Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A question for progressives:

In general, democrats/liberals in the US support more immigration, amnesty of those here illegally, and other policies that support heterogeneity.

However progressive economic policies seem to only flourish within homogeneity.

Which is more important to progressives? The former or the later?

I already had my own opinions on this but this article made me think of it again today:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/385035/homogeneity-their-strength-kevin-d-williamson

I have voted D in all elections for full disclosure.

Liberals/SWPL's act the same 'white flightish' ways that caused de-urbanization as well - look at white people commenting regarding cupertino, tj, and other schools if too many asians come in.

Your article could be summed up "socialism works in Norway because they are ethnically pure and people help their own kind". What a crock.

The truth , I don't want welfare to go to mooslims

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

liamw wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

liamw wrote:So what your saying is that people who work harder and apply them self should have the same as those who don't

Not that poster, but I would say that people who have not had the same advantages and luck that you and I have had also deserve a basic standard of living. It is in your and my best interest to have a populace that is NOT starving, NOT homeless, and NOT uneducated. Happy to pay my taxes so that our streets don't become something out of a Dickens novel.

I grew up at the dead end of a dirt road, with the closest walmart over 30 minutes away, with an avj income of my town of 12k I made it through hard work they can to. People CHOOSE not to go to school, people CHOOSE to make the urban culture more important that success, people CHOOSE to live a gang life, people make choices and choices have consequences.

Being a minority is not a choice. And being a minority means that you do have fewer opportunities than white people. You know it's true. White privilege is real. - Very white lady

Sorry, I don’t agree. It is much, much easier for a minority candidate to get a scholarship, a grant, and sometimes even a job. If you have children college-age, you would know this. Finding scholarships or grants or tuition assistance for white middle-class students is pretty tough. Because of affirmative action, a minority is just as likely, if not more so, to get a job over a white person - all things being equal.

I have children in college and I know nothing of the sort. Your assertion that things are easier for minorities is patently--and provably--false.

--white mom of white kids

Anonymous wrote:Big liberal here. I would be willing to accept the hypothesis that people are often more inclined to help one of their own, and therefore liberalism often flourishes in homogeneous societies

I believe that progressive policies flourish in times/places of plenty. People are willing to share when they are flush. When resources become more scarce, people start to become more protective of their own. So they fight for lower taxes, less public assistance.... they even want regressive policies on affirmative action, workplace rights for women, etc. etc. Kind of like what we are living now.

Who is fighting for regressive policies on workplace rights for women? Cite please.

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.

+1. And that's exactly what so many independents and republicans resent about liberals -- the thought police.

No. Liberals want tolerance of differences. You want tolerance of intolerance.

Anonymous wrote:look at Europe now - people are tribal

But what do you expect?

I have family in Europe. I'm first gen in fact. Europeans had an open-door philosophy among themselves before the EU came into play. You could travel from one country to another and take in the culture. Most Europeans were (and still are) fluent in other languages b/c of the close proximity. But there was respect for "borders," for cultures that defined each country.

This is no longer the case. So when any culture finds itself threatened, it does indeed become tribal.

The US doesn't have a set culture. Each wave of immigration brought its set of issues - some worse than others. Slavery defined this country in ways we can't ignore by leaving an ugly stamp on today's generation. So if you want to talk "tribal," examine all of the groups in this country who are trying to preserve who they are (or what they think they are).

human nature, folks

So until we all grow into big-headed beings with huge eyes who can speak telepathically, we have to understand that we will never be a harmonious group. We are too diverse and too large.

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

+1. And that's exactly what so many independents and republicans resent about liberals -- the thought police.

OP here - interesting blurb in a big atlantic piece written today:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/hillary-clinton-working-class/509477/

The long-term future of the U.S. involves rising diversity, rising inequality, and rising redistribution. The combination of these forces makes for an unstable and unpredictable system. Income stagnation and inequality encourage policies to redistribute wealth from a rich few to the anxious multitudes. But when that multitude includes minorities who are seen as benefiting disproportionately from those redistribution policies, the white majority can turn resentful. (This may be one reason why the most successful social democracies, as in Scandinavia, were initially almost all white.) Nobody has really figured out how to be an effective messenger for pluralist social democracy, except, perhaps, for one of the few American adults who is legally barred from running for the U.S. presidency in the future.

over two years after I made my OP, it seems like some of the mainstream left is starting to admit this.

look at Europe now - people are tribal

Anonymous wrote:Big liberal here. I would be willing to accept the hypothesis that people are often more inclined to help one of their own, and therefore liberalism often flourishes in homogeneous societies

I believe that progressive policies flourish in times/places of plenty. People are willing to share when they are flush. When resources become more scarce, people start to become more protective of their own. So they fight for lower taxes, less public assistance.... they even want regressive policies on affirmative action, workplace rights for women, etc. etc. Kind of like what we are living now.

This is the whole r/k thing you will find being discussed on the conservative side.

Trump won because of the slow boiling anger towards how Hart-Cellar changed america.

Progressives better wake up.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/03/10/liberal-harsh-denmark/

New York Review of Books' take on this question using Denmark as an example with respect to the migrant crisis.

Anonymous wrote:The primaries and caucuses do not prove what you think they do. You have made assumptions based on your theory, so of course your assumptions support your theory, but your assumptions are incorrect.

You are defining progressive as votes for Sanders and not progressive as votes for Clinton. Clinton is progressive. Get over it.

Is a white college town in Iowa more progressive than multicultural Northwest DC?
Is any place in New Hampshire more progressive than Montgomery County or PG County or Arlington or Alexandria?

No, they are not.

+1000

The primaries and caucuses do not prove what you think they do. You have made assumptions based on your theory, so of course your assumptions support your theory, but your assumptions are incorrect.

You are defining progressive as votes for Sanders and not progressive as votes for Clinton. Clinton is progressive. Get over it.

Is a white college town in Iowa more progressive than multicultural Northwest DC?
Is any place in New Hampshire more progressive than Montgomery County or PG County or Arlington or Alexandria?

No, they are not.

OP, I am a new poster to this thread.

I thoroughly disagree with your premise. There's no real evidence to support it.

Remember the maxim of statisticians: correlation does not imply causation.

People will have to try a lot harder and provide some actual evidence if they want to push this "homogeneity" argument.

OP here - after SC, I think one will have to answer in the affirmative to my original question.