How big is immigration an issue on people's minds (USA and elsewhere)?

[Farm Boy]

Ravenous.

Have we thought about what is displaced from time in the sun?

Edit: wait wait wait. The debates in thread are structuring globalization and migration as a force of heterogeneousness?

 

[Gorbles]

Oh, I don't know. It's a pretty good example of the largely indifferent trying to annihilate an awful lot of things to out of a sense of vague self-interent in order to "replace them with something better" while also being powerful enough to cause a lot of misery but without the zeal or gumption to actually accomplish something even capable of lasting muchless "better."

Oh, it sucked. Just not in the way of popular opinion, until some time had passed. The mandate of democracy was the earlier discussion - public support was defended as a primary driver (of things, in general).

 

[Gori the Grey]

I'm blessed to have a girlfriend. She has lots of qualities. She also has lots of flaws (sorry, dear, nobody's perfect). Now, being the charming and strapping lad that I am wish I were, I suddenly gets courted by another girl. And she tries very hard to convince me that she's a better fit for me than my current girlfriend. She even tell me to list what I traits and aspects my gf has that I enjoy, and for each one I list, she is able to prove that she has, in fact, the same trait, perhaps even better (damn, she's really a very desirable person) !
And so she ask me, in the end, why don't I chose her instead - because, objectively and factually, she's the same qualities and a lot less flaws.
Well, what can I say ? My only answer is "you aren't her". It's not about a list of her qualities and flaws, it's about, well, her being "her" - guess I'm a romantic at heart.

Here is a poem you might like, Akka (with a French title, no less):
(those uptight tea-drinking women might not like some parts of it)

The " Je Ne Sais Quoi "​

by William Whitehead

Yes, I'm in love, I feel it now,
And Celia has undone me;
And yet I'll swear I can't tell how
The pleasing plague stole on me.

'Tis not her face that love creates,
For there no Graces revel;
'Tis not her shape, for there the Fates
Have rather been uncivil.

'Tis not her air, for sure in that,
There's nothing more than common;
And all her sense is only chat,
Like any other woman.

Her voice, her touch, might give the alarm--
'Tis both perhaps, or neither;
In short, 'tis that provoking charm
Of Celia altogether.

 

[Akka]

But that's an example of that not-X that I was talking about, what I'll now call a tacit not-X.

I'm adding "tacit" here, because it's emerging to me as a distinction worth noting.

Cultural identity, as I'm now conceiving it, has three dimensions:
Positive: We French eat baguettes, dress stylishly and read Sartre.
Explicitly Contrastive: We Catholics aren't like those Protestants
Tacitly Contrastive: We French aren't like [thousands of other peoples, and it's not worth spelling each of them individually]

I would have so much to say about all kind of things linked to the whole of your answer, but I'm afraid that would end up in unmanageable tangents, and that I would drown myself in what I say
So I'm going to try and keep it a bit more focused.

So, yeah, it might be a case of the "not-X" that you describe as "tacitly constrastive". But my problem with this take, is that it ends up feeling like an ideological made-up distinction. By its very definition, "being something" automatically means "not being something else". That's just a truism - and that's also the root of "change a group enough, you change its atmosphere/culture/etc." : you alter its state of being, so that it ends up with a different state of being.
I do agree with the concept of "explicitely constrastive" part - it's "targeted". It's specific to one, or at least a limited number of "others" (notice that I do not agree that it's bad, but I do agree with the concept).
But "tacitly constrastive" ?
I'm a "human". That means I'm NOT every single other species. I'm not a dog, I'm not a cat.
I'm Akka. That mean I'm not you, I'm not Thunderfall, I'm not any of the several billion people on the planet, including any ever that existed and any that will ever exists (unless I get reincarnated, but I'm going to keep this one out of the discussion for now).
My point is : "positive dimension" and "tacitly constrastive" are the same overall concept, just the two faces of the same coin.

