Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

"Also, my hot take of the day is that Eastern philosophy’s simplicity is, to a not-insignificant degree, attributable to the fact that it’s less developed than Western philosophy."

@Particle Mare I don't know man I think simplicity can be a good thing (though also a bad thing), the more complicated a philosophy or anything becomes the more confusing it can become, the more confusing it becomes the more it can hurt your ability to act decisively because you have to go through a web of imposed rules and abstractions. It is a problem I have with the left sometimes, socializing, art, politics can get way more complicated that it needs to be, and therefore the restrictions grow without an apparent limit.

I don't think we're on the same page. You're criticizing a value judgement that I never actually made, and you're also either conflating social norms with academic philosophy, or making a comparison that I don't think is very apt.

Maybe, maybe not. It takes longer to write shortly; and in language, less is more.

So here's an unpopular opinion for you guys. I believe Paul Joseph Watson is a left-winger. If I understand his positions correctly, he:

1) supports LGBT rights
2) supports women's rights (not a 3rd wave feminist, but he's clearly for equality)
3) supports worker's rights
4) is vehemently against racism and ethnic nationalism
5) is against globalism
6) is against war

I have no idea how anyone could seriously call him a right-winger when he seems like a classical lefty. I mean, sure, he doesn't hate whites with a burning passion but that's not necessary for being a left-winger, right? But then again, I'm literally Hitler so I'm probably biased, really interested in KYM's opinion.

Nice maxim, but when I talk about simplicity I am referring to simplicity of concepts, not economy of words.

@memčiki memosiki

I thought literally Hitler types were against globalism?

@Particle Mare

Well I am personally against globalism, but we literally Hitlers aren't strictly right-wing if I'm not wrong, we're third position. And anti-globalization is frequently considered a left-wing position, right? Anyway, do you agree with me on PJW? I got buried for saying that (as usual), so I'm really interested in hearing people elaborate.

It can apply to many things. It takes longer to make (design) a functional simple things than a functional complicated things. We do not have what they have in the west because there is no need for it? I think.

@memosiki
Wait, what the heck. I am a left-wing now because I am against globalisation?

Ok, guys, pls, I didn't just write about globalism did I? I wrote a whole list. Pls argue if you can, that PJW is a right-winger. I'm super interested in seeing this.

Otherwise I would kindly ask mods to make a public service announcement that PJW is officially a left-winger.

I'm not sure where you're going with this analogy. Eastern philosophy has not changed significantly for hundreds of years. The key figures in Eastern (aka Chinese) philosophy are still primarily personal ethics gurus and spiritualists. While their contributions are no doubt invaluable, Western philosophy has made inroads into abstract ideas that Eastern philosophy has failed to compete with. The East has Confucius and Laozi, the West has Epicurus and Marcus Aurelius. But there is no Eastern counterpart to Kant, for example.

Perhaps Confucius' proclamations are more profound than Epicurus' quips, but he offers us no insights into epistemology, the philosophy of science, and lots of other fields we owe almost entirety to Western philosophers.

I don't really know how to respond to the idea that we don't have a need for advanced philosophical concepts. Even if you dislike philosophy there is still the fact that it has helped to synthesize ideas like the scientific method.

And anti-globalization is frequently considered a left-wing position, right?

It's generally considered both a left- and right-populist position, I think. Left-wing populists are suspicious of it because they tend to dislike global capital and the populist right is suspicious of it because of (((them))) and because globalism implies things like immigration.

I don't have an opinion on PJW, I don't pay much attention to what he says and I don't really understand why anyone does.

@ParticleMare
I concede the point that it helped created ideas which gave way to scientific method. But was not it Galileo who fathered it? The rest about living and existential and other fancier words eludes me completely though and I still think it is over-thinking.

Any much more than this and I can make a French toast on my head thinking too hard about philosophy.

There is a saying 总是想太多还不如什么都别想 It is better to not think at all than thinking too much.

@memčiki memosiki
I do not give much care to political youtube personas so I cannot help you on this one. Sorry.

On the topic of globalism:
Honestly I think being against globalism is just another name for not being a dipshit.

Every single time I've ever gotten in a argument with someone that is a globalist they legitimately can not understand the difference between fictional fantasy stories and reality.

I wish I was joking here, but legitimately every single argument I've had with a globalist has gone along the lines:
"Well in this fantasy novel it works like"
"I'm not asking about your fictional novel. I'm asking how would it work in the real world?"
"Well in this fictional story I was reading with pixies, magic and dragons the way they way the achieved it was through-"
"I'm not asking about your fictional novel with magic and shit. I'm again asking HOW would we do it in REAL LIFE?"
"But it would work in real life"
"Dude that novel that you're talking about the way it happens is that a race of space elves come from mars and teach humanity how to use magic and thus no longer need any resources for anything"
"But it could work!"
"I don't know about you but last time I checked there's no such thing as space elves from mars in real life"

It’s generally considered both a left- and right-populist position, I think. Left-wing populists are suspicious of it because they tend to dislike global capital and the populist right is suspicious of it because of (((them))) and because globalism implies things like immigration.

And other opinions because cultures and ways of life will not die out.

Oh, is globalism an unpopular opinion here at the moment? I'd be glad to defend it. AMA.

Question 1: how would you prevent people that hate each other from killing each other?
Question 2: how would you prevent a scenario of a single country economically dragging down the rest of the countries cause they share the same currency; like how Greece is dragging down the rest of Europe because said country shares the same currency as everyone else?
Question 3: how would you handle how some countries have a massive debt whereas other countries have a massive amount of money in the bank?

