Chat Forum
It is currently Sat Apr 29, 2017 6:28 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 384 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2015 11:45 am
Posts: 3867
Man In Black wrote:
Sad to see Zakar turn into waguser on this thread. :thumbdown:


I picture him being something like a less prominent, older version of him:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qm61svN4U5g

:D


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 17, 2017 11:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4488
Location: the Confederacy of Dunces
henry wrote:
Dork Lard wrote:
Seneca of the Night wrote:
.
Quote:

I'm not saying that there's nothing shonky going on in the background. But US TV shows of yore never, ever had an Indian indian. Now they do. And they're generally presented in a positive light.


True, though Raj on Big Bang is often criticised by the usual crowd as being a racist representation.

Yes. The funny thing of course is it's white people who get offended for them. Grab any Indian, face to face, and ask him if he feels the character is mis-representative, and they'll say no.


Any Indian. Absolutely any Indian. Honest.

Only the ones you can grab


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 12:05 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15249
Location: Adelaide via Sydney and Patea
Seneca of the Night wrote:
I beg to differ Zakar. He is exactly right.

The existence of Ali Williams in New Zealand does not make us multi-cultural. Except for adding to the richness of the Maori haka culture.

The 'born overseas' figure is pure number-massaging by multicultural propagandists. Take out those from the the Anglosphere, take a look, take out those from Western Europe, take a look, take out those from rest of Europe, including Slavic countries, take a look, take out non-Muslim others, take a look, look at the communities having difficulty assimilating, and there you will have your interesting data.


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 3:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20089
Location: STRAYA PLUM
Dork Lard wrote:
Farva okay so this is when I lose interest spontaneously. I tried to express the points but all I seem to get out of you is "yes there are issues with multiculturalism but your points are subjective, and I think the pros outweigh the cons". You will notice there are essential points, a majority factual, that you haven't even addressed at all. Totally skipped and ignored. An entire continent going more and more far right is an enormous, gigantic factual phenomenon that is so overwhelmingly significant to everything that is discussed here it's practically symbolic. The glaring example the US is of the failure of multiculturalism, alone, should be enough to dissuade any defender of it and force him to review his position.

The good thing (well, not sure if it's a good thing, really..) about such a conversation is this. When both parties are done exchanging, there is...reality. Both sides of the conversation may've thrown in the most convincing arguments, examples, figures and facts...but somehow to no avail. But then. There's what's actually happening. This isn't a debate about how well Jonah Lomu would do in the modern era, we'll never know for sure it's theoretical debate. Here, you'll get to see with your own eyes, once they're finally opened (by force) just what multiculturalism is, and what it does to a nation.


But you havent really put up any arguments. You have just pushed the same argument over and over. I did put up my rebuttal too. I even linked in papers that rebutted it. But you ignored them?

So if you like Ill run through your points...

But what about France? The Italians migrated and they fit in, its only the Africans / Muslims / etc that dont.
The Italian migration into France happened from around the 17th century to the start of the 20th. What characterised that period was that for the bulk of it, it was pre Industrial revolution. People were mostly interested in eating something that wasn't dirt, avoiding the plague and not dying in childbirth. When people came across from Italy, all that happened is that they avoided getting plague in a slightly different setting. Everyone was essentially on the same level of wealth. Then the industrial revolution happened. People became wealthy side by side. There is no income divide. What also happened was that France created an empire, and allowed those people within her empire to become French citizens. But pre the 20th century, there was no real means for the average Joe to move to France. Besides, France was at a similar economic level to them anyway, so why look to die in childbirth in France when they could do it just as easily in the Ivory Coast (France had a GDP per capita of around twice that of the Ivory Coast at the end of the 18th century). But when France started to industrialise, it did so at a rate of around 2% per annum faster than its colonies. That means that after say 100 years, it is only 8 times as rich, but after 200 years, its 64 times as wealthy, which is where we are today. That made France very attractive for people who were extremely poor to move - they were French citizens after all. And when they did turn up, France had very little in the way of policy to assist them to integrate.
Here is a nice graphic from Queens University - http://www.queensu.ca/mcp/home
Image
Instead of assisting people who arrived, the French have not provided support and these people, who are now much poorer relative to the locals than your Italian example, have gone in to ghettos and the like, dont have jobs or a future and then, rightly or wrongly start to loathe the local system. Equally, many go to lives of crime and others pursue religious fundamentalism. But we can just chalk that up to multicultural failure.

