Reality Check: What are the limits of cultural diversity?

[.Shane.]

OK, but please watch the "Doll Test" video that I posted. Why are such small children already so "brainwashed" ???

The most likely explanation is that these children have their opinions shaped by adult people around them.

You've answered your own question. But it's not just the adults, but the media they consume. I grew up in a very small town that was probably 80% white, 20% hispanic. I feel my parents raised me to be very racially tolerant. That said, that only goes so far. There were no African-Americans or Asian-Americans, so my perception of then was tinged by what I saw on TV, read in books, etc... because I had no direct interaction.

So it seems that behind this facade of political correctness, Americans are still a very racist society.

That's extremely relative. "very racist" compared to? Poles? Attitudes from 1850? Canadians?

Plus it ignores that fact that the US is not a nation of 5 people or 1000 people or a million people. We're 330 million in extremely diverse ethnic backgrounds, geographies, rural, urban, suburban etc....

It's way to complicated a question. This is the most ethnically and racially diverse country on earth. So, unlike Poles or the Danish, we don't have a distinct ethnicity. To be "American" is not the same as to be "Dutch" (although modern immigration patterns are eroding this).

I have this book and Walkuski writes there, that although in public Americans (this mostly refers to white Americans) pretend to be very tolerant people and pose as such, if you engage with them in a more sincere discussion, most of them are about as racist and bigoted as their ancestors were in the past.

I would disagree (see above).

No doubt there are issues with race and that there are segments that are racist (some very conscious and others unconscious or institutional). But so much of it is where you live and how your community is composed.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

I have this book and Walkuski writes there, that although in public Americans (this mostly refers to white Americans) pretend to be very tolerant people and pose as such, if you engage with them in a more sincere discussion, most of them are about as racist and bigoted as their ancestors were in the past.

Can't really say how true that is. It is an awfully broad statement. But I certainly think that America is #1 in a culture of superficial pretense, so if any could pull it off to seem tolerant and valuing diversity while being about the opposite, it is them

I don't think there is any limit to cultural diversity, as long as there are jobs to live from and the cultures aren't really that diverse. And modern societies seem to take care of the latter, at least. If the former fails and a society becomes tense and adversary, it isn't helpful to have different cultural groups which then can pick each other as the one who ought to loose.

 

[classical_hero]

No.

Yes. Voltaire said "to learn to know those who rule you, learn those you can't criticise." I mean if you look at Canada and other places you can be put in jail for criticise homosexual behaviour and even backing them up with facts won't be of any use.

 

[Flying Pig]

That's a fantastic demonstration of why Voltaire's maxim is wrong. Another would be the social rule against speaking ill of the dead.

 

[civvver]

Actually gays are approx 10% of the population, and 20% are bi.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States

I dunno about you but I anticipate running into more than 50 people in my lifetime.

Yeah but my point is, saying LGBT is a very important part of diverse culture seems to be overstating their presence. It feels like most of it is just made up by the media for ratings. I know some gay people but I've never met anyone who actually behaves like the media portrays gay people.

Even going with 5%, we are talking about millions of people. Failure to protect their rights is unconscionable.

And that's my point, the people freaking out about this stuff are acting like a very small part of the population is going to suddenly control the entire country and ruin it.

Gay marriage is not going to ruin the country or drastically change America's culture.

 

[warpus]

I mean if you look at Canada and other places you can be put in jail for criticise homosexual behaviour and even backing them up with facts won't be of any use.

As long as we're making stuff up, you're 100% right. And the capital of Canada is a burrito.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

I think you're driving at the right thing, but 'speech should be protected by law unless it is illegal' is an extremely dangerous way of formulating it. The state should not be the source of civil rights - civil rights are things we demand from the government as entitlements for being human, not things which we graciously accept on sufferance.

So you would rather we have riots and kill each other before getting hate laws and disallowing hate speech?

Yes. Voltaire said "to learn to know those who rule you, learn those you can't criticise." I mean if you look at Canada and other places you can be put in jail for criticise homosexual behaviour and even backing them up with facts won't be of any use.

What facts?

You can criticize homosexual behavior in the privacy of your own thoughts, out loud in your home or car, or in a quiet conversation not meant to be overheard by other people. But if you get up in front of an audience and spout hateful garbage about them, advocate violence, hate, or discrimination against them, attempt to indoctrinate students against them, etc., those are violations of the hate laws. While I can't think of anyone who has actually been put in jail for any of these offenses (unless they committed vandalism or assault during a protest or riot ), people have been fined, fired, stripped of honours, shamed, boycotted, etc.

 

[bhavv]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_demographics_of_the_United_States




Yeah but my point is, saying LGBT is a very important part of diverse culture seems to be overstating their presence. It feels like most of it is just made up by the media for ratings. I know some gay people but I've never met anyone who actually behaves like the media portrays gay people.



And that's my point, the people freaking out about this stuff are acting like a very small part of the population is going to suddenly control the entire country and ruin it.

Gay marriage is not going to ruin the country or drastically change America's culture.

Sexuality polls are in no way accurate because many people may choose not to reveal that they are homosexual and simply put down that they are straight.

Now according to the study linked on this page, 20% of the population is believed to be gay:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...opulation-is-gay-more-than-you-think-5012467/

Which is quite a large inaccuracy range if one study shows 1-2%, and another up to 10x that much. In order to evaluate the possibility of accurate results, many such tests would need to be carried out and analysed with a statistical test, and with that large a possible variation range, it would most likely show that the results are inconclusive.

 

[Zkribbler]

"(...) Now I'd like to turn to the abolition movement which I think is one of the least understood, or most misunderstood movements in all of American history. Most Americans today think that the goal of the abolitionists was to free the slaves and make them the equals of hwhites. This is not at all the case. The huge majority wanted to free the slaves AND then send them outside the United States in a process that they called 'colonization'. (...)"