I object to calling it "unpopular". It just doesn't seem right when any opposition to multiculturalism is considered literally fascism, does it?

But if you're doing an AMA, how do we secure the existence of our people and a future for white children in a globalist world? It has to be some other form of globalism if I understand correctly?

We have different ideas of what globalism entails. It would help if you could first provide your definition so we could work from there. My definition of globalism is the reduction of barriers to the movement of capital or labor across national boundaries.

how do we secure the existence of our people and a future for white children in a globalist world?

If your definition of the "[future] existence of our people" includes economic growth and prosperity, then there may be something for you. If your main concern is racial homogeneity then globalism is unequivocally your enemy and this is the wrong question to be asking.

I fully believe humanity will NEVER be unified with out us declaring war against an alien extraterrestrial race. Humans not only love conflict, but NEED it to remain mentally healthy. Humans are predators (both men and woman) that needs a challenge in life. Fighting is the best output for that need, although other outlets might take care of that need for a time too, like sports.

Ok, I'll ask another question. What has Sweden gained from globalism other than car burnings, rapes, violent crime, monthly or even weekly grenade explosions, no-go zones, a complete absence of social cohesion, and aggressive government propaganda that tries to somehow keep Sweden on its current course? Was it not prosperous before these things started? If it wasn't, was some marginal increase in gdp growth worth it? Or would you agree with the official propaganda and say that the things I mentioned are not real and are a product of mass hallucinations of racist right-wing nut jobs? (I could of course ask this about any other country dying from globalism, this is just an example).

So the way I see it, people advocating for globalization (at least in its current form) either have a malicious intent or live in a bizarre world of illusions. I obviously don't imply that your intent is malicious, and I won't deny that you're very smart, so your position is even more bewildering to me.

@mare I'm curious on what your take on the economics of globalism is. I can tell you have interesting opinions there specifically but the thread seems to be focusing on ethnic tension

@Mare
"My definition of globalism is the reduction of barriers to the movement of capital or labor across national boundaries."
How would you prevent terrorist attacks?

I'm going to hard core stir the pot here:
The reason why globalism doesn't work is that cultural hegemony and hegemony picks globalism up and breaks it's back across it's knee like bane breaking batman's back.

Granted this is more about cultural hegemony but it illustrates my point: at the rate that english speaking population of the world is growing and minor languages are dying in twenty years english will be spoken by the super majority of the world's population.

The reason why globalism doesn't work is that the USA is using it as a excuse to further grow our cultural, economic and military hegemony over the rest of the world.

..
What people think globalism irl entails, "countries that are best friends working together for the betterment of their people"
What it actually entails; the USA turning everyone into their harem.

@memosiki
ey, i know ya probably just saw that phrase from online, but ya do realize that's a white supremacist phrase word-for-word right?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteen_Words

Personally, as long as western culture perpetuates (which if fairly inevitable due to the internet), I don't really care if the demographics are less white in the future, whatever man. I don't see why I should care unless I was a white supremacist, I don't think other races are bad and if my descendants turns out to be less white than me I wouldn't care.

That said, even if we pretend the future of a genetically pure race matters, even though I think that whole concept is misguided: you don't have to ban every immigrant anyway even for that goal. all you need to do encourage white people to have kids, and try to give free birth control so poor people of other races can avoid having kids. If white people had as many kids as other races it wouldn't really happen. people are always less prone to having kids with people who look very different than themselves, so the genetic flow would probably just be overpowered.

@documents1

I don't believe "White supremacists" exist. I believe it's yet another propaganda term. I used the phrase because I agree with the meaning.

I'm the opposite. I couldn't care less about "Western culture" because I don't even know what that's supposed to mean. Christianity? It's international. The so called "European values" aka liberal democracy and homosexuality? Awful pop music? Yeah, no.

I believe the whole "protect Western culture" thing is what Whites use to try to cope. They can't say "protect the White race", so they find something they could cling to. A meaningless term, but sounds good I guess. Now if you said "American culture and values" I would agree, because that's something that actually exists.

Think of us as people trying to fight for diversity and trying to defend the rights of marginalized people. If a White country ceases to be White you lose a unique people and a unique culture. Isn't that tragic? When you replace Europeans with a brown mass of people connected by an adopted common language at best you obviously don't gain diversity, you lose it.

Finally, think about the "worst case scenario". Think about what would happen if the worst modern "White supremacists" came into power? They would send all non-Europeans back to where they came from. That's it. All these non-Europeans still have their countries. They can always go back. Europeans have nowhere to run.
And that was the absolute worst case scenario. And then what If actually prominent """""far-right""""" parties like Front National or Alternative fuer Deutschland got power, which is at least possible in theory, if extremely unlikely? They would just limit immigration and try reaffirm their historical identity and attempt to assimilate the enormous amount of non-Europeans their countries already have. So scary, I know.

Literally any other scenario other than the two I outlined above will result in Europe losing it's identity completely and it's people becoming marginalized minorities not just globally, but in their own countries as well.

I'm convinced that what White nationalists of any ideology are doing is noble, morally right, and in many countries outright brave and self-sacrificial. I see people actively opposing the right of Europeans for existence and self-determination as disgusting and utterly immoral.

Note: I think the whole "America as a White ethno state" thing is very silly, and I don't really care about what happens to former European colonies. I'm not going to signal against their efforts, they have a right to fight for their existence, but I'm only really concerned with Europe. If they want to live in a "White ethno state" they should probably move back to Europe.

What they (and I) want is not a super ethnic-state or purity of blood bollocks, but to preserve both their cultural identity AND racial identity from the ongoing culture war. Nazis would not be out marching for some few Asians and Africans walking in the streets in a hotpot country. We have few westerners living permanently in Asia and nobody cares. People do not want a repeat of what happened to the Native Americans.