Look at the USA with blacks and whites not integrating. And the founding fathers wanted a white only country.
Im lost? America is one of the most successful countries and a lot of that is down to immigration and multiculturalism. Sure there are some churches that are black only and some that are white only. But that is more down to the neighbourhoods that they are in than anything else. The other thing that you seem to be insinuating is that multiculturalism is only a success when immigrants fully integrate such that they are no longer distinguishable from the locals. That isnt multiculturalism, as Santa has said earlier. Id like to see new groups take on the positive values of our culture but retain their own culture as well. That is how cultures grow.
As for the founding fathers argument, they are from the 17th and 18th century. Values have changed since then. America is a successful melting pot of many different cultures that have come together to make a great country.

Its only white christians integrate into the west
And just to make sure I don’t get accused of mincing words:
Dork Lard wrote:
Farva, there's overwhelming evidence "monocultural" societies do better, it's not like you're going to change your mind on what some interlocutor of yours will say in one paragraph on some Rugby forum online, but 'monocultural' (lol, the term) is certainly at veryyyyyy least infinitely healthier than a society where you throw in drastically heterogeneous elements, like a white (culturally)Christian country where you throw in Arabs whose book teaches them Allah hates the wicked infidel and 'kill the Jews and Christians wherever you find them' or anyone that's too different ethnically/religion-wise en mass. You can throw in Polishmen, Italians and Portugeshes in France and in a couple of generations they're assimilated like nothing, because they're white and Christian. But you can't assimilate an entire group of people who are ethnically/culturally radically different - especially not with the impossibly lax ways of the contemporary West.

Im not actually going to dignify that with a rebuttal. Poles integrated because they are white Christians but the muslims want to kill us all? What rubbish.

The rise of the far right says multiculturalism has failed
No it doesn’t. The rise of the far right is in response to jobs being lost due to globalisation. Multiculturalism has very little to do with it, other than provide a convenient scape goat. Think back to the Simpsons episode that starting with the bear patrol. Its eerily accurate. People are upset because they are losing job security as more work is done offshore. This is what led to Brexit and Trump, not immigration and multiculturalism.
Equally, this collapse you are talking about is much more to do a with a nationalist behaviour driven by globalisation, than any multicultural issue. Equally, I think suggesting that there is an imminent collapse is extraordinarily pessimistic.

Id argue, where you have bought up examples of multiculturalism failing, it is due to inadequate policy to allow for integration, rather than any actual failure. There are plenty of examples of multiculturalism being successful, and even in the examples where you claim it is failed, that is your opinion. I don’t think there is a failure. And that is supported by the paper I posted (you say you could post plenty that say it is a failure, please do).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 8:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 1404
Farva wrote:
Dork Lard wrote:
Farva okay so this is when I lose interest spontaneously. I tried to express the points but all I seem to get out of you is "yes there are issues with multiculturalism but your points are subjective, and I think the pros outweigh the cons". You will notice there are essential points, a majority factual, that you haven't even addressed at all. Totally skipped and ignored. An entire continent going more and more far right is an enormous, gigantic factual phenomenon that is so overwhelmingly significant to everything that is discussed here it's practically symbolic. The glaring example the US is of the failure of multiculturalism, alone, should be enough to dissuade any defender of it and force him to review his position.

The good thing (well, not sure if it's a good thing, really..) about such a conversation is this. When both parties are done exchanging, there is...reality. Both sides of the conversation may've thrown in the most convincing arguments, examples, figures and facts...but somehow to no avail. But then. There's what's actually happening. This isn't a debate about how well Jonah Lomu would do in the modern era, we'll never know for sure it's theoretical debate. Here, you'll get to see with your own eyes, once they're finally opened (by force) just what multiculturalism is, and what it does to a nation.


But you havent really put up any arguments. You have just pushed the same argument over and over. I did put up my rebuttal too. I even linked in papers that rebutted it. But you ignored them?

So if you like Ill run through your points...

