"multiculturilism" is flame cause the history of humans is a history of migration, all groups are really the byproduct of ppl fucking diff groups, and almost all countries have some level of differences within their population

moreover its lulzly that whitey gets MAF when his own countries get some level of outsider but he was moar than happy to literally go to every area on the globe and interfere with their ppls... FUK CUMSKINS

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3220481&forum_id=2#30453450)

get back to India, turd

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3220481&forum_id=2#30453463)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3220481&forum_id=2#30453470)

Real diversity means being exposed to shit that offends your sensibilities and makes you go 'ew'. And being accepting of diversity means that you have to put your big boy pants on and realize that there will be things that make you go 'ew' in this world, and you'll just have to deal because to some people, you may be the thing that makes them go 'ew'.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3220481&forum_id=2#30453927)

-------------

re-read the premises you posted there, and tell me why we want to be "accepting of diversity"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3220481&forum_id=2#30454043)

I was thinking more along the lines of accepting the fact that mainland Chinese people will always spit and do foul things in public. Yeah, if a Mainland family lets their kid take a shit in the middle of a McDonalds, the branch manager is within his or her rights to kick the family out.

My general point is that we all kind of have to get along and find a way to coexist within reason. We shouldn't accept so much diversity of lifestyles/viewpoints that we give legitimacy to the ISIS or NAMBLA freaks, but within a certain spectrum we should just live and let live, and learn to adapt somewhat to your greater surroundings.

Even within a somewhat homogenous community (think suburban heartland communities) there will be some degree of diversity, even if its just the typical high school jocks-stoners-trenchcoat mafia-goody goodies Breakfast Clubby stuff. Just be respectful and follow the Golden Rule is all I'm saying.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3220481&forum_id=2#30454079)

And the premise of "diversity is good" or "diversity exists, let's deal with it" is more consistent with "love they neighbor" - i.e. Judeo-Christian morals - than the general premise of "diversity is bad".

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3220481&forum_id=2#30454142)

Let me stop you right there, hoss

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3220481&forum_id=2#30454174)

I don't know if there are diminishing returns on the types of diversity, i.e. if having A, B, C, D, E types of people in a group leaves that group better or worse than if you have A-S types of people in a group, or if you have a group full of A and only a small sprinkle of B.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3220481&forum_id=2#30454352)

---------------

if you have a group full of A, and only a small sprinkle of B

is your benefit from each unit of B, more in that scenario

or when you dump a whole pile of B into your group of A?

----------

----------

----------

related - does having a million fat American tourists with fanny packs ruin what the Sistine Chapel is?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3220481&forum_id=2#30454478)

As for the Sistine Chapel example, the nasty American tourists with fanny packs mar the experience, but I don't know if there's anything you can do about that other than raise the price of admission.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3220481&forum_id=2#30455008)

------------

1) only X number of people are allowed to see the Sistine Chapel each day

if there's a waiting list, hey, there's a waiting list, sign up to get a ticket, if you have to wait 10 years, you have to wait 10 years

2) there's a dress code, if you show up and don't meet the dress code, you can't come in

-----------------

might having rules like that, and enforcing them, enhance the experience of visiting the Sistine Chapel?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3220481&forum_id=2#30455121)

it cant be millions of ppl pouring in when they want

also immigration/assimilation in modern world is going to be much different than before due to technology allowing you to maintain cultural bonds and distinct communities forever. and that is even before getting to islam which will be passed down to future generations and will prevent complete cultural assimilation

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3220481&forum_id=2#30454120)

I think "live and let live" is a good/great micro policy towards making your own personal life rewarding and better

-------------

and a bankrupt macro public policy

-------------

a few people from different cultures really does add to the cultural diversity of a place in good interesting ways

---------------

millions of people from different cultures changes what a place is, rarely in good ways

-----------------

proponents of policies that will lead to millions of new additions to a place should address whether or not there are diminishing returns to each new person showing up

------------------

------------------

------------------

I think it's a general category error that good people make

"I know a few people from X, they seem like good people, why should I be against a million other people from X being here"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3220481&forum_id=2#30454201)

that means it's not actually an argument. more of a command.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3220481&forum_id=2#30454310)

Of course if there was a national security element to these sorts of questions (which there often is on a macro scale) then that should be factored in as well.