The problem with the multiculturalism of the left is that it is far too extreme. People already listen to pop music, watch Hollywood movies, wear T-shirt and jeans, drive European or Japanese car to work or take the train that is ubiquitous, have American cuisine for breakfast, Italian for lunch, and the local traditional for dinner. All this while still not losing their way of life, cultural, and racial identity. Because we trade cultures since we have trading and mercantile back centuries ago.

We are as the colours on the palette. Different, separated, but on the palette and are still colour all the same while looking beautiful. What the left multiculturalism want is to mix all those colour into one same blackish colour on a single spot on the palette, dirty and boring.

What you envisioned as a good thing, to people opposing it. It is an assimilation plot, a one world order, which we refused. Because people are scared when they wake up and see their neighbours who cannot speak the language of the land nor follow its traditions which they can relate with. People are scared when their children go to school only to find themselves a minority in their ancestral homeland. People are scared shitless when some people screams White Genocide unironically, I have seen pictures of those loons and their mad posters. Who in the right mind advocates genocide, especially of their own kind.

Then what come next is some people on the left start calling them racists, xenophobes, whatever buzzwords the mass media can think of next. The left alienated the opposition and tried to shut them down with labels, socially killing them, doxxing them, etc. Diversity of thoughts much? One world order if everyone who thinks differently are all socially dead?

That is what make normal mundane people go join /pol/ and kekistan and whatnot. That is why we have literal Neo-Nazi with tiki torches, this is why some people in the middle chose to elect/support Trump to run the U.S.

Again. Excuse me for my autism about cultures. Globalisation and threat to cultures really activate my almond.

@memosiki

Congrats on what I think will probably be the most unpopular opinion of the thread. maybe it'll be less unpopular relative to here since this place ain't so lefty, but the idea of white genocide is very unpopular among the public.

I have arguments for pretty much every point ya made, but honestly I'm not in the mood to get into an argument where no opinions will change by the end on either side. Our opinions are so far from each other that I have a lot of doubts meaningful discourse could even happen, I mean for example, I think culture is an overarching presence that influences every part of life, and defines how happy the society is in a lot of ways, while your take is that it doesn't mean shit.

And you call yourself right wing? Seriously, I haven't heard single thing from you that could define you as right winger.

Based Clownfish saying it like it is, as usual. Totally agree.

@documents1

I'm not saying that culture doesn't mean shit. I'm saying that Western culture doesn't mean shit. There are unique distinct western cultures, such as American, French, Serbian, Greek, Russian, etc. But what exactly does "Western culture" mean, and what would it mean to perpetuate it? I have no Idea.

It's too bad that you don't feel like sharing your opinion because I'm open to criticism and I'm very interested in what you have to say.

@Garumbo

I believe documents1 is a left-winger.

@clownfish

I'd say that expecting people to assimilate into the culture, like speaking the language and moral standards and whatnot is perfectly fine standpoint. I can respect that. I just don't know why exactly we need to factor race into assimilation. In my experience people tend to naturally assimilate, that's how it's been in the US for the most part. You see hispanic people who's grandparents still speak spanish better than english, their parents are fluent in both, and then they only know a bit of spanish. If you want to advocate positions where immigrants have to demonstrate a receptiveness to the ideals of the nation and its culture, that seems fair enough. I personally don't think it's necessary though, but I respect your viewpoint.

Since your belief system is fundamentally incompatible with some of the core principles of globalism, I don't think I could give an answer that would satisfy you. But regardless, I'll articulate my perspective on the refugee crisis.

Firstly, a minor nitpick: I think you've set up a false contrast with your insinuation that Sweden was prosperous before the refugee crisis. Of course it was, but it was not isolationist at the time either. It was one of the earliest members of the EU, a union whose economic mandates are rooted in many globalist principles.

My main argument against what you're saying is that war is an inherent creator of misery and that globalism does little to change this. Peacetime immigrants tend to move for opportunity and are almost always beneficial to their host countries, whereas war distorts this dynamic. Sweden has gained very little from the refugee crisis, but the only difference that adding or subtracting globalist policies would make would be a shifting of the burden: if Sweden doesn't shoulder a large part of its effects, then the rest of Europe will have to pick up the slack; if the rest of Europe decides not to, then the Middle East will be destabilized further by the crisis; and if every country in both Europe and the Middle East begins turning back refugees by force, then the refugees will suffer further.

As a nationalist, you might think the latter two scenarios sound fine. We would have to agree to disagree. I think there are plenty of arguments to be made that any of those scenarios would end up impacting Europe, but I don't want to get too long-winded here.

I think one example that cuts across ideological lines, though, is the fact that globalism is currently driving positive reformation in some very Islamic countries. Mohammad bin Salman is undertaking a political purge of Saudi Arabia's fundamentalist clerical elite and has taken some radical (by Saudi Arabian standards) steps toward curbing and moderating the most egregious of the country's Islamic policies. He has explicitly articulated a vision for a moderate Islam that is tolerant of other religions. His reasoning sounds like peak globalism: he wants to facilitate Saudi Arabia's transition to a post-oil economy and he realizes that religious extremism is anathema to good business. Globalism is not a cornucopia, but I would argue it is the only major force currently bringing fundamentalist Islam to modernity. In the long run, that is good for Europe.

How would you prevent terrorist attacks?

With reasonable border controls. Fewer barriers to movement does not necessarily mean open borders. (Open borders warrant a separate discussion, but I don't intend to advocate for them right now.)