But what about France? The Italians migrated and they fit in, its only the Africans / Muslims / etc that dont.
The Italian migration into France happened from around the 17th century to the start of the 20th. What characterised that period was that for the bulk of it, it was pre Industrial revolution. People were mostly interested in eating something that wasn't dirt, avoiding the plague and not dying in childbirth. When people came across from Italy, all that happened is that they avoided getting plague in a slightly different setting. Everyone was essentially on the same level of wealth. Then the industrial revolution happened. People became wealthy side by side. There is no income divide. What also happened was that France created an empire, and allowed those people within her empire to become French citizens. But pre the 20th century, there was no real means for the average Joe to move to France. Besides, France was at a similar economic level to them anyway, so why look to die in childbirth in France when they could do it just as easily in the Ivory Coast (France had a GDP per capita of around twice that of the Ivory Coast at the end of the 18th century). But when France started to industrialise, it did so at a rate of around 2% per annum faster than its colonies. That means that after say 100 years, it is only 8 times as rich, but after 200 years, its 64 times as wealthy, which is where we are today. That made France very attractive for people who were extremely poor to move - they were French citizens after all. And when they did turn up, France had very little in the way of policy to assist them to integrate.
Here is a nice graphic from Queens University - http://www.queensu.ca/mcp/home
Image
Instead of assisting people who arrived, the French have not provided support and these people, who are now much poorer relative to the locals than your Italian example, have gone in to ghettos and the like, dont have jobs or a future and then, rightly or wrongly start to loathe the local system. Equally, many go to lives of crime and others pursue religious fundamentalism. But we can just chalk that up to multicultural failure.

Look at the USA with blacks and whites not integrating. And the founding fathers wanted a white only country.
Im lost? America is one of the most successful countries and a lot of that is down to immigration and multiculturalism. Sure there are some churches that are black only and some that are white only. But that is more down to the neighbourhoods that they are in than anything else. The other thing that you seem to be insinuating is that multiculturalism is only a success when immigrants fully integrate such that they are no longer distinguishable from the locals. That isnt multiculturalism, as Santa has said earlier. Id like to see new groups take on the positive values of our culture but retain their own culture as well. That is how cultures grow.
As for the founding fathers argument, they are from the 17th and 18th century. Values have changed since then. America is a successful melting pot of many different cultures that have come together to make a great country.

Its only white christians integrate into the west
And just to make sure I don’t get accused of mincing words:
Dork Lard wrote:
Farva, there's overwhelming evidence "monocultural" societies do better, it's not like you're going to change your mind on what some interlocutor of yours will say in one paragraph on some Rugby forum online, but 'monocultural' (lol, the term) is certainly at veryyyyyy least infinitely healthier than a society where you throw in drastically heterogeneous elements, like a white (culturally)Christian country where you throw in Arabs whose book teaches them Allah hates the wicked infidel and 'kill the Jews and Christians wherever you find them' or anyone that's too different ethnically/religion-wise en mass. You can throw in Polishmen, Italians and Portugeshes in France and in a couple of generations they're assimilated like nothing, because they're white and Christian. But you can't assimilate an entire group of people who are ethnically/culturally radically different - especially not with the impossibly lax ways of the contemporary West.

Im not actually going to dignify that with a rebuttal. Poles integrated because they are white Christians but the muslims want to kill us all? What rubbish.

The rise of the far right says multiculturalism has failed
No it doesn’t. The rise of the far right is in response to jobs being lost due to globalisation. Multiculturalism has very little to do with it, other than provide a convenient scape goat. Think back to the Simpsons episode that starting with the bear patrol. Its eerily accurate. People are upset because they are losing job security as more work is done offshore. This is what led to Brexit and bubblefart, not immigration and multiculturalism.
Equally, this collapse you are talking about is much more to do a with a nationalist behaviour driven by globalisation, than any multicultural issue. Equally, I think suggesting that there is an imminent collapse is extraordinarily pessimistic.

Id argue, where you have bought up examples of multiculturalism failing, it is due to inadequate policy to allow for integration, rather than any actual failure. There are plenty of examples of multiculturalism being successful, and even in the examples where you claim it is failed, that is your opinion. I don’t think there is a failure. And that is supported by the paper I posted (you say you could post plenty that say it is a failure, please do).


No. You really have to get this through your head. If multiculturalism is merely a bunch of people of different cultures within a single society then it is an utterly trivial thing because, as you know with your attempt to contrast with 'monocultures, multiculturalism describes every society. Therefore multiculturalism in your terms simply equals society.

In actual fact multiculturalism is an particular set of approaches to managing relations between cultures within a society based on a set of ideologies. It can be contrast with assimilation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 9:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2015 11:45 am
Posts: 3867
Farva read your full reply. Appreciate the tone and effort put in that post. You didn't once show any disrespect and given the nature of the exchange that in itself puts you high above a majority of posters here.
If we were talking face to face it would be easier to go point by point but I don't think it's useful online, and is too long anyways.