Progressives want to honor each group's positive definitions of their identities, but don't feel any special obligation regarding contrastive ones. Those keep trying to cast an addition as a loss. When all that's "lost" is some previous purity or homogeneity. The idea that you're most comfortable around familiar people is understandable; the idea that you only want familiar people [or names, here] or else you feel something has been taken from you is what borders on the unhealthy ways of conceiving of your in-group.

The whole idea of "cultural appropriation" would like to have a word with you
It's definitely fully exclusionary, and funnily it's only defended by the same people that are supposed to reject, well, rejection.
Anyway, we're obviously going to disagree on several aspects here - that's where the values start to diverge, while previously it was more about establishing facts and concepts.

First, regardless of if you consider that this change is good or bad, and addition or a substraction, it's still a change, and as we have discussed previously, being attached to an identity can mean you don't want it to change, period.

Second, as I pointed above, some levels of distinction are simply an illusion. Yes, an addition can totally be a loss, because they are completementary, and if you add something, you'll automatically lose the inverse of this thing.
So it's more about what you cast as a gain and what you cast as a loss - gaining diversity is losing homogeneity, as you point in your example. Which brings us to :

Third, it implies that "diversity is good". Which is just a claim, that I find severely incomplete. It heavily depends on the scale, the place and the dose.
It's also a claim that ends up self-defeating when used without limit - as I pointed several messages ago, for the world to have diversity, you need local homogeneity - if every identities gets mixed together, then in the end there will only have a single identity, meaning that more diversity effectively killed diversity.
There is this argument about "taking the best" from "other cultures" to "enrich yours". To which I ask : what even means "best" or "enriched" when it comes to identity ? It would imply that some identity are better than others, and something tells me that's not an line the people who push for the said argument would accept - so that's another self-defeating one.

As an aside to third (let's say, "third bis"), I would ask : what would make you consider a culture to be "rich" compared to a different one ? If one were to feel more intriguing, more interesting for you, what would make it so ?

Lastly, fourth, I also (obviously) disagree with your notion that wanting to keep some strong level of homegeneity is bad, not to say "unhealthy". Not to say it can not become it - actual racism, as in "ranking races with some better than others", mistreating people on the sole basis that they are different, putting one's own group above others, all these certainly tend to arise from such mindset. But I do see this desire coming from a web of different motivations which actually have positive (or at least neutral) reasons to exists - continuity, preservation, attachment to a specific identity...
If you are with a group of friends, would you be happy that a whole bunch of uninvited guys start to sit at your table ? I know that the typical answer is to act as if one is open-minded and say "no obviously, I'd start chatting them up and we'd actually get even more friend ! That's good !". Well, in reality when that happens, people start falling silent and awkward and usually either get up and leave to get together elsewhere, or the intruders leave after awhile and the conversations resume with a palpable feeling of relief. And that doesn't sounds "unhealthy" to me at all.

Oh, and the poem was funny ^^

 

[Lexicus]

As I was walkin', I saw a sign there
And that sign said, "No Trespassin'",
But on the other side, it didn't say nothin'
Now, that side was made for you and me!

 

[banzay13]

I'm not sure, is somehow tied, what in 3 most populous cites in UK white people now minority?

 

[Moriarte]

This time around, Bill the Butcher gets elected:

 

[Arwon]

I'm not sure, is somehow tied, what in 3 most populous cites in UK white people now minority?

Looking at the ONS charts, that spike in non-EU net migration just looks like post covid catch-up in immigration (ie multiple years of previously remote student enrollments and work visa holders arriving at once), lower emigration after brexit and covid, and a post brexit shift from EU to non EU ppl overall:

 

[aelf]

I was just thinking the people in this thread would so love Civilization 7. Civ switching at the start of each age (basically culture switching from Humankind but done better); 'DEI' picks for leaders. Every culture purist's nightmare fuel.

Come to the Civ7 forums and complain!