The reason why globalism doesn’t work is that the USA is using it as a excuse to further grow our cultural, economic and military hegemony over the rest of the world.

Be careful that you don't conflate globalism with imperialism. It's true the US is doing this to some extent, but why does it not work? The US is far from perfect but I like its cultural exports, and I would much rather have it as the lone superpower than China or Russia.

I’m curious on what your take on the economics of globalism is

I think it is the only way forward for highly developed nations that don't want to economically stagnate.

Then what come next is some people on the left start calling them racists…

We are as the colours on the palette. Different, separated, but on the palette and are still colour all the same while looking beautiful. What the left multiculturalism want is to mix all those colour into one same blackish colour on a single spot on the palette, dirty and boring.

If this is the crux of your argument, and it seems to be, then yeah, you're racist.

Garumbo, did you reply to the wrong guy or confuse me for someone, or did i write a message wrong that made me seem like I said I was right-wing? I'm quite confused, my profile literally says I'm leftwing.

I had unpopular opinion that you are right wing, so I figured I can post it in unpopular opinion thread.

@Particle Mare

Thank you for a detailed answer. I agree that we'd have to agree to disagree due to fundamentally different worldviews. I will even agree that a nation cannot develop/move forward without being open in an economic sense. I guess I actually support free trade.

But I think there's some misunderstanding. I wasn't really referring to the "refugee" crisis. Everything I mentioned started before the "refugees" started arriving. White flight, millions of unintegrated migrants, rampant crime, welfare abuse, pedo rings, riots, etc., etc. So things were already messed up before the crisis (the way I see it, of course). Which is a consequence of suicidal immigration policies rather than wars.

oh lol i totally forgot about that thread

Thank you, for understanding. I truly appreciate it. I believe you underestimate the role that race or ancestry plays in culture and tradition.

What if the colour orange loses it orange-ness. Will it still be orange? Or if the colour blue assume the orange-ness of the colour orange. It is orange or it is blue? A strange conundrum.

I have a story to tell you though, yes, it is another blogpost of my life. I studied Chinese martial arts seriously for a time. My teacher is not Chinese, he was from Germany. He said that many westerners like it, and too few natives like it. In the future, you might need to learn Chinese martial arts from a westerner. He said jokingly, but with a sad voice.

Particle Mare wrote:

If this is the crux of your argument, and it seems to be, then yeah, you’re racist.

Case in point about people who disagree with the left version of multiculturalism are getting labels. Racism is when an Asian is denied a seat at a restaurant with a silent treatment or ignored by the waiter. Racism is when an African American has a separate crappy sink in the public washroom while Caucasian uses a pristine one. Racism is when a Hispanic person is charged a higher price for service than people of other races.

Funny thing however. Is that for college application in the U.S. Namely a required SAT score for each prospective students of each race is different. "White" has the highest bar to jump, others get their handicap. A "quota" for students of each race to enter. Seats gets separated by racial barriers, seats for the prospective learners are not selected by the best qualified, but by the racial quotas.

That is what some of the left have achieved. Racism much? Lower bars to jump for non-whites. Implying that they have less aptitude for study than "white"? Micro-aggression much?

Edit: Sorry. I should not have snarked at you; While we may disagree, you did your best to give your answer in an articulated way (which half of it will probably go through my head except for the quoted line) and thoroughly explaining it.

@mare

nice post honestly. I get a bit too worked up over these things, but you've presented a lotta things more level-headed than I would.

@Clownfish

Your post that I was responding to was very clearly a tirade against race mixing. And on aesthetic grounds, too. I don't see any way to interpret but as racism toward mixed-race people. If you'd like to justify it you're welcome to, but redirecting the conversation toward affirmative action doesn't count.

@mare

Agreed, clownfish's defense of memosiki on the grounds of culture is a bit absurd, as memosiki clearly made it about race mixing.

My point is reaaaally not about race mixing though. Because of the way our society works, European countries have below replacement fertility rates, meaning that it's an endless downward spiral, with each generation being smaller than the previous. Which is not that scary in itself, since things can always change, and maybe it could one day start increasing again, as society's attitudes change. Or not. Who knows. Native total fertility rates were already on the rise since early 2000s. Maybe the population would stabilize eventually in the future.

However, when you have low fertility rates AND immigration, especially as massive as we have right now, you find yourself in a situation where you're constantly losing ground to minorities. As your numbers dwindle, their numbers keep growing, so one day you will find yourself a minority in your country. It's pretty simple stuff, right? In words of modern African poet Big Shaq, I'm just using quick mathematics here. Obviously, the only way you're not going to be outnumbered is if the native population grows as fast as the minority population (or faster).

It doesn't really matter at this point whether native population racemixes or not. It will be outnumbered anyway. It's a really tiny thing that's not even close to making or breaking the future of a country.

I'll be honest I don't mind current races disappearing eventually, not because I want them to (I don't really, I like variety) but because some things are unavoidable, and genes get mixed over time is one of those things. It is nature and nature isn't necessarily good but its laws are all encompassing so eventually races will mix and create new races even if we try to avoid it. Evolution is pretty much impossible to stop.

Somewhat agree about affirmative action because it deviates from topic, but ignoring the fact that your (more precisely, most of the left definition) of racism against real racism which you accused me of is not really a good form either and affirmative action still reeks of racism. A matter to settle on another debate if we would, which is not now.

I said earlier in my response to @documents1. That race and culture are closely tied. Race mixing will happen regardless of whether left or right holds the reign because it is free world now and people migrate. This coming from a bastard of a mongrel himself. What I am against is the death of culture and people (which again, are closely tied) which mass immigration would entails resulting from the lefts flawed concept of multiculturalism.