The main thing I would say is I think, and this is quite classic, you're hiding behind the 'economic' reason, picking out and isolating one of the components in the equation, but pretending like there isn't - happens to be glaring - evidence there is a cultural component, which is vital and far more profound and significant than anything contingently economic. The cultural/ethnic component is timeless, unconditional and radically resilient to any changes. Man has always been tribal, everywhere, and continues to be; only in the West people pretend. But they don't anywhere else. That's - ANYWHERE else...
Like according to you the success of Italian vs Arabic/African integration has primarily economic reasons. Far right is growing => boom, just economy, bro.

That isolation of one component leads to a totally biased, historically/factually unrealistic, partial conclusion that means to reduce everything to one common denominator, as if the human component was barely background-acting. Looking at history, and the current tensions between heterogeneous communities everywhere in the world I bring up with every post, this can only come across as in bad faith and obviously partisan.

America ? Perhaps you haven't come across the same facts and statistics as I have, but, the reality there is not that it is a model of multicultural success. I'll return with another post about this topic in particular.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 18, 2017 11:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23945
I wonder if % of foreign born is too blunt a stat. What is really important is absolute numbers combined with clustering. Because then you have a scale that enables economies within economies and cultures with cultures to emerge, and thus un-assimilation.

And France sits right in the middle of that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 7:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20089
Location: STRAYA PLUM
Dork Lard wrote:
Farva read your full reply. Appreciate the tone and effort put in that post. You didn't once show any disrespect and given the nature of the exchange that in itself puts you high above a majority of posters here.
If we were talking face to face it would be easier to go point by point but I don't think it's useful online, and is too long anyways.

The main thing I would say is I think, and this is quite classic, you're hiding behind the 'economic' reason, picking out and isolating one of the components in the equation, but pretending like there isn't - happens to be glaring - evidence there is a cultural component, which is vital and far more profound and significant than anything contingently economic. The cultural/ethnic component is timeless, unconditional and radically resilient to any changes. Man has always been tribal, everywhere, and continues to be; only in the West people pretend. But they don't anywhere else. That's - ANYWHERE else...
Like according to you the success of Italian vs Arabic/African integration has primarily economic reasons. Far right is growing => boom, just economy, bro.

That isolation of one component leads to a totally biased, historically/factually unrealistic, partial conclusion that means to reduce everything to one common denominator, as if the human component was barely background-acting. Looking at history, and the current tensions between heterogeneous communities everywhere in the world I bring up with every post, this can only come across as in bad faith and obviously partisan.

America ? Perhaps you haven't come across the same facts and statistics as I have, but, the reality there is not that it is a model of multicultural success. I'll return with another post about this topic in particular.

It took way to long to write that post and I really cant be bothered doing it again!

While I fully appreciate the cultural argument, I tend to think the economic issue is the overarching one. And by that I mean inequality between the migrant / immigrant and the society in which they land. I tend to think that if inequality wasnt an issue then many of the cultural issues would not be an issue either, as they are amplified by feelings of despair and injustice.
I tend to think that government intervention in ensuring those that come are willing to try and succeed, and provide the facilities to assist them to do so. I think that if someone arrives in a western nation, is able to get a job and support themselves, then they are far more likely to be productive members of the society. If, on the other hand, people arrive with little to nothing, cant find work and feel disenfranchised (and maybe dont speak the language) then they are far more likely to feel resentment to their host country and there will be issues that follow. The onus is certainly on the person arriving to want to succeed but it is in societies best interest that they do, and the person is much more likely to succeed with help as opposed to being left alone to fend for themselves.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:23 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 1404
Farva wrote:
Dork Lard wrote:
Farva read your full reply. Appreciate the tone and effort put in that post. You didn't once show any disrespect and given the nature of the exchange that in itself puts you high above a majority of posters here.
If we were talking face to face it would be easier to go point by point but I don't think it's useful online, and is too long anyways.

The main thing I would say is I think, and this is quite classic, you're hiding behind the 'economic' reason, picking out and isolating one of the components in the equation, but pretending like there isn't - happens to be glaring - evidence there is a cultural component, which is vital and far more profound and significant than anything contingently economic. The cultural/ethnic component is timeless, unconditional and radically resilient to any changes. Man has always been tribal, everywhere, and continues to be; only in the West people pretend. But they don't anywhere else. That's - ANYWHERE else...
Like according to you the success of Italian vs Arabic/African integration has primarily economic reasons. Far right is growing => boom, just economy, bro.