 

[Zardnaar]

I was just thinking the people in this thread would so love Civilization 7. Civ switching at the start of each age (basically culture switching from Humankind but done better); 'DEI' picks for leaders. Every culture purist's nightmare fuel.

Come to the Civ7 forums and complain!

Still playing Civ3 and SMAC.

 

[banzay13]

Civ4+RFDC awesome

 

[Ordnael]

I was just thinking the people in this thread would so love Civilization 7. Civ switching at the start of each age (basically culture switching from Humankind but done better); 'DEI' picks for leaders. Every culture purist's nightmare fuel.

Come to the Civ7 forums and complain!

The thing is games are not RL.
And in RL I don't like sharing the mall with folks in ninja clothing that are victims of oppressive fanatical religious ideology towards women and believe that their end goal is to make my head roll for the glory of their mystic warlord. Keep that to your native lands please! And let's not forget their religious views regarding empathy for trans causes...or lives.
[snip] Moderator Action: Edited by Birdjaguar

 

[aelf]

The thing is games are not RL.
And in RL I don't like sharing the mall with folks in ninja clothing that are victims of oppressive fanatical religious ideology towards women and believe that their end goal is to make my head roll for the glory of their mystic warlord. Keep that to your native lands please! And let's not forget their religious views regarding empathy for trans causes...or lives.
Btw, how are the grooming gangs investigations going on the UK? Will they ever start?

Bro, I was just talking about Civ7. You don't got to be so defensive over your rl predilections at the drop of a hat.

Sheesh. Need a safe space?

 

[Senethro]

Btw, how are the grooming gangs investigations going on the UK? Will they ever start?

Organised crime subverted the cops - and cops protect cops. Infer your answer.

 

[Voidwalkin]

I was just thinking the people in this thread would so love Civilization 7. Civ switching at the start of each age (basically culture switching from Humankind but done better); 'DEI' picks for leaders. Every culture purist's nightmare fuel.

Come to the Civ7 forums and complain!

I don't love how they're doing it. It's really simplistic and uses historical identities instead of a process based on cultural interaction, geography, etc, to create new cultures as you'd expect if the in game world were an actual world.

I get it's exceedingly difficult to model that process in a video game but Firaxis isn't really doing cultural shifts justice.

 

[Gorbles]

Btw, how are the grooming gangs investigations going on the UK? Will they ever start?

I notice you didn't reply to me previously when I asked what you know about the UK, crime, immigration, etc. It seems to be based on this that you get your news from whatever sensationalised headlines come up when the subject is reported on.

You might be better off trying Wikipedia:

 

[Kilroy Was Here]

I think anyone who's concerned about "illegal immigration" is someone who is possibly cognizant of their government but is instead blaming an outgroup for bad reasons. There is no difference between a "legal" immigrant and an "illegal" immigrant except for if the government thought they could make a profit off that person and gave them an arbitrary piece of paper (as all nations and all borders are arbitrary).

 

[Farm Boy]

One has engaged in a process within the social accord. The other has not. The metahuman point is understood and understood as irrelevant. It's an argument to modify the accord, not to throw it out. Disregard of the law breeds contempt of the law. Oh look! Who's the president to come out of this disregard? An assclown. Again. Predictable, really.

 

[Gorbles]

"illegal immigrants breed contempt for the law and this is how we got Trump" sure is a take. The dissonance intensifies. How many things will end up being blamed on immigration before reflection occurs? The jury's out (heh).

Feels very much like an "avocado and toast" thing. Identifying a problem, completely failing to account for causation, and then inserting a scapegoat of personal choice ("kids these days", before every opinion writer realised a bit late millenials are heading into their 40s).

 

[Farm Boy]

All, the old subject switcheroo. A Gorby classic.

The disregard of law matters when it's those in change of writing and enforcing it. It's why Trumo's takedown of the tax system was so damning(of course I use loopholes, they all do too and they aren't even going to attempt to fix them after they promise you they will). Also why "the border is controlled" seemed to be a significant part of a losing message.