Very long post incoming. I am not very good at explaining things simply despite my liking of beige prose. Sorry.

Tell me. How much would a, let us say. Caucasian. How much would he be interested in Qingming? Or similarly, will a Half-Japanese/Something Else be very interested in Obon? Will they learn the appropriate preparations and rituals in order to observe them? Not really a matter of keeping the traditions for its own sake. It is about ingrained filial piety. If massive race mixing become a thing, that boundaries are no more and as culture clashes. Some will fade, some will die out.

A good example of this would be the Teochew Chinese. They fled Maos Cultural Revolution to the neighbouring lands (some migrated even earlier to the south though as my mother told me like even before WW1). While many, they were vastly outnumbered by the natives with similar birth rate. They intermingle and married into each other. They have their own culture which was salvaged from the fire of the purge which they carried as a spiritual baggage. Some have to be discarded, like names that has be changed to native sounding name (luckily, my full name can be read in both Chinese and Japanese proper). But as they are outnumbered and generation passed, their descendants became natives.

However, Teochew dialect of Chinese will probably die with the passing of my generation as we lost our written form, along with Teochew Opera within few more generations. They are not probably going to die out as a people though, because some remain identified with their ancestry strongly. That is what still keep the cultural and ancestral heritage going and still ubiquitous all around the world. But many more also do not identify with their ancestry and identified with the natives or other instead. Causing a decline in culture. But at the same time, encouraging ethnic enclaves and the people who strongly identified as Teochew to stick together to preserve their cultural and ethnic identity.

Now, you may think that "That is exactly why, those immigrants in Europe will integrate". Not really. We are integrated because we are outnumbered vastly. Not really. They established parallel society and ethnic enclaves as they are both encouraged by the government to keep their identity and peoples wanting to preserve their identity, what they are, who they are, where they are from, what have their kins and forebears established. All this on their own. Despite coming to another land. Integration is impossible unless one side loses their cultural identity, and integration implies that what was two, becomes a one. Ironically, losing "diversity". People both BOTH sides are scared and unnerved. Natives of the mass amount of foreigners and vice versa. Violence from the scared immigrants, which DID NOT happen in such a scale with the Teochew Chinese. Speaking of which, how do the Native American fare nowadays?

Ironically, minorities are both encouraged to integrate and preserve their identity simultaneously. You can see people going Asian pride, African pride, x-pride. Then one guy going White Pride and shit hits the fan. What? People are encouraged pride in their racial identity, but not "whites"? Because they are not minority? Really? About six billion people on Earth. Only about 1 billion are Caucasian. Arabs about about 1.1b, Africans are 1.4b, Indians are about 1.6b, and about 2.2b are Chinese and Asians. Yup. Majority alright.

Human are tribal creatures at heart. People feel safer when they are with people who they can identify with, of the same group, and they need cultural identity. Because identity is what shape what we are, who we are. That is why Chinatown popped up, that is why those African immigrants created parallel society and enclaves (slums), the African American neighbourhood (the hood) in the U.S. Heck, it does not even have to be about race and culture. In school, I would feel better hanging out the library or game center than being in an sport club. I feel fun when I discuss games and mangas rather than sports. Because I prefer to be and where I belong and with the people I can identify with. Not that I mind or detest the sports club people, mind you.

Also having a clear racial identity is also better for mental health and self-esteem (also physical health because sometime a race-mixed got problems from vastly different genes from their parents). A sense of belonging is what is normally lost on race-mixed people (I have sperged about it in all details in earlier post).

I find the left version of multiculturalism.

1) Disrespectful towards the cultures and the people themselves in a fashion not unlike tumblr. We are already multi-cultured, people trade and share culture all over the world. People and cultures are not tokens to be place in spaces to make it diverse like a bowl of Skittles. People prefer their lands where they can feel safe, see people who they can identify with, and their cultures revered and upheld as a national spirit. For people who are in kindred spirit with the hotpot of many people. The door to U.S. is always open (within lawful immigration protocols and rules of course).

2) Inb4, but Chinatown in U.S. and we allow celebration of Lunar New Year and such. Really? Is the day of Qingming or Obon a national holiday there? Where people of the land in kindred spirit go and pay their respects to ancestors and celebrate nationwide? It is in China and much better appreciated there. And also Lunar (Chinese) New Year where over there is also a holiday. Yes, integrated in U.S. alright. With some of its spirit shed out because it they declare it holiday there, then Mexican holidays, Indian holidays, everybody gets a holiday. Will probably be a clusterfuck though. Case in point about one having to lose some or all of their 'cultural baggage' when cultures clashed and melded. The only the ethnic enclaves and racial sanctuary and strongly identifying to ones own cultural heritage keep it alive. Imagine if ethnic enclaves like China town is outlawed and its people forced to scattered to "integrate". Yes, it will be lost.

3) Endanger everyone involved and causes societal friction more than harmony for the sake of political correctness which is only observed by the left and forced upon others by them. Minorities has to resort to ethnic enclaves to survive as culture in foreign land, take shit from far-right of the foreign land, used as a shield by the far-left. Instead of being in their native respective lands.

3.1) Again, if a person wishes to lose their baggage and migrate to foreign land because they love it more there and wishes to live their ways of life. Nobody really cares. Immigration is open, just meet the prerequisites. No matter what race you are, you can get it by the laws of the lands.