That isolation of one component leads to a totally biased, historically/factually unrealistic, partial conclusion that means to reduce everything to one common denominator, as if the human component was barely background-acting. Looking at history, and the current tensions between heterogeneous communities everywhere in the world I bring up with every post, this can only come across as in bad faith and obviously partisan.

America ? Perhaps you haven't come across the same facts and statistics as I have, but, the reality there is not that it is a model of multicultural success. I'll return with another post about this topic in particular.

It took way to long to write that post and I really cant be bothered doing it again!

While I fully appreciate the cultural argument, I tend to think the economic issue is the overarching one. And by that I mean inequality between the migrant / immigrant and the society in which they land. I tend to think that if inequality wasnt an issue then many of the cultural issues would not be an issue either, as they are amplified by feelings of despair and injustice.
I tend to think that government intervention in ensuring those that come are willing to try and succeed, and provide the facilities to assist them to do so. I think that if someone arrives in a western nation, is able to get a job and support themselves, then they are far more likely to be productive members of the society. If, on the other hand, people arrive with little to nothing, cant find work and feel disenfranchised (and maybe dont speak the language) then they are far more likely to feel resentment to their host country and there will be issues that follow. The onus is certainly on the person arriving to want to succeed but it is in societies best interest that they do, and the person is much more likely to succeed with help as opposed to being left alone to fend for themselves.


You're theory doesn't adequately explain second generation syndrome. It also doesn't explain differences between immigrant groups (e.g. Chinese and Muslims)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:25 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 1404
In fact the chinese are interesting in that with them you get cultural ghettos coupled with economic success. Perhaps in their case the cultural cluster is an enabler.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5838
Location: The other side of midnight
Your


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:26 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 1404
Dude I'm trying not to fall over on the train. I can't be expected to get the spelling right as well.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5838
Location: The other side of midnight
Santa wrote:
Dude I'm trying not to fall over on the train. I can't be expected to get the spelling right as well.

Hey where would we be without pedantry


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 8:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 1404
Chaos mate. Chaos.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 19, 2017 11:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 15, 2015 11:45 am
Posts: 3867
Farva wrote:
It took way to long to write that post and I really cant be bothered doing it again!

While I fully appreciate the cultural argument, I tend to think the economic issue is the overarching one. And by that I mean inequality between the migrant / immigrant and the society in which they land. I tend to think that if inequality wasnt an issue then many of the cultural issues would not be an issue either, as they are amplified by feelings of despair and injustice.
I tend to think that government intervention in ensuring those that come are willing to try and succeed, and provide the facilities to assist them to do so. I think that if someone arrives in a western nation, is able to get a job and support themselves, then they are far more likely to be productive members of the society. If, on the other hand, people arrive with little to nothing, cant find work and feel disenfranchised (and maybe dont speak the language) then they are far more likely to feel resentment to their host country and there will be issues that follow. The onus is certainly on the person arriving to want to succeed but it is in societies best interest that they do, and the person is much more likely to succeed with help as opposed to being left alone to fend for themselves.


I think you're being wayyyyy too lax and lazy with your argumentation here. Poverty=criminality. False. And we all know it. All social scientists who were actually searching for truth as opposed to satisfying a taboo-driven agenda have shown this statistically. First of all: IQ determines social outcome. If you're a dumbass, you'll have difficulty getting good education, a good job, will be tons more prone to crime, theft and therefor jailtime, and it's a downward spiral from there. Why do Asian populations do way better socially/professionally than blacks in the U.States, or anywhere else consistently in countries where such competition is rendered possible ? IQ. Poor people commit crimes, sure...but why the hell are they poor in the first place, and why do they keep perpetuating the pattern ? And the answer iiiiis... (?) *ding ding ding ding*

Then, we've got a bunch of statistical examples in a myriad of different studies where it's shown some towns in the US (or France) are poor as shit but vast majority white where you don't get nearly as much as much, public shootings, muggings, etc... as the towns with blacks and hispanics - so de facto, the poor=crime argument is false and suspectly reductive. Again. There's more to the equation than the economic component.

And btw, to calm some of the people reading this getting angry because I've exposed some facts about blacks -> lots of immigrants from Kenya for e.g. do very well when they arrive in the States, and do a ton better than native black americans, because they're the high IQ elite, arrive with purpose and therefor commitment, and don't get complacent as shit with themselves in a nation they know will give em handouts. In fact there's often resentment and disdain from hard-working Africans from third world countries vis a vis the local black Americans.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 3:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20089
Location: STRAYA PLUM
Your argument is that different races have different levels of intelligence and that is why some are poor?

The only test that suggests this is the IQ test, which is geared towards education within our society - https://www.theatlantic.com/national/ar ... iq/275876/

Hispanics, Blacks, Arabs, etc arent dumber than white people. That is ridiculous. Only the IQ test suggests this, with the IQ test biased towards someone who has come through a western education.

The last paragraph of the article I posted is entirely relevant:

Quote:
The lower IQ scores of American Hispanics cannot simply be dismissed out of hand. They are evidence of skill deficits that sharply curtail chances for achievement and success. But contrary to the counsel of despair from hereditarians like Richwine, those deficits aren't hard-wired. Progress in reducing achievement gaps will certainly not be easy, but a full review of the IQ evidence shows that it is possible. And it will be aided by policies, like immigration reform, that encourage the full integration of Hispanics into the American economic and cultural mainstream.


And so, again this supports my position which is that immigration is beneficial provided the right policy is in place to facilitate it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5301
Aus is a better, far more interesting country because of our immigration policies

The mono-cultures of Europe too often fail to integrate immigrants.

We get clusters, but they merge within a generation or two. The biggest, meanest "ocker" I know is a 150kg guy with a alphabet Greek name and parents who struggle with English


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 6:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20089
Location: STRAYA PLUM
_fatprop wrote:
Aus is a better, far more interesting country because of our immigration policies

The mono-cultures of Europe too often fail to integrate immigrants.

We get clusters, but they merge within a generation or two. The biggest, meanest "ocker" I know is a 150kg guy with a alphabet Greek name and parents who struggle with English

:thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 7:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23531
Dork Lard wrote:
Farva wrote:
It took way to long to write that post and I really cant be bothered doing it again!

While I fully appreciate the cultural argument, I tend to think the economic issue is the overarching one. And by that I mean inequality between the migrant / immigrant and the society in which they land. I tend to think that if inequality wasnt an issue then many of the cultural issues would not be an issue either, as they are amplified by feelings of despair and injustice.
I tend to think that government intervention in ensuring those that come are willing to try and succeed, and provide the facilities to assist them to do so. I think that if someone arrives in a western nation, is able to get a job and support themselves, then they are far more likely to be productive members of the society. If, on the other hand, people arrive with little to nothing, cant find work and feel disenfranchised (and maybe dont speak the language) then they are far more likely to feel resentment to their host country and there will be issues that follow. The onus is certainly on the person arriving to want to succeed but it is in societies best interest that they do, and the person is much more likely to succeed with help as opposed to being left alone to fend for themselves.


I think you're being wayyyyy too lax and lazy with your argumentation here. Poverty=criminality. False. And we all know it. All social scientists who were actually searching for truth as opposed to satisfying a taboo-driven agenda have shown this statistically. First of all: IQ determines social outcome. If you're a dumbass, you'll have difficulty getting good education, a good job, will be tons more prone to crime, theft and therefor jailtime, and it's a downward spiral from there. Why do Asian populations do way better socially/professionally than blacks in the U.States, or anywhere else consistently in countries where such competition is rendered possible ? IQ. Poor people commit crimes, sure...but why the hell are they poor in the first place, and why do they keep perpetuating the pattern ? And the answer iiiiis... (?) *ding ding ding ding*

Then, we've got a bunch of statistical examples in a myriad of different studies where it's shown some towns in the US (or France) are poor as shit but vast majority white where you don't get nearly as much as much, public shootings, muggings, etc... as the towns with blacks and hispanics - so de facto, the poor=crime argument is false and suspectly reductive. Again. There's more to the equation than the economic component.

And btw, to calm some of the people reading this getting angry because I've exposed some facts about blacks -> lots of immigrants from Kenya for e.g. do very well when they arrive in the States, and do a ton better than native black americans, because they're the high IQ elite, arrive with purpose and therefor commitment, and don't get complacent as shit with themselves in a nation they know will give em handouts. In fact there's often resentment and disdain from hard-working Africans from third world countries vis a vis the local black Americans.


White Africans (Afrikaners/Boers from South Africa) are sought after in the USA, since they are good, intelligent and hard workers who mostly excel in the USA (and Canada, and the UK./Europe, and Australia/New Zealand).
E.g. case in point is the one director of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory of NASA in the USA.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 7:18 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23531
On the other hand ....

https://qz.com/963530/h-1b-its-not-just ... t-to-west/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 7:54 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 10198
Location: Spiritual Guardianland
Elon Musk have too much British stock for your liking WT?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23531
maxbox wrote:
Elon Musk have too much British stock for your liking WT?