I don't know about "huge majority" but there was a movement. Indeed, some freed Americans slaves were shipped back to Africa, and the country of Liberia is the result.

 

[Flying Pig]

So you would rather we have riots and kill each other before getting hate laws and disallowing hate speech?

Have another read - I didn't say that no speech should be illegal. I said that we shouldn't assume 'this speech is illegal' means the same as 'this speech should be illegal', or the reverse.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Have another read - I didn't say that no speech should be illegal. I said that we shouldn't assume 'this speech is illegal' means the same as 'this speech should be illegal', or the reverse.

The kind of speech I prefer is straightforward, not the sort that twists itself into pretzels in an attempt to impress people.

 

[stfoskey12]

So you would rather we have riots and kill each other before getting hate laws and disallowing hate speech?


What facts?

You can criticize homosexual behavior in the privacy of your own thoughts, out loud in your home or car, or in a quiet conversation not meant to be overheard by other people. But if you get up in front of an audience and spout hateful garbage about them, advocate violence, hate, or discrimination against them, attempt to indoctrinate students against them, etc., those are violations of the hate laws. While I can't think of anyone who has actually been put in jail for any of these offenses (unless they committed vandalism or assault during a protest or riot ), people have been fined, fired, stripped of honours, shamed, boycotted, etc.

How is criticizing homosexual behavior hateful?
I mean, I generally thought people should be free to criticize sexual behavior of any sort they disapproved of.

I think there's a big difference between criticizing homosexual behavior and saying gays are evil/should go to hell, etc. The latter two things clearly show that the person saying them hates gay people, whereas the former merely shows that the person saying it disagrees with certain actions.

In a similar way, people should be free to criticize, say, casual sex, but advocating that people who practice it be executed/attacked/etc is clearly immoral.

 

[bhavv]

Erm, what is there to criticise about homosexuality?

Heterosexuals also have casual sex. Homosexuals also have monogamous relationships.

There is always bigotry involved if you feel negativity towards peoples sexuality.

 

[warpus]

How is criticizing homosexual behavior hateful?

Because usually that entails selecting a very specific group of historically discriminated against people (homosexuals) and saying that what defines them as homosexuals (which they cannot change) is wrong.

If there wasn't a history of discrimination against these people that might be okay, but..

None of your business in the first place of what two consenting adults are doing in the privacy of their own bedroom, anyhow. So there's no basis to really criticize "homosexual behaviour" in the first place. So if it happens, it usually is tied back to this historical discrimination of them, so..

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Eventually, there will be less diversity; cultures and races will integrate. This will constrain "diversity" to a degree (as in there will be less average variance person to person), but should be viewed as positive.

I'm not interested in discussing the merits of pushback against this tendency, unless they can be shown to produce some tangible benefit greater than the utility of further integration.

Then again, if we all become robot people 100 years from now that's kind of hard to model.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Eventually, there will be less diversity; cultures and races will integrate. This will constrain "diversity" to a degree (as in there will be less average variance person to person), but should be viewed as positive.

I'm not interested in discussing the merits of pushback against this tendency, unless they can be shown to produce some tangible benefit greater than the utility of further integration.

Then again, if we all become robot people 100 years from now that's kind of hard to model.

 

[stfoskey12]

Because usually that entails selecting a very specific group of historically discriminated against people (homosexuals) and saying that what defines them as homosexuals (which they cannot change) is wrong.

If there wasn't a history of discrimination against these people that might be okay, but..

None of your business in the first place of what two consenting adults are doing in the privacy of their own bedroom, anyhow. So there's no basis to really criticize "homosexual behaviour" in the first place. So if it happens, it usually is tied back to this historical discrimination of them, so..

Ok. I think I see where you're coming from. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be claiming that people should not worry about other adults having consensual sex. That's fine with me (my original post was about what I thought people should be free to say, not my personal views on the homosexuality), but other people seem to have sincere religious concerns about it, and I'm not sure those people should be punished by law. Criticized by others maybe, but legal punishments for those with unpopular views always concerns me, because I may eventually be someone with a socially unpopular view. Not necessarily about sexuality, but about some unforeseen issue.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Ok. I think I see where you're coming from. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be claiming that people should not worry about other adults having consensual sex. That's fine with me (my original post was about what I thought people should be free to say, not my personal views on the homosexuality), but other people seem to have sincere religious concerns about it, and I'm not sure those people should be punished by law. Criticized by others maybe, but legal punishments for those with unpopular views always concerns me, because I may eventually be someone with a socially unpopular view. Not necessarily about sexuality, but about some unforeseen issue.

How, pray tell, is not being allowed to impose their religious views about marriage on other people "punishing" them?

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Ok. I think I see where you're coming from. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be claiming that people should not worry about other adults having consensual sex. That's fine with me (my original post was about what I thought people should be free to say, not my personal views on the homosexuality), but other people seem to have sincere religious concerns about it, and I'm not sure those people should be punished by law. Criticized by others maybe, but legal punishments for those with unpopular views always concerns me, because I may eventually be someone with a socially unpopular view. Not necessarily about sexuality, but about some unforeseen issue.

Once again, misunderstandings...

Our hate laws don't say anything at all about what your views are, or what thoughts you think. They're not thought control in the least (if they were, I know several people who would have been locked up).

What they are, though, is a check on people who are tempted to express those thoughts in a way that advocates hate or violence toward identifiable minorities.

 

[Lohrenswald]

Is sexual orientation a part of cultural diversity?
With the thread title in mind, I'm first and foremost thinking about muslim immigrants, and I'm a bit unsure of how to feel about them