4) All of this can be disagreed without being a racist (denying people on the basis of their race services and equality of opportunity) or xenophobic (practising isolationism, cut off all foreign trades and contacts, actively and aggressively wanting to "purge" anyone not of the same race). Like I said before, we are already multi-cultured. Japan has foreign Yokozunas (reigning Sumo champion), they do not discriminate people from their national sport and not salty about foreigner holding titles, sport is sport and the competition is in good spirit. Xenophobic country right?

This is veering off-topic but I want to vent nonetheless.

5) The (forced) Mass Immigration for diversity. Another reason for it was for "labour" and "to stimulate economy". Labour? Really. They used to the say same thing back centuries back then. It was called Slavery. Only this time, with serial numbers filed off and with lower wages and basic human rights. But importing human for labour as if they are resources, not the foreign experts assistance nor doctors, but common people from underdeveloped countries for literally labour. Irony is rich in that.

5.1) Stimulate economy huh? So labour supplies goes up, demand for it goes down. So the wages goes down. And jobs become rarer so natives took the first hit. Housing prices goes up as immigrants has to have them. Natives took another hit. Cost of living rises, higher tax rate to subsidise immigrants. One-two combo for the native. Immigrants has to take debts to buy houses and cars and amenities to settle down. Causing debts. The only benefiting parties are mega-corps and banks. Economy. YES!!

5.2) Except that is did not turned out like that because like I said. Most of them are on welfare, jobless, still cannot speak native language. So people wasted money to scare both the natives and the immigrants shitless for political correctness, and diversity.

…Yeah no

The thing that people forget is that while the genes that dictate your skin color are few it's not like we'll ever reach the point at which a white couple having a child pops out with a kid with dark skin tone. The thing is that people forget is the idea of "anti-race mixing" only started about five hundred years ago. A lot of racist organizations they WERE buying gene kits to try and prove that they were 100% purely one race, but a lot of those members got kicked out when they were found to be something like 30% other races.

I do think eventually we are going to have a global society in which there's no racism, but not in the way 99% of the people here expect. What I mean by this is that plastic surgery to change what race a person appears to be is doubling every about five years. The reason is that it's starting to get cheap enough that it's starting to put in the range of more people's budgets.

Basically: the way we'll achieve a "post-racial" society is in say thirty years ethnic plastic surgery will be so cheap everyone can afford it.

@Clownfish

the death of culture, diversity etc.

The death of all cultures is a good thing. And I don't particularly care about diversity as an end, which I don't think is inherently related to globalism. You will need to warrant this post better if you want me to believe otherwise.

Also having a clear racial identity is also better for mental health and self-esteem (also physical health because sometime a race-mixed got problems from vastly different genes from their parents)

I would like to see evidence regarding this as well as an argument that racial identity is inherently a causative factor in mental health and self-esteem (as opposed to social forces). Without that this just sounds kooky.

People prefer their lands where they can feel safe

A popular expression is that people "vote with their feet". It's not up to you to decide.

Japan… Xenophobic country right?

Well, yeah. Just because they have pinched a few cultural artifacts from overseas doesn't mean they're not xenophobic.

Labour? Really.

Are you really comparing movement for work to slavery? Firstly, immigration for work is voluntary. Secondly, both parties (employer and migrant) benefit from the relationship. Do I need to explain this?

So labour supplies goes up, demand for it goes down. So the wages goes down

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lump-of-labour-fallacy.asp

Most of them are on welfare, jobless

This is demonstrably incorrect. Across the world and with very few exceptions, immigrants are the hardest-working and most law-obedient demographic.

and most law-obedient demographic.

This is just completely factually incorrect.

That was poor phrasing. I would still argue it for the United States specifically but I don't think it's true worldwide. In a global context it would be more accurate to say that they commit crimes at a below-average rate relative to the citizens of their host country.

I can't find the study I had that says this, but here's one I found quite quickly that concludes that there is a (weak) relationship between immigration and lower crime rates: http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-092026

Of course, my central point isn't that immigration should be embraced for the purposes of crime reduction or any other kind of social engineering in that regard. But the arguments against legal immigration from a law and order perspective are by and large unjustified.

Unpopular video game opinion:
This kind of ties into the whole starwars battlefront ii thing, but at the same time not. I understand why people are defending EA, cause they are right but at the same time cause I don't give a iota of a fuck about multiplayer ONLY games good riddance.

What I mean by this is yes I am aware of inflation.
I am aware that these companies do this kind of shit to justify AAA games financially.
I am aware that financial whales, people that spend thousands of dollars on a single game, are the ones buying al this shit and that 99% of people don't.
I am aware of the thousands of things that have said both for and against this.

..
..
My opinion on dlc, microtransactions, lootboxes and such: companies are doing the same fucking thing that killed the cellphone gaming to fps games. Five years ago people were seriously saying that cellphone video games were the future of gaming, but the same shit going on with fps games happened then and well nowadays cellphone gaming is considered a joke. What is probably going to happen in the long run is that fps games will become synonymous with casual gamers who pay money to win rather than having any individual skill at the game.

What EA did wasn't just a shitty thing, but rather it opened up the floodgates and the valve broke off. The past few weeks we've seen about a dozen fps video games abandon cosmetic items only and instead introduce pay to win mechanics.

2022 gaming:
"I like fps games"
"Fucking casuals"

@Particle Mare

This is demonstrably incorrect. Across the world and with very few exceptions, immigrants are the hardest-working and most law-obedient demographic.

Half true. It depends on the cultural background of the said immigrants in the first place, also the fact that they are driven to survive in foreign lands mean they will take any jobs at any wage. Teochew Chinese worked hard (and it became a stereotype too in SEA and other parts) because diligence is in their cultural meme. Law-obedient? Somewhat as breaking law means a trip home. Some joined local organised crime, formed triad, and so on as I have said in earlier post. Some immigrants came illegally in the first place so law-obedient is a misnomer. Complaint is better suited.