I also don't think that areas which are naturally homogenous should be altered to become more diverse. Just let do what it do with respect to the natural state of a neighborhood.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3220481&forum_id=2#30454377)

if you have a good place, why not try to prevent it from turning into a shitty place?

is a world where you're not allowed to protect good places, a world without good places? (or in real world terms, a world without prohibitively expensive good places)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3220481&forum_id=2#30454569)

look at it another way. suppose all of a sudden anyone could go to any college they wanted. how many would go to harvard or stanford? how quickly would harvard no longer be "harvard"? and what then?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3220481&forum_id=2#30454646)

remember when the "cool" kids in 4th grade would start some club, but the other kids would feel left out so the teacher/school said everyone had to be involved or no one.

so what always happened? the "club" vanished bc the cool kids ran. and the cool kids would find something else to do for themselves, and the cycle would start anew.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3220481&forum_id=2#30454740)

i sorta view immigrants as two distinct types. the first wants to come here because they want to be American. they genuinely love America and its culture and they want to be a part of it.

the second wants to come here and just benefit from what we have. it's like a gold-digger who will latch on to any man with a certain bank account number. the man doesn't matter, just the number in the bank account.

as to the former, in a controlled amount, i say welcome fellow Americans.

as to the latter, i say fuck off.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3220481&forum_id=2#30454813)

but there are A LOT of shiftless motherfuckers in germany rioting over food. fuck those faggots and i don't want them here.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3220481&forum_id=2#30454841)

problem is how to distinguish the two groups

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3220481&forum_id=2#30454960)

is a society without all those people a society that's going to become a nice place?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3220481&forum_id=2#30454835)

so then what's our role? aid? my instinct says yes, but aid is corrupted because it has to go through state actors and it's stolen (see CUBA). but bringing them here (most with no capital) to languish when even our college grads are sitting in mom's basement just doesn't seem tenable.

core to how i analyze this is what is the point of a nation state at all? in my mind, it's "to serve the citizenry". we pay (they take) taxes, and it serves us. that's the deal. when we think that it doesn't serve us or, they are ACTIVELY ADVOCATING AGAINST US, shit falls apart.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3220481&forum_id=2#30454883)

-----------------

I think the Harvard thing is right

I mean, there's sort of an interesting argument each way

the world at large might really be a better place if Harvard let in 'a ton' more people

they have a giant endowment, the pool of qualified candidates now is way larger than it was 30, 40, 50 years ago, yet the number of people they let in is the same....

I mean, that's a thing they could choose to do (every once in a while you hear that suggested)

clearly though, if your trying to make 'Harvard' as nice a place as possible, that's not the right move, to greatly expand the student body

--------------

why isn't the country at large managed the same way?

or why isn't the question posed the same way? as the trade off between 'Making America Great' and helping a lot of foreigners out at the expense of making America a nice place

(probably because its not a winner to frame it like that)

----------------

why don't we feel like stakeholders over our own country like people feel like stakeholders over the Harvard brand?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3220481&forum_id=2#30454803)

because the left IS approaching this like stakeholders, and they want a continued pipeline of dem votes.

but like a lot of stakeholders, they are thinking short-term stock gain and not long-term stability and appreciation.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3220481&forum_id=2#30454830)

I thought you were an anti-trumpmo

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3220481&forum_id=2#30454770)

nigga, this is MY HOUSE. You on MY DOORMAT. who the fuck are you and what's that fucked up accent? Is that a hat you have in your hand? ENGLISH, MOTHