This week in the strange death of Europe: 6 months prison for "Stop Islamization" banner

[Trausti]

You realize most of your examples aren't about multiculturalism in general, but specifically about Islam?

They're also a neat illustration of selection bias. Places with conflict make the news. Multicultural nations whose only problems are due to racism by a handful of dickheads are many, but they don't make the headlines. Nobody's going to read an article about the absence of ethnic conflict in the 170+ nations not listed by Trausti. Indeed, he had to include nations that no longer exist to pad out his list.

This is the same logical error that leads to the inevitable question from idiots every time someone points out that nuclear power is the safest way to make electricity - "WhAt aBoUt ChErNoByL???".

Being talked about isn't the same thing as being significant, nor as being ubiquitous. It's almost always the opposite of being typical.

'Dog bites man' doesn't get into the papers, but that doesn't mean that 'man bites dog' is the more usual interaction.

Let’s understand this. According to the lefty worldview, the many conflicts in Africa are due to the colonial powers arbitrarily setting country borders. Which is probably right. Yet, if multiculturalism is so great, why were there any conflicts at all?

 

[untermensche]

Let’s understand this. According to the lefty worldview, the many conflicts in Africa are due to the colonial powers arbitrarily setting country borders. Which is probably right. Yet, if multiculturalism is so great, why were there any conflicts at all?

Multiculturalism is inherently great.

Just like knowledge is inherently great.

Just like clean water is inherently great.

Just like European Colonialism was inherently evil.

And of course Western meddling in Africa did not end when Colonialism ended.

You have places with lack of organization and the only thing the West has wanted to do about that for centuries is exploit it.

 

[bilby]

You realize most of your examples aren't about multiculturalism in general, but specifically about Islam?

They're also a neat illustration of selection bias. Places with conflict make the news. Multicultural nations whose only problems are due to racism by a handful of dickheads are many, but they don't make the headlines. Nobody's going to read an article about the absence of ethnic conflict in the 170+ nations not listed by Trausti. Indeed, he had to include nations that no longer exist to pad out his list.

This is the same logical error that leads to the inevitable question from idiots every time someone points out that nuclear power is the safest way to make electricity - "WhAt aBoUt ChErNoByL???".

Being talked about isn't the same thing as being significant, nor as being ubiquitous. It's almost always the opposite of being typical.

'Dog bites man' doesn't get into the papers, but that doesn't mean that 'man bites dog' is the more usual interaction.

Let’s understand this. According to the lefty worldview, the many conflicts in Africa are due to the colonial powers arbitrarily setting country borders. Which is probably right. Yet, if multiculturalism is so great, why were there any conflicts at all?

It takes a special kind of biased oversimplification to presume that setting new borders only caused conflict because of cultural differences between people who were suddenly a part of a single polity.

If I redrew the borders between you and your next door neighbour, and now you have two backyards and no houses, while he has two houses and no backyards; And he won't even give you any of your furniture back or let you visit your kids who were stuck on the other side of the new boundary, would any consequntial conflict between you be solely due to your cultural differences?

If you're both from the same cultural background, do you think that this situation would be warmly embraced by all parties?

You appear to be completely incapable of grasping that reality isn't required to be simple enough for you to comprehend, or to model with soundbites.

 

[repoman]

Biden gets it

 

[Trausti]

Let’s understand this. According to the lefty worldview, the many conflicts in Africa are due to the colonial powers arbitrarily setting country borders. Which is probably right. Yet, if multiculturalism is so great, why were there any conflicts at all?

It takes a special kind of biased oversimplification to presume that setting new borders only caused conflict because of cultural differences between people who were suddenly a part of a single polity.

If I redrew the borders between you and your next door neighbour, and now you have two backyards and no houses, while he has two houses and no backyards; And he won't even give you any of your furniture back or let you visit your kids who were stuck on the other side of the new boundary, would any consequntial conflict between you be solely due to your cultural differences?

If you're both from the same cultural background, do you think that this situation would be warmly embraced by all parties?

You appear to be completely incapable of grasping that reality isn't required to be simple enough for you to comprehend, or to model with soundbites.

The Downside of Diversity

But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam—famous for “Bowling Alone,” his 2000 book on declining civic engagement—has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.

“The extent of the effect is shocking,” says Scott Page, a University of Michigan political scientist.

 

[bilby]

The Downside of Diversity

But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam—famous for “Bowling Alone,” his 2000 book on declining civic engagement—has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.

“The extent of the effect is shocking,” says Scott Page, a University of Michigan political scientist.

I will take your sharp change of focus as an admission that you were wrong about Africa.

I am going to go ahead and not even bother to check before assuming that you are wrong in much the same way with regards to your brand new pick for cherry of evidence.

I already know that you want multiculturalism to be a net negative. And I am able to grasp nuance well enough to know that, despite being a net positive, it does have some downsides. So your highlighting of things you imagine to be negatives (some of which might even turn out not to be erroneous) does nothing to support your desired conclusion.

What you are pushing here wouldn't be enough evidence to support your position, even if it were the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Which it seems unlikely to be.

It's the sort of pseudoevidence that's very effective in persuading people who already agree with you. But it's futile when addressing people who don't start with the belief that you are correct.

 

[Trausti]

The Downside of Diversity

But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam—famous for “Bowling Alone,” his 2000 book on declining civic engagement—has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.

“The extent of the effect is shocking,” says Scott Page, a University of Michigan political scientist.

I will take your sharp change of focus as an admission that you were wrong about Africa.

I am going to go ahead and not even bother to check before assuming that you are wrong in much the same way with regards to your brand new pick for cherry of evidence.

I already know that you want multiculturalism to be a net negative. And I am able to grasp nuance well enough to know that, despite being a net positive, it does have some downsides. So your highlighting of things you imagine to be negatives (some of which might even turn out not to be erroneous) does nothing to support your desired conclusion.

What you are pushing here wouldn't be enough evidence to support your position, even if it were the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Which it seems unlikely to be.

It's the sort of pseudoevidence that's very effective in persuading people who already agree with you. But it's futile when addressing people who don't start with the belief that you are correct.

My point is that multicultural societies require a heavy hand for stability. I’m not wrong.

SPIEGEL Interview with Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew

SPIEGEL: During your career, you have kept your distance from Western style democracy. Are you still convinced that an authoritarian system is the future for Asia?

Mr. Lee: Why should I be against democracy? The British came here, never gave me democracy, except when they were about to leave. But I cannot run my system based on their rules. I have to amend it to fit my people's position. In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion. Supposing I'd run their system here, Malays would vote for Muslims, Indians would vote for Indians, Chinese would vote for Chinese. I would have a constant clash in my Parliament which cannot be resolved because the Chinese majority would always overrule them. So I found a formula that changes that...

SPIEGEL: ... and that turned Singapore de facto into a one party state. Critics say that Singapore resembles a Lee Family Enterprise. Your son is the Prime Minister, your daughter-in-law heads the powerful Development Agency...

 

[bilby]

I will take your sharp change of focus as an admission that you were wrong about Africa.

I am going to go ahead and not even bother to check before assuming that you are wrong in much the same way with regards to your brand new pick for cherry of evidence.

I already know that you want multiculturalism to be a net negative. And I am able to grasp nuance well enough to know that, despite being a net positive, it does have some downsides. So your highlighting of things you imagine to be negatives (some of which might even turn out not to be erroneous) does nothing to support your desired conclusion.

What you are pushing here wouldn't be enough evidence to support your position, even if it were the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Which it seems unlikely to be.

It's the sort of pseudoevidence that's very effective in persuading people who already agree with you. But it's futile when addressing people who don't start with the belief that you are correct.

My point is that multicultural societies require a heavy hand for stability. I’m not wrong.

SPIEGEL Interview with Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew

SPIEGEL: During your career, you have kept your distance from Western style democracy. Are you still convinced that an authoritarian system is the future for Asia?

Mr. Lee: Why should I be against democracy? The British came here, never gave me democracy, except when they were about to leave. But I cannot run my system based on their rules. I have to amend it to fit my people's position. In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion. Supposing I'd run their system here, Malays would vote for Muslims, Indians would vote for Indians, Chinese would vote for Chinese. I would have a constant clash in my Parliament which cannot be resolved because the Chinese majority would always overrule them. So I found a formula that changes that...

SPIEGEL: ... and that turned Singapore de facto into a one party state. Critics say that Singapore resembles a Lee Family Enterprise. Your son is the Prime Minister, your daughter-in-law heads the powerful Development Agency...

Adding further pseudoevidence doesn't strengthen your case. Those who already agree with you don't need further convincing, and everyone else recognises that the opinion of the leader of a "defacto one party state" isn't evidence of anything other than his opinion.