Also related. Most refugees to be jobless for years, German minister warns

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/l/lump-of-labour-fallacy.asp

The lump of labor fallacy originated to refute claims that reducing "working hours" would also reduce unemployment.

Not related to the topic at hand. Job vacancies and demand/supply for jobs. Not the stirring of economy nor the reduction of work hour. I agree that it will change the landscape of economy but not always for good. My point and snarks earlier points to that the natives took the hit and banks and corps benefits which means money flows, yes. And as the news above said, economy and unemployment problems mean it is heading towards shit.

Well, yeah. Just because they have pinched a few cultural artifacts from overseas doesn’t mean they’re not xenophobic.

More than a few. Foreigners can settle there permanently, they can even buy lands there too without citizenship. Not like they are not allowing you or anything. Just go through standard immigration process like any other developed countries normally do. Just meet their standards, namely speaking the language, no criminal records, etc. In real life, Japanese do warmly receive others like any other people.

A popular expression is that people “vote with their feet”. Globalism does not advocate for forced migration, quite the opposite.

Given a choice. Teochew would stay in China, except a madman is purging people he does not like and burning all history. So they grabbed all they can and settle elsewhere they feel safe and lumped together for solidarity and safety.

Yes, people vote with their feet. Most Mexicans would stay in Mexico if they feel safe and can earn decent living. Most African immigrants would stay if their home nations were not ruined. They also lumped together for the same reason above.

I would like to see evidence regarding this as well as an argument that racial identity is inherently a causative factor in mental health and self-esteem (as opposed to social forces). Without that this just sounds kooky.

Cultural identity and the preserving of it is a study topic of social science. And it has been accepted that it does not only promotes self-esteem, but also benefits economy and social progress as well. It opens new avenues of employment which unique presented by culture such as traditional play actors, musicians, artists, sculptors, architects, chef. By sharing cultures, we compare notes and ideas on views on life and philosophy as well from other perspectives which also open new ways of thinking.

It also promotes tourism and provide positive economic for the nation as well.

Old piece, but still relevant.

The Role of Cultural Identity Clarity for Self-Concept Clarity, Self-Esteem, and Subjective Well-Being

The death of all cultures is a good thing.

Death of all culture means death of expressions and intellectual thoughts of humanity. Unless you are a nihilist or part of voluntary human extinction movement, I have no need to say why it is bad in more details.

Thank you for teaching me how to debate proper, you have been a good teacher. I will summarise and let this topic rest because it still pains me greatly. (And I am still wondering if I am some kind of masochist or what that I still bite the bait and keep coming here).

which I don’t think is inherently related to globalism

Globalism is mainly an economic movement. But it also has influence on societal and cultural aspect as well like many things we do in life, we send a ripple. Globalism advocate migration and movement of people including mass migration and clash of cultures. Which I have explained above for effects of it.

In the end, it is an oxymoron. Because while it promotes openness, international collaboration; it is putting all eggs in one basket or sharing a noose in hope that many necks will not snap. An economic crisis means everyone took the hit. Endangering the parties involved, needlessly.

Globalisation also promotes knowledge, but accelerates the death of language with the usage of lingua franca and neglect of local language. A death of language means all knowledge associated with it will be lost.

Globalisation also has negative effects on environment such as global warming, deforestation of poorer countries, climate change, toxic water, etc. As corporations who were given way by laws globalisation paved and the economy basics dictates to go for the cheapest option.

Lawful does not always mean good. Migration is lawful as one can go and one pleases within the laws and bounds of the land. Mass migration… while it was a lawful act. It endangers cultures and people in doing so, and should be called into intense questioning of its purpose and consequences. Law exists to protect the land and its people, not as a free-pass for "do anything as long as it is written in the law", part of the reason why Net Neutrality is a thing now and why massive lobbying is bad (topic for another time, long time). Like with the law which allows mega-corporates leeway to environmental destruction for cheap costs.

All in all, globalisation may be positive effects in terms of materialistic progress and of economic benefits to some party. It comes at the cost of huge negative effects it has on people, society, cultures, and environments.

Job vacancies and demand/supply for jobs.

This is in fact relevant to the lump of labor fallacy. The idea that immigrants take jobs from citizens is fallacious.

Not like they are not allowing you or anything.

Minimal tolerance of immigration does not preclude xenophobia.

From a survey done by the Japanese government: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/31/japan-racism-survey-reveals-one-in-three-foreigners-experience-discrimination

EDIT: to be clear, I don't consider Japan an isolationist country. Their highly developed transnational corporations are admirable and have earned them a well-deserved place among the world's most powerful economies. Immigration is merely one aspect I find objection with.

Given a choice. Teochew would stay in China

That's quite literally what I mean by voting with one's feet. China crippled its economic and societal integrity under Mao, therefore people emigrated.

Most Mexicans would stay in Mexico if they feel safe and can earn decent living.

True, but I don't see what your point is. I have no qualms about Mexicans staying in Mexico if they want to be there. That's not related to allowing them to enter the United States if they wish to be there instead.

Cultural identity and the preserving of it is a study topic of social science. And it has been accepted that it does not only promotes self-esteem, but also benefits economy and social progress as well.

You're being disingenuous. You were originally talking about racial identity and referencing mixed-race people specifically.

Death of all culture means death of expressions and intellectual thoughts of humanity.

Bizarre claim to make. I would consider the US to be an example of a country where culture (at least in the racially-bound sense) has mostly disappeared. Some people find this distasteful, but I personally love it and would love the rest of the world to become the same. You see this happening in some of the most developed parts of east Asia as well, like Shanghai or Macau or Singapore for example – you are unlikely to find much tradition there, because it has by and large been supplanted by capital. And I would much rather live in Macau than anywhere with an overbearing culture.

An economic crisis means everyone took the hit

Yes, but everyone quickly rebounded. The countries (particularly the undeveloped ones) that felt minimal effects from the crisis already had extremely weak economies. Cuba wasn't affected, but I don't intend to move there for economic opportunity.

Globalisation also has negative effects on environment such as global warming, deforestation of poorer countries, climate change, toxic water, etc.

Globalization is in fact the only compelling force for countries to work together on global warming. The Paris Climate Agreement would not have been possible without international goodwill and shared institutions.

I will summarise and let this topic rest because it still pains me greatly.

Are you not going to continue? If not, then instead of summarizing, let me do something much more pretentious and quote Voltaire:

"Go into the Exchange in London, that place more venerable than many a court, and you will see representatives of all the nations assembled there for the profit of mankind. There the Jew, the Mahometan, and the Christian deal with one another as if they were of the same religion and reserve the name of infidel for those who go bankrupt. There the Presbyterian trusts the Anabaptist, and the Church of England man accepts the promise of the Quaker. […] When it is a question of money, everybody is of the same religion."

On the topic of culture and such I partially disagree and partially agree.

I don't think that culture is dying, but rather we're seeing another drastic shift in society again. What is happening is instead is that PARTS of cultures that are actually inferior are dying. What I mean by this is that twenty years ago it was in the USA considered perfectly rational and reasonable to beat the shit out of your kids for being gay.

Now what is rapidly happening is that many parts of the world are going through the same cultural shift in which parts of cultures that can't compete or are something out of the 1500's are dying out. We're seeing rapidly that ideologies such as religious extremism, theocracies, oligarchies, monarchies, communism, dictatorships, etc, etc and so forth can NOT compete in a global economy and either have to adapt or die.

Tldr; muffled rules of nature in the background

You don't have to outrun a lion; you just have to be faster than the guy behind you.

Minimal tolerance of immigration does not preclude xenophobia.
From a survey done by the Japanese government: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/31/japan-racism-survey-reveals-one-in-three-foreigners-experience-discrimination

It is anecdotal though. I cannot deny that parts of it is true, growing up in Japan and seeing it for myself. Getting housings are difficult there because you are required to have a guarantor there, not just foreigners, even natives have difficulty with this. A guarantor is usually a big deal because you need to stake a house, a business, plot of land, or other things of great value on it. Foreigners do not have those in Japan.

I do get some flacks from the Japanese from time to time. Few are totally unwarranted but I believe you can get that from assholes everywhere on earth, but most are warranted like a mistake in important paperworks for example. What I got was a dread stare and some scolding for writing it crappily and thought I could get away or easy pass for it and few more stares for making waiting in line a little longer. Time is a high value commodity there.

I do seen others both get warm welcome and flacks though. Flacks are usually from being rowdy in their room and it is not really soundproof there in most apartments. Speaking in loud voices is also a bad form. Warm receptions if they can speak the language, or just generally behave and not being a mouth-gaped typical "gaijin" tourists blocking ways for selfies and being loud in the street.

Yes, some do mistrust foreigners because and about their behaviours, not mainly race. If you want to talk real discrimination. Try Chinese or Korean reception there. Lots of bad blood between these three. A topic for another occasion. I am not going to touch it though.

You’re being disingenuous. You were originally talking about racial identity and referencing mixed-race people specifically.

I have explained about how they are closely tied before. There are also research done for minorities in foreign land and encouraging them to find their cultural identity and stood firm in theirs helped their self-esteem. Race-mixed are more often than not minority outside U.S.

Some people find this distasteful, but I personally love it and would love the rest of the world to become the same.

I do not wish it so. Many people also do not wish it so. You do not live in all places in the world at once so why the wish for the world to be all the same. Have your hotpot, others who love hotpot like you from all around the world can freely go there, it is great there yeah. And now leave others alone. It is imperialism otherwise.

I would consider the US to be an example of a country where culture (at least in the racially-bound sense) has mostly disappeared

U.S. has its own cultures believe it or not. One of its own production. The American Pop Culture. The Americana. Hollywood. The redneck bible belt culture. All 50 states of it has its own culture; this very place, the meme culture, internet culture, hip-hop culture, "gay" culture, consumerism culture, the list goes on and on. And those you do share with the world, as much as the rest of the world share theirs with you (cuisine, song, anime, movies, etc.)

That’s quite literally what I mean by voting with one’s feet. China crippled its economic and societal integrity under Mao, therefore people emigrated.

I know what it means. To the strangers land they went, and yet they stick together like a small lump, a fragment of the nation they are from. For like I said, for solitary, companionship, safety. A fragment they carried in their hearts and hold it close and hold it dear.

Globalization is in fact the only compelling force for countries to work together on global warming. The Paris Climate Agreement would not have been possible without international goodwill and shared institutions.

A common threat will pull people together. Globalisation or no, people who are not cunts have goodwill towards other. Need for Paris Climate Agreement would not have happened in the first if not for wanton environmental destruction globalisation brought.

Sadist.

It's not that globalism in of itself created this problem, but rather rapid mass unsustainable development.

A prime example of what I mean is China. Originally they were doing fine but low and behold they fucked up everything by trying to grow as fast as possible regardless of the long term consequences and now how they're starting to default on debts has people worried.