Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many progressives associate diversity with a greater moral good over homogeneous, which they usually mean all-white as opposed to different races. You see the sneering here on DCUM towards areas that are too white or not diverse enough. While I certainly understand some people's desires to want to be in a diverse areas with many different races, including their own races, it is also an interesting moral psyche that has emerged in recent years and one I find both admirable - and limited - because it frequently reduces diversity to skin color and nothing else and ignores the enormous diversity of humanity within a general race.

Most of the world is homogenous, whether an African nation or Asian nation or eastern / Northern Europe. In many of these countries, the homogenous nature is something they take pride in because it's a cultural pride rooted in a shared common heritage. There have been solid research, if unpopular, showing that greater homogeneity often comes with greater social trust and community spirit, while greater diversity is often the opposite. On the flip side, people who don't fit the homogenous nature of a country can often be marginalized. A political football, certainly, but it does show how politicized the word homogenous has become, used as a political tool by opposite forces.

I’m curious to what the recent emphasis on identity politics in America will do for social cohesion. Somehow it feels like it leads to Balkanization.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many progressives associate diversity with a greater moral good over homogeneous, which they usually mean all-white as opposed to different races. You see the sneering here on DCUM towards areas that are too white or not diverse enough. While I certainly understand some people's desires to want to be in a diverse areas with many different races, including their own races, it is also an interesting moral psyche that has emerged in recent years and one I find both admirable - and limited - because it frequently reduces diversity to skin color and nothing else and ignores the enormous diversity of humanity within a general race.

Most of the world is homogenous, whether an African nation or Asian nation or eastern / Northern Europe. In many of these countries, the homogenous nature is something they take pride in because it's a cultural pride rooted in a shared common heritage. There have been solid research, if unpopular, showing that greater homogeneity often comes with greater social trust and community spirit, while greater diversity is often the opposite. On the flip side, people who don't fit the homogenous nature of a country can often be marginalized. A political football, certainly, but it does show how politicized the word homogenous has become, used as a political tool by opposite forces.

I’m curious to what the recent emphasis on identity politics in America will do for social cohesion. Somehow it feels like it leads to Balkanization.

Diversity is a strength, its what unites us.

Anonymous wrote:Can you please link to the post where someone said that Japan and Finland don’t have violent crime because they are homogeneous?

Anonymous wrote:I've mostly seen the term used by libertarians or right-wingers to explain why they don't think the various social programs in Nordic countries would work here. Which I guess sounds better than "we're a bunch of f**kin racists" and/or "black people can't be trusted not to be lazy criminals."

Most of the world is homogenous, whether an African nation or Asian nation or eastern / Northern Europe. In many of these countries, the homogenous nature is something they take pride in because it's a cultural pride rooted in a shared common heritage. There have been solid research, if unpopular, showing that greater homogeneity often comes with greater social trust and community spirit, while greater diversity is often the opposite. On the flip side, people who don't fit the homogenous nature of a country can often be marginalized. A political football, certainly, but it does show how politicized the word homogenous has become, used as a political tool by opposite forces.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Many progressives associate diversity with a greater moral good over homogeneous, which they usually mean all-white as opposed to different races. You see the sneering here on DCUM towards areas that are too white or not diverse enough. While I certainly understand some people's desires to want to be in a diverse areas with many different races, including their own races, it is also an interesting moral psyche that has emerged in recent years and one I find both admirable - and limited - because it frequently reduces diversity to skin color and nothing else and ignores the enormous diversity of humanity within a general race.

Most of the world is homogenous, whether an African nation or Asian nation or eastern / Northern Europe. In many of these countries, the homogenous nature is something they take pride in because it's a cultural pride rooted in a shared common heritage. There have been solid research, if unpopular, showing that greater homogeneity often comes with greater social trust and community spirit, while greater diversity is often the opposite. On the flip side, people who don't fit the homogenous nature of a country can often be marginalized. A political football, certainly, but it does show how politicized the word homogenous has become, used as a political tool by opposite forces.

I’m curious to what the recent emphasis on identity politics in America will do for social cohesion. Somehow it feels like it leads to Balkanization.

Diversity is a strength, its what unites us.

Both the woke warriors and the alt-right with their obsession with some kind of pure white Christian origin ignore that the US always saw itself as very diverse, it's just that the meaning of the word diverse has changed away from what it really means to focus solely on skin colors. But the language of the 18th and 19th century, including the writings of the Founding Fathers, saw the United States as incredibly diverse with so many different people coming from "all over." Yes, the immigrants were primarily Europeans, but they saw the diversity in all the different European heritages, as well as in the growth of different faiths, both Catholicism and later, Judaism. And they saw the country as a place that contained a huge range of opinions and ideas and talents, along with all the regionalism. If you had told them the US was a homogenous place, the'd have laughed. To them, homogenous would have symbolized oppression, because so many of the immigrants came fleeing persecution as a marginalized group who didn't fit neatly in the homogenous structures of the old country. At the same time, they also didn't look at a white person and automatically assume some kind of homogenous identity. The white Anglo-Saxon protestants of America were keenly aware of themselves as opposed to the Irish Catholic, who were also keenly aware of themselves as opposed to Italian Catholics, or German pietists, and even the German Jews saw a difference with the eastern European Polish/Russian Jews, and so on and so on. The woke progressives perhaps too willfully ignore this in their infantile reduction of American history to some basic "white" identity, and so do the alt-rights in their fearful screeds.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've mostly seen the term used by libertarians or right-wingers to explain why they don't think the various social programs in Nordic countries would work here. Which I guess sounds better than "we're a bunch of f**kin racists" and/or "black people can't be trusted not to be lazy criminals."

Most of the world is homogenous, whether an African nation or Asian nation or eastern / Northern Europe. In many of these countries, the homogenous nature is something they take pride in because it's a cultural pride rooted in a shared common heritage. There have been solid research, if unpopular, showing that greater homogeneity often comes with greater social trust and community spirit, while greater diversity is often the opposite. On the flip side, people who don't fit the homogenous nature of a country can often be marginalized. A political football, certainly, but it does show how politicized the word homogenous has become, used as a political tool by opposite forces.

I'd like to make sure that I'm understanding your point of view. Your opinion is that when people say there is "solid research that showing that greater homogeneity often comes with greater social trust and community spirit, while greater diversity is often the opposite"; what that really means is "we're a bunch of f**kin racists" and/or "black people can't be trusted not to be lazy criminals." ?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've mostly seen the term used by libertarians or right-wingers to explain why they don't think the various social programs in Nordic countries would work here. Which I guess sounds better than "we're a bunch of f**kin racists" and/or "black people can't be trusted not to be lazy criminals."

Most of the world is homogenous, whether an African nation or Asian nation or eastern / Northern Europe. In many of these countries, the homogenous nature is something they take pride in because it's a cultural pride rooted in a shared common heritage. There have been solid research, if unpopular, showing that greater homogeneity often comes with greater social trust and community spirit, while greater diversity is often the opposite. On the flip side, people who don't fit the homogenous nature of a country can often be marginalized. A political football, certainly, but it does show how politicized the word homogenous has become, used as a political tool by opposite forces.

I'd like to make sure that I'm understanding your point of view. Your opinion is that when people say there is "solid research that showing that greater homogeneity often comes with greater social trust and community spirit, while greater diversity is often the opposite"; what that really means is "we're a bunch of f**kin racists" and/or "black people can't be trusted not to be lazy criminals." ?

In the absence of racism, why would greater diversity (of a type not present in Nordic countries) result in diminished social trust and community spirit?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've mostly seen the term used by libertarians or right-wingers to explain why they don't think the various social programs in Nordic countries would work here. Which I guess sounds better than "we're a bunch of f**kin racists" and/or "black people can't be trusted not to be lazy criminals."

Most of the world is homogenous, whether an African nation or Asian nation or eastern / Northern Europe. In many of these countries, the homogenous nature is something they take pride in because it's a cultural pride rooted in a shared common heritage. There have been solid research, if unpopular, showing that greater homogeneity often comes with greater social trust and community spirit, while greater diversity is often the opposite. On the flip side, people who don't fit the homogenous nature of a country can often be marginalized. A political football, certainly, but it does show how politicized the word homogenous has become, used as a political tool by opposite forces.

I'd like to make sure that I'm understanding your point of view. Your opinion is that when people say there is "solid research that showing that greater homogeneity often comes with greater social trust and community spirit, while greater diversity is often the opposite"; what that really means is "we're a bunch of f**kin racists" and/or "black people can't be trusted not to be lazy criminals." ?

In the absence of racism, why would greater diversity (of a type not present in Nordic countries) result in diminished social trust and community spirit?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I've mostly seen the term used by libertarians or right-wingers to explain why they don't think the various social programs in Nordic countries would work here. Which I guess sounds better than "we're a bunch of f**kin racists" and/or "black people can't be trusted not to be lazy criminals."

Most of the world is homogenous, whether an African nation or Asian nation or eastern / Northern Europe. In many of these countries, the homogenous nature is something they take pride in because it's a cultural pride rooted in a shared common heritage. There have been solid research, if unpopular, showing that greater homogeneity often comes with greater social trust and community spirit, while greater diversity is often the opposite. On the flip side, people who don't fit the homogenous nature of a country can often be marginalized. A political football, certainly, but it does show how politicized the word homogenous has become, used as a political tool by opposite forces.

I'd like to make sure that I'm understanding your point of view. Your opinion is that when people say there is "solid research that showing that greater homogeneity often comes with greater social trust and community spirit, while greater diversity is often the opposite"; what that really means is "we're a bunch of f**kin racists" and/or "black people can't be trusted not to be lazy criminals." ?

In the absence of racism, why would greater diversity (of a type not present in Nordic countries) result in diminished social trust and community spirit?

OK? I still do not understand why mentioning research on this topic when discussing different cultures makes someone a " f**kin racist" who believes that "black people can't be trusted". Can you please explain that a bit?

Anonymous wrote:This is historically ignorant. Homogeneous populations have killed their own kind, oppressed their own kind, raped and murdered their own kind, divided into clans and sects and waged civil wars and revolutions against their own kind. Have you read Dickens or Hugo or Dostoevsky or anything else written about how shitty and dangerous those homogeneous societies were for most of the population? That’s why they came to America, because being poor in Europe was horrible.