeneous or homogeneous?

And yes, it boils down to human nature.

omg, people
What happened to basic Psyc and Soc 101?

So the melting pot is a myth.

it kind of feels like it.

I think that's why people started to throw out the 'salad bowl' metaphor.

yes, ideally i think progressives would love both a vibrant/hetergeneous/race/background-blind society that comes together over progressive ideals -

however my question is: if the progressive agenda can be enacted easier on a national basis with a certain population mix, is said pop. mix worth pursuing over the progressive ideal of heterogeneity?

Which is more important for the direction of the country. This is not meant to be racist - i wanted to measure the priorities of progressives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

That is private conduct that would exist whether progressive policies are in place or not. The OP asked about government policy.

What does it matter?

A progressive policy focuses on finding common ground to solidarize.

Are you more likely to meet that outcome in a society that heterogeneous or homogeneous?

And yes, it boils down to human nature.

omg, people
What happened to basic Psyc and Soc 101?

So the melting pot is a myth.

it kind of feels like it.

I think that's why people started to throw out the 'salad bowl' metaphor.

yes, ideally i think progressives would love both a vibrant/hetergeneous/race/background-blind society that comes together over progressive ideals -

however my question is: if the progressive agenda can be enacted easier on a national basis with a certain population mix, is said pop. mix worth pursuing over the progressive ideal of heterogeneity?

Which is more important for the direction of the country. This is not meant to be racist - i wanted to measure the priorities of progressives.

It may feel like it to you, but history says that the melting pot is a huge success.

And liberals aren't pursuing a population mix, any more than conservatives are trying to prevent it. Conservatives aren't actually trying to prevent the growth of minorities in America, are they? If so, please put that in your platform so that everyone who agrees with you can vote for it, and so that those who disagree can be adequately warned.

[Anonymous]

However progressive economic policies seem to only flourish within homogeneity.

This portion of your question is both extremely provocative and not credible, so I can't provide an answer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

However progressive economic policies seem to only flourish within homogeneity.

This portion of your question is both extremely provocative and not credible, so I can't provide an answer.

Can you point to examples of sustainable socialism outside of nordic countries?

And before anyone says canada, uk, australia, or other western european countries please check their demographic mixes before writing.

I think this is a very uncomfortable topic to explore because it will inform what exactly is the achievable by progressives in this country.

It seems that the examples as well as the sociological micro data (how humans interact with those that are similar vs. different) point to a certain correlation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

However progressive economic policies seem to only flourish within homogeneity.

This portion of your question is both extremely provocative and not credible, so I can't provide an answer.

Can you point to examples of sustainable socialism outside of nordic countries?

And before anyone says canada, uk, australia, or other western european countries please check their demographic mixes before writing.

I think this is a very uncomfortable topic to explore because it will inform what exactly is the achievable by progressives in this country.

It seems that the examples as well as the sociological micro data (how humans interact with those that are similar vs. different) point to a certain correlation.

Switzerland, New Zealand, Australia, Austria, Canada all have larger foreign-born populations as a percentage than we do. And obviously we haven't failed yet.

[Anonymous]

liamw wrote:So what you are saying is there should be laws forcing us to conform to a set culture ? Hitler tried that once.

You raise a good point. There is no way to make ourselves less diverse without some form of ethnic cleansing, which is obviously immoral.

Maybe we should trust in the melting pot. Many years ago, strange people from strange countries came here to the dismay of the population, and it all turned out alright.

[Anonymous]

liamw wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

liamw wrote:So what you are saying is there should be laws forcing us to conform to a set culture ? Hitler tried that once.

You raise a good point. There is no way to make ourselves less diverse without some form of ethnic cleansing, which is obviously immoral.

Maybe we should trust in the melting pot. Many years ago, strange people from strange countries came here to the dismay of the population, and it all turned out alright.

Not for the native Americans......

The thing is people are to quick to point out how we are different and not how we are the same. We as a people and a government push division and call it a push for equality. If we want equality would it not make more of an impact to have cultures be a part of the same organizations, as apposed to self segregation?

The issue is not that we look for what's different it is we don't look for what is the same.

I have been blessed to live all over the world and the most kind people I ever met were in the provinces of the Philippines well away from the city. These people know abject poverty in ways even some homeless Americans cant identify with. But if they have any thing to give, they will share it. Those people amazed me with there generosity and selflessness. They did not do it because the Gov required it of them, they did it because it was right.

In my families history we have been considered suspect as Americans because of the countries we came from, disloyal to America for our obedience to the Pope, and of late I am a Hamas sympathizer for my opposition to policy in Israel. I have been told to find another country on multiple occasions for disliking certain aspects of government.

So remind me where the division is coming from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

However progressive economic policies seem to only flourish within homogeneity.

This portion of your question is both extremely provocative and not credible, so I can't provide an answer.

Can you point to examples of sustainable socialism outside of nordic countries?

And before anyone says canada, uk, australia, or other western european countries please check their demographic mixes before writing.

I think this is a very uncomfortable topic to explore because it will inform what exactly is the achievable by progressives in this country.

It seems that the examples as well as the sociological micro data (how humans interact with those that are similar vs. different) point to a certain correlation.

Switzerland, New Zealand, Australia, Austria, Canada all have larger foreign-born populations as a percentage than we do. And obviously we haven't failed yet.

Interesting that you used 'foreign-born' specifically instead of general race. have you been to these countries? Other than NZ, the rest are way whiter than the US (canada is close, but still statistically whiter). Switzerland has tons of foreign born expats from the US and germany, uk, and western europe working for a few years before leaving. I worked in zurich for two years - even most of the expats in zurich, zug, lucerne are all 'white' even if the hail from the US, munich, london or northern italy.

Aus and Can have lots of UK expats due to being commonwealth countries.

where did i ever say anything about failing? I talked about sustainable and successful progressive policies, which you are joking if include us in the class of the nordics.

[Anonymous]

liamw wrote:So what you are saying is there should be laws forcing us to conform to a set culture ? Hitler tried that once.

No - I don't thin you can legislate conformity. I think homogeneity/conformity leads to an atmosphere which fosters a certain set of policy options which seem to be more accepted.

However the opposite is not true IMO or should be pursued.

But one could change the future rate of change by limiting illegal and legal immigration....i.e. the US would look a lot different if Hart-Cellar never passed.

[Anonymous]

Singapore and Switzerland are not homogeneous.

[Anonymous]

liamw wrote:Internationally.....whole different level of hate gos on. Try being a Filipina in Korea. And hell the Brits still hate the Irish and they share the same pigment.

korea is 90%+ korean - it is known to be one of the most homogenous countries on the planet. though relations are getting slightly better : http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/30/world/asia/demographic-shifts-redefine-society-in-south-korea.html?pagewanted=all

British-irish hate is overblown considering irish work in the hundreds of thousands in the UK and come over every weekend to watch premier league football and play in british sports leagues. there isnt the same sense of 'i don't want to share my nhs'.

and even with that, look how much support UKIP gets in the UK over the last 5 years.

If the UK had US demographics, UKIP support would be even higher.

That's not good. UKIP is not progressive.