:lol:


Elon is a typical Saffer mixture - English Saffer, Brit, Jew, Afrikaner, everything. Brilliant brilliant man.

Even I have some English blood in my veins (1820 Settlers), from Kent nogal.
But he was a good man who took part in the Great Trek and became a Boer Chief Magistrate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 1404
Farva wrote:
_fatprop wrote:
Aus is a better, far more interesting country because of our immigration policies

The mono-cultures of Europe too often fail to integrate immigrants.

We get clusters, but they merge within a generation or two. The biggest, meanest "ocker" I know is a 150kg guy with a alphabet Greek name and parents who struggle with English

:thumbup:


Wait are there monocultures or aren't there?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:49 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23945
Farva wrote:
Your argument is that different races have different levels of intelligence and that is why some are poor?

The only test that suggests this is the IQ test, which is geared towards education within our society - https://www.theatlantic.com/national/ar ... iq/275876/

Hispanics, Blacks, Arabs, etc arent dumber than white people. That is ridiculous. Only the IQ test suggests this, with the IQ test biased towards someone who has come through a western education.

The last paragraph of the article I posted is entirely relevant:

Quote:
The lower IQ scores of American Hispanics cannot simply be dismissed out of hand. They are evidence of skill deficits that sharply curtail chances for achievement and success. But contrary to the counsel of despair from hereditarians like Richwine, those deficits aren't hard-wired. Progress in reducing achievement gaps will certainly not be easy, but a full review of the IQ evidence shows that it is possible. And it will be aided by policies, like immigration reform, that encourage the full integration of Hispanics into the American economic and cultural mainstream.


And so, again this supports my position which is that immigration is beneficial provided the right policy is in place to facilitate it.


This is a truth we hold to be self-evident. But are East Asians smarter than us all? They seem to get all the fractions.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23945
_fatprop wrote:
Aus is a better, far more interesting country because of our immigration policies

The mono-cultures of Europe too often fail to integrate immigrants.

We get clusters, but they merge within a generation or two. The biggest, meanest "ocker" I know is a 150kg guy with a alphabet Greek name and parents who struggle with English


He's a wog?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23945
.
Quote:

White Africans (Afrikaners/Boers from South Africa) are sought after in the USA, since they are good, intelligent and hard workers who mostly excel in the USA (and Canada, and the UK./Europe, and Australia/New Zealand).
E.g. case in point is the one director of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory of NASA in the USA.


Personal trainers too"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pwu4TwUrI-Q


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 8:53 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 1404
Farva is also conveniently ignoring the impact of scale. It is easier to integrate 10 people into a group of 100 than 10 million into a group of 100 million.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 9:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23531
Seneca of the Night wrote:
.
Quote:

White Africans (Afrikaners/Boers from South Africa) are sought after in the USA, since they are good, intelligent and hard workers who mostly excel in the USA (and Canada, and the UK./Europe, and Australia/New Zealand).
E.g. case in point is the one director of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory of NASA in the USA.


Personal trainers too"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pwu4TwUrI-Q



:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 10:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 37802
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 10:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23945
:lol: :lol: :lol:

I thought I'd ignored myself there for a moment. :blush:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 10:25 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 23945
Santa wrote:
Farva is also conveniently ignoring the impact of scale. It is easier to integrate 10 people into a group of 100 than 10 million into a group of 100 million.


Precisely.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 10:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3314
That looks like a safe space to me!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 20089
Location: STRAYA PLUM
Santa wrote:
Farva is also conveniently ignoring the impact of scale. It is easier to integrate 10 people into a group of 100 than 10 million into a group of 100 million.

Im not ignoring it. 10 into 100 is a simple case of the 100 saying to the 10 to integrate and its quite straightforward.
10m into 100m requires significant investment by the 100m.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2013 11:54 am
Posts: 37802
Location: Joint No. 3 to Cyprus
It's also easier not to treat poor people for medical problems than it is to erect a vast public health insurance system to make it possible for them to receive treatments which they themselves cannot afford. Why "easiness" is a significant metric of a policy I have no idea


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:28 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18290
_fatprop wrote:
Aus is a better, far more interesting country because of our immigration policies

The mono-cultures of Europe too often fail to integrate immigrants.

We get clusters, but they merge within a generation or two. The biggest, meanest "ocker" I know is a 150kg guy with a alphabet Greek name and parents who struggle with English


More interesting/better than Australia would/might have been, or more interesting/better than elsewhere?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 11:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2017 6:56 pm
Posts: 1404
Mick Mannock wrote:
_fatprop wrote:
Aus is a better, far more interesting country because of our immigration policies

The mono-cultures of Europe too often fail to integrate immigrants.

We get clusters, but they merge within a generation or two. The biggest, meanest "ocker" I know is a 150kg guy with a alphabet Greek name and parents who struggle with English


More interesting/better than Australia would/might have been, or more interesting/better than elsewhere?


I'm trying to work through the logic here.

Australia (apparently) has a high degree of assimilation, secure borders, a relatively small population and a clearly dominating Anglo public culture ( political and legal systems, language, values) and yet is multicultural.

Europe, with its ancient local groupings, regional dialects, huge populations, large immigrant populations and patchy record on assimilation, multiple languages, continuous history of large scale population movements, porous borders, and the EU which oriented towards creating a single super state comprising multiple nation states, is monocultural.

Is that right boys?


Last edited by Santa on Fri Apr 21, 2017 12:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 12:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 15170
Dork Lard wrote:

I think you're being wayyyyy too lax and lazy with your argumentation here. Poverty=criminality. False. And we all know it. All social scientists who were actually searching for truth as opposed to satisfying a taboo-driven agenda have shown this statistically. First of all: IQ determines social outcome. If you're a dumbass, you'll have difficulty getting good education, a good job, will be tons more prone to crime, theft and therefor jailtime, and it's a downward spiral from there. Why do Asian populations do way better socially/professionally than blacks in the U.States, or anywhere else consistently in countries where such competition is rendered possible ? IQ. Poor people commit crimes, sure...but why the hell are they poor in the first place, and why do they keep perpetuating the pattern ? And the answer iiiiis... (?) *ding ding ding ding*

Then, we've got a bunch of statistical examples in a myriad of different studies where it's shown some towns in the US (or France) are poor as shit but vast majority white where you don't get nearly as much as much, public shootings, muggings, etc... as the towns with blacks and hispanics - so de facto, the poor=crime argument is false and suspectly reductive. Again. There's more to the equation than the economic component.

And btw, to calm some of the people reading this getting angry because I've exposed some facts about blacks -> lots of immigrants from Kenya for e.g. do very well when they arrive in the States, and do a ton better than native black americans, because they're the high IQ elite, arrive with purpose and therefor commitment, and don't get complacent as shit with themselves in a nation they know will give em handouts. In fact there's often resentment and disdain from hard-working Africans from third world countries vis a vis the local black Americans.


You throw "hispanics" into the same grouping as blacks/Africans, in your nasty little race = intelligence thesis, despite Africans/African Americans being culturally hugely different from Hispanic/Latinos (Hispanic means Spanish speaking making it even more ridiculous). It's also something which is not a FACT and the IQ test has been shown to be hugely skewed toward education and not innate mental ability, education you'll notice is something which is severely deficient in inner cities and other areas where African Americans (or hispanics/Latinos) live.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 22731
I will take all the Anti Immigrant Trumpists Seriously when the start advocating removing white people from Colonies like America , Australia, NewZealand Hong Kong etc and returning them to Europe to make room for indigenous Americans, South Pacific Asians and Polynesians.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 2:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 18290
waguser wrote:
I will take all the Anti Immigrant Trumpists Seriously when the start advocating removing white people from Colonies like America , Australia, NewZealand Hong Kong etc and returning them to Europe to make room for indigenous Americans, South Pacific Asians and Polynesians.


Mad.

Should all Afro-Americans be removed from the USA to make room for indigenous Americans?

Where would Tiger Woods be sent?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 21, 2017 2:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9647
Location: XPAT CUNT
Mick Mannock wrote:
waguser wrote:
I will take all the Anti Immigrant Trumpists Seriously when the start advocating removing white people from Colonies like America , Australia, NewZealand Hong Kong etc and returning them to Europe to make room for indigenous Americans, South Pacific Asians and Polynesians.


Mad.

Should all Afro-Americans be removed from the USA to make room for indigenous Americans?

Where would Tiger Woods be sent?


What about Rachel Dozeal?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 384 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: beardie, Bing [Bot], Chilli, DuncanF, Google Adsense [Bot], jorwar, Kiwias, LandOTurk, mr bungle, Smee, sunnybanana and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group