An Idiot's guide to Multiculturalism

[Yeekim]

It reminds me of Laffer curve for tax revenue dependence on tax rate. If the homogeneity is too high, the societies' creativity and tolerance are low and thus economic power is underdeveloped; if the homogeneity is too low, then most of social norms cannot be established, thus the stability and economic potential is also hampered. The only difference here is that a 100% homogeneous society still have some economic power, while the complete lack of mainstream ethnicity is usually a bad sign for an unstable society.

It is my long-standing belief that every single problem in the world can be described in terms of either "too little of..." or "too much of...".

 

[Borachio]

In the interests of hybrid vigour, I believe that miscegenation should be compulsory. And preferably between people who don't speak each other's languages.

Anything less is plainly incestuous.

 

[Farm Boy]

If you're doing hybrid vigor right, it requires two very specifically inbred lines to yield up the power in a select generation. When breeding the resultant hybrid seed, the vigor then fades into the next generation offspring no longer possessing of the same vigor, nor the specifically designed balance of traits from the two inbred lines, thus meaning that a seed produced via hybrid vigor is a seed that is fit to be consumed but not planted.

You know, if you want the corn take on that term, which really only fits in that it is concerned with producing life that thrives under very specific and controlled conditions, but would likely suffer or be nonviable if outside that environment. World's confusing. I don't like the framing terribly much.

 

[Borachio]

Bah!

You can prove just about anything with science, knowledge and logic.

Doesn't mean a thing to me. I'm sticking with miscegenation.

 

[Farm Boy]

It does seem fun to put the theory into practise.

 

[warpus]

Positives of multiculturalism:

- More interesting and diverse restaurants

Negatives of multiculturalism:

- It upsets racists

 

[Senethro]

That last one isn't a negative imo.

 

[warpus]

Come on now, the last thing we need is more upset racists running around being upset

 

[Berzerker]

is this the guy who backed Hulk Hogan's lawsuit against Gawker (?) for outing him?

 

[bernie14]

is this the guy who backed Hulk Hogan's lawsuit against Gawker (?) for outing him?

there is netflix "documentary" on this Nobody Speak: Trials of the Free Press , frankly, I think nick denton is a garbage peddling provocateur and was out smarted by someone much smarter than him....got what he and his rag deserved....

 

[Ajidica]

So you are in favor of a media outlet getting driven out of business because they annoyed someone wealthy?

 

[bernie14]

So you are in favor of a media outlet getting driven out of business because they annoyed someone wealthy?

that depends on how you define "media outlet", no? denton and gawker, imo, were a bunch of bullies who could hide behind expensive lawyers and insurance companies, got a dose of their own medicine and then cry they are being bullied...

 

[Ajidica]

that depends on how you define "media outlet", no? denton and gawker, imo, were a bunch of bullies who could hide behind expensive lawyers and insurance companies, got a dose of their own medicine and then cry they are being bullied...

I'm no fan of Gawker, but surely you can agree it is slightly disconcerting that a media organization of admittedly middling reputation was taken down because they annoyed a person wealthy enough to engage in a legal vendetta against them.

What if my local paper annoyed a rich person who decided to intervene in a totally separate case to bury them in lawsuits?

Should Gawker have outed Peter Thiel? Probably not, unless he was being hypocritical about it, such as by giving large donations to vehemently anti-gay politicians. Yes, Gawker peddled in smut but so does People and the dregs of the tabloid world. If People published an unflattering article about, say, Kanye, would you be fine with Kanye funding a lawsuit against People to get them shut down by burying them in legal fees?

 

[bernie14]

I'm no fan of Gawker, but surely you can agree it is slightly disconcerting that a media organization of admittedly middling reputation was taken down because they annoyed a person wealthy enough to engage in a legal vendetta against them.

What if my local paper annoyed a rich person who decided to intervene in a totally separate case to bury them in lawsuits?

Should Gawker have outed Peter Thiel? Probably not, unless he was being hypocritical about it, such as by giving large donations to vehemently anti-gay politicians. Yes, Gawker peddled in smut but so does People and the dregs of the tabloid world. If People published an unflattering article about, say, Kanye, would you be fine with Kanye funding a lawsuit against People to get them shut down by burying them in legal fees?

that is why libel and slander laws exist, really shouldn’t have to do with the amount of wealth...in regards to your local paper, it would depend on how much they screwed up in that separate case.

 

[Ajidica]

that is why libel and slander laws exist, really shouldn’t have to do with the amount of wealth...

While outing Peter Thiel was unnecessary, it was neither libelous nor slanderous.

in regards to your local paper, it would depend on how much they screwed up in that separate case.

So outing someone is a sufficient level of "screwing up" to shut down a media outlet?
No lies were published, from the little I followed the incident there was no intent to defame or destroy him - merely the publishing of the tawdry stories that keeps People and the Soap Digests in business. It is just here they angered someone thin-skinned enough to use his not-inconsiderable wealth to drive those who annoyed him out of business.

 

[bernie14]

While outing Peter Thiel was unnecessary, it was neither libelous nor slanderous.


So outing someone is a sufficient level of "screwing up" to shut down a media outlet?
No lies were published, from the little I followed the incident there was no intent to defame or destroy him - merely the publishing of the tawdry stories that keeps People and the Soap Digests in business. It is just here they angered someone thin-skinned enough to use his not-inconsiderable wealth to drive those who annoyed him out of business.

the legal case against gawker had nothing to do with Thiel and no one is saying that a "media company" should be shut down because of opinion or "unflattering stories". in regards to screwing up, I think you are transposing the argument you made....I was referring to whatever illegal activity (separate case, in your words) your local paper was involved in that allowed the rich guy to go after them, not anything legal they may have done.

 

[Ajidica]

I'm not the one saying that I see no problem with a wealthy person using his assets to wage a vendetta against a paper that annoyed him and bury them in legal fees.

 

[bernie14]

I'm not the one saying that I see no problem with a wealthy person using his assets to wage a vendetta against a paper that annoyed him and bury them in legal fees.

well, if you like to play with fire, learn to do it responsibly, protect yourself properly or accept the burn

 

[warpus]

Unscrupulous media outlet gets taken out in potentially unscrupulous ways.

Seems apt

 

[bernie14]

And why should anyone listen to Peter Theil and accept his definition of anything? His claims to fame is being rich and being a friend of Trump. Why does that make him worth listening to? The Dalai lama is much more credible and interesting.

not that the defense of peter theil is central to this discussion but again, don’t you think this argument is just an ad hominem appeal to motive or guilt by association? we can certainly discuss the interpretations of the buddha's teachings, but in terms of multiculturalism, do you think that the buddha would be on the side of selflessness and personal responsibility or blaming others and identity politics?