Will you condemn “Great Replacement Theory”?

[Bathos Logos]

Of course you can have preferences for culture. Literally every human in the world has such preferences.

Sure, prefer your culture, and practice it. Just don't pretend that others are impeding on your ability to do so when they are not. Don't pretend. That's all I am asking.

Would you be equally happy to live in Afghanistan where girls can get shot for going to school and women have to marry rapists compared to Switzerland?

Given what I said, why is this question even relevant in your eyes? Can you explain why you asked me this? I am genuinely curious.

And some degree of cohesion is needed if you want healthy communities with support for a strong welfare state where people are willing to make sacrifices for the greater good.

Again, what is "cohesion?" Everyone being generally the same or everyone working together? Which of those two things seems more important? Do you at least concede that you don't necessarily need the red bit to have the blue bit?

Unfortunately we have to deal with the reality of human cognition.

Yes, and part of that cognition involves people thinking that their culture is themselves, or that it represents some huge part of "what they are", and that mentality sees them believing that it is of the utmost importance, and that anyone who has any criticism of their "culture" is actively attacking them. Part of that cognition is also active in people believing their "culture" to be better than the culture of others, more important, or more necessary. Perhaps the ultimate problem we face is where people get ideas like this in the first place, and these ideas aren't going to be found abating in a climate where talk like yours is the norm. Like hinting that "consistent culture equates to cohesion". Culture is as important a difference between people as are hobbies. No more, no less. Can you hold it against your neighbor that he is an avid bird watcher? Sure. But do we understand feelings like that to be his problem, or yours?

Our identities as much rely on who we define ourselves against as they do on who we define ourselves as.

This is a huge part of the problem. You aren't your "culture". Just as you aren't your "religion" and you aren't your "hobbies". We are human beings, first and foremost. All of the rest of that stuff is just noise. Noisy noise, to be sure... but that mostly has to do with people with opinions like yours.

The idea we can live as one global happy family is a pipe dream and that it is desirable is a very culturally supremacist byproduct of (secularised) monotheism.

As long as people like you keep talking in the ways that you are, yes, I agree, a pipedream held by those who can see through all these ridiculous religious/cultural/racial trappings for being just fluff and mundanity. Yours is a juvenile response, in my estimation. Esteem yourself as you will.

The goal should be how to live peacefully in a world where we dislike many of the inhabitants.

Your opinion, entirely. And I know, because my opinion is completely different. I believe the goal should be to educate everyone as much as possible, and try to give them perspective on the meta-structures of the human realm of activity. See "what's under the hood", beyond all the arbitrary trappings we apply to ourselves in order to call ourselves "[insert label here]".

Fear of being ruled by those we dislike is a major cause of strife (see US party politics).

And that's a fun system by your estimation? Not in need of any sort of updates/changes/fixes?

No sense in pretending otherwise.

But sense in trying to work toward otherwise, if possible, I feel. Sounds like you've given up.

 

[Augustus]

Very possibly the desire to out some other group, wholesale, as being undesirable, and very likely without valid, demonstrable basis.

If you lived in an are that became 80% immigrant while turning from a poor, but relatively safe neighbourhood with a good sense of community to a crime and gang infested ****hole where you couldn't walk the streets at night would that be a valid basis for considering these cultural changes undesirable?

If many in the neighbourhood don't even share a common language, isn't it fair to assume this will make it significantly harder to build a helpful and integrated community?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hmm, tempted to go "other" with an explanation. Though the premise of there being a plot is farcical there is some truth behind it. Minorites do tend to have larger families right now. And why is that? Well minorities still tend to make a lot less than white people right now. Do I need to post some demographics? When one is poor there are two things that one cannot often afford and that is entertainment and a reliable source of birth control. So what happens when one is poor and bored? One is more apt to have sex which leads to babies.

So for all of my ultraconservative friends here is the one solution that should work. Take an exorbitant amount of money from white people and distribute it to colored people. Then they can afford birth control and entertainment and it is the white people that have to resort to sex for entertainment.

Problem solved. More white babies. Does anyone see any problem with my solution?

 

[Bathos Logos]

If you lived in an are that became 80% immigrant while turning from a poor, but relatively safe neighbourhood with a good sense of community to a crime and gang infested ****hole where you couldn't walk the streets at night would that be a valid basis for considering these cultural changes undesirable?

If many in the neighbourhood don't even share a common language, isn't it fair to assume this will make it significantly harder to build a helpful and integrated community?

And can you inform me why those immigrants felt the need to turn to crime? Were they criminals where they came from? Or, if born in the neighborhood(s) you're describing, were their parents criminals in their original home country? It is far more complicated than you are trying to make it out to be. There can very well be (and it is historically demonstrable that there have been and are) systematic implementations of legal or labor-related impedances working against people who enter a country as an immigrant. And I would, again, argue that it is people with ideas about their precious culture exactly like yours that help to install these impedances, even if they aren't entirely aware that that is what they are doing. They think they are "preserving" or "protecting" something by keeping these "others" at bay. When, instead, everyone could simply be free from bigotry and free from being treated so differently. Free to be whoever they are culturally, just as you are free to be so right alongside them.

Here you are, basically stating that some people who come from particular countries are simply criminals, and when your neighborhood is made up of 80% these people, you can expect as a matter of simple fact that your neighborhood is going to decline and that that is all their fault. You should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Using Bali as an example:

How is a sovereign, democratic, independent nation making decisions (at national, regional and local levels) regarding its own economy "imperialism"? Indonesia has been independent 80 years, and Bali a mass tourist destination only for less than half of that time.

Good grief that's condescending.

That is a bit more detailed from the previous description. I would still suggest bigotry, but very possible still justified despite economic decisions.

But you agree people can object to radical changes in their cultural environment with associated, tangible harms without being bigoted.

Why can't someone in Europe object to radical changes in their cultural environment with associated, tangible harms too?

Possibly, if there is tangible harm. But in the case of folks here in America, where the very foundation of the national identity is a diverse amalgam of various cultures (some voluntarily contributed, others not), I suspect much of it isn't based on tangible harm but fear of change and diversity.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Buffalo shooting puts spotlight on GOP and Great Replacement Theory

It is time now for everyone to clearly and publicly denounce this dangerous rhetoric. Some of you may feel this is obvious and should “go without saying”, but the time for that is over. Some may not understand, it is time to get educated. Some of you might just want to be obstinate because you think this is “political”, the time for that nonsense is over.

Please vote in the poll.

As long as I can also condemn black sovereignty and native sovereignty and so on...we are supposed to be a melting pot. Some people don't want to melt but to rule over others because they have different levels of melatonin in their skin. Kinda silly, really.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

If you lived in an are that became 80% immigrant while turning from a poor, but relatively safe neighbourhood with a good sense of community to a crime and gang infested ****hole where you couldn't walk the streets at night would that be a valid basis for considering these cultural changes undesirable?

If many in the neighbourhood don't even share a common language, isn't it fair to assume this will make it significantly harder to build a helpful and integrated community?

Folks complained about that in Lewiston, Maine when the Somali refugees integrated into the community. Stats show the crime rate went down.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

As long as I can also condemn black sovereignty and native sovereignty and so on...we are supposed to be a melting pot. Some people don't want to melt but to rule over others because they have different levels of melatonin in their skin. Kinda silly, really.

I think this also speaks to a fear folks have. Europeans did this en masse to various indigenous cultures for the sake of profit, and this only slowed after World War 2, and the impacts of it are still being felt.

But there's a vast difference between imperialism and immigration.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well the guy that created the theory was a French guy.

I see this more as a resistance to those that don't think it important to preserve traditional French people and French culture in France and would without concern allow it to be gradually overwhelmed by foreign peoples and cultures. I can see some valid concern in preserving one's culture in its homeland.

Such feelings can be a valid consideration in creating a nation's immigration policy.

Cultures change. That's a fact. Ideologies of purity are absurd and have nothing but emotion fueling them. People move around, ideas are exchanged, food and games and inventions shared, and as a result cultures are highly dynamic and constantly evolving just as we are.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Of course I condemn white supremacy.

I also condemn the lying Democrats who create these monsters by their constant efforts to create racial divisions in America.

I also condemn the lying Democrats trying to blame Tucker Carlson for this. It's disgusting.

I've been trying to relate that Democrats consistently push people too far and arguably create people like that.

Time and time again I've posted about the pressure cooker caused by authoritarian Democrats with their asinine mandates and compulsory legislation that push people like that into a corner, and they essentially explode at some point.

Maybe they are not totally responsible, but they certainly play a part.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Hitler's economy had its socialistic elements.
It's not just "Nazi" that made it socialist, but
the level of regulation imposed upon business.
Economy of Nazi Germany - Wikipedia

The Nazis were RW and opposed to the socialists and other LW parties in Wiemar Germany. To try to say they were LW and socialist is to ignore every bit of history that surrounds them and what they actually did.
Were the Nazis Socialists?

Over the following years the brothers Otto and Gregor Strasser did much to grow the party by tying Hitler’s racist nationalism to socialist rhetoric that appealed to the suffering lower middle classes. In doing so, the Strassers also succeeded in expanding the Nazi reach beyond its traditional Bavarian base. By the late 1920s, however, with the German economy in free fall, Hitler had enlisted support from wealthy industrialists who sought to pursue avowedly anti-socialist policies. Otto Strasser soon recognized that the Nazis were neither a party of socialists nor a party of workers, and in 1930 he broke away to form the anti-capitalist Schwarze Front (Black Front). Gregor remained the head of the left wing of the Nazi Party, but the lot for the ideological soul of the party had been cast.

Hitler allied himself with leaders of German conservative and nationalist movements, and in January 1933 German President Paul von Hindenburg appointed him chancellor. Hitler’s Third Reich had been born, and it was entirely fascist in character. Within two months Hitler achieved full dictatorial power through the Enabling Act. In April 1933 communists, socialists, democrats, and Jews were purged from the German civil service, and trade unions were outlawed the following month. That July Hitler banned all political parties other than his own, and prominent members of the German Communist Party and the Social Democratic Party were arrested and imprisoned in concentration camps. Lest there be any remaining questions about the political character of the Nazi revolution, Hitler ordered the murder of Gregor Strasser, an act that was carried out on June 30, 1934, during the Night of the Long Knives. Any remaining traces of socialist thought in the Nazi Party had been extinguished.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...-falsely-claiming-that-nazis-were-socialists/

There is only one problem: This argument is untrue. Although the Nazis did pursue a level of government intervention in the economy that would shock doctrinaire free marketeers, their “socialism” was at best a secondary element in their appeal. Indeed, most supporters of Nazism embraced the party precisely because they saw it as an enemy of and an alternative to the political left. A closer look at the connection between Nazism and socialism can help us better understand both ideologies in their historical contexts and their significance for contemporary politics.



The Nazi regime had little to do with socialism, despite it being prominently included in the name of the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. The NSDAP, from Hitler on down, struggled with the political implications of having socialism in the party name. Some early Nazi leaders, such as Gregor and Otto Strasser, appealed to working-class resentments, hoping to wean German workers away from their attachment to existing socialist and communist parties. The NSDAP’s 1920 party program, the 25 points, included passages denouncing banks, department stores and “interest slavery,” which suggested a quasi-Marxist rejection of free markets. But these were also typical criticisms in the anti-Semitic playbook, which provided a clue that the party’s overriding ideological goal wasn’t a fundamental challenge to private property.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I've been trying to relate that Democrats consistently push people too far and arguably create people like that.

Why should bigots be coddled and catered to?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Why should bigots be coddled and catered to?

Not coddled or catered. Just allowing them a platform so they can vent and blow off steam.

It's a way of releasing pressure rather than restricted means which increases pressure and anger to higher levels.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

I condemn stupidity of all sorts. It never does anything to reduce the amount of stupidity there is. So I voted "other (please explain)."

Rather than condemning stupid theories, how much better would it be to really craft means of explaining the reality -- with enough credible evidence to make it stick.....occasionally.....among the (very few) receptive minds?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not coddled or catered. Just allowing them a platform so they can vent and blow off steam.

It's a way of releasing pressure rather than restricted means which increases pressure and anger to higher levels.

They are largely free to rant anywhere they want, with more unspoken restrictions about cutesy than any official legal restrictions.

 

[George-ananda]

Cultures change. That's a fact. Ideologies of purity are absurd and have nothing but emotion fueling them. People move around, ideas are exchanged, food and games and inventions shared, and as a result cultures are highly dynamic and constantly evolving just as we are.

A country has the right to sei its own immigration policies. Concern about mass immigration from cultures with a quite different perspective on women’s freedom, sexual orientation freedoms and etcetera with higher birth rate than the cultural norm can be a legitimate issue for consideration.

 

[tytlyf]

I sometimes wonder how many people in the anti choice crowd are against abortion because of the white replacement theory.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

A country has the right to sei its own immigration policies. Concern about mass immigration from cultures with a quite different perspective on women’s freedom, sexual orientation freedoms and etcetera with higher birth rate than the cultural norm can be a legitimate issue for consideration.

It's called assimilation.

 

[George-ananda]

It's called assimilation.

The concern in France has been a perceived unwillingness to assimilate and a militancy.

 

[Stevicus]

Hitler's economy had its socialistic elements.
It's not just "Nazi" that made it socialist, but
the level of regulation imposed upon business.
Economy of Nazi Germany - Wikipedia

They had private ownership, they had wealthy people, they had poor people, they had aristocrats. If there is a class hierarchy, it can't possibly be considered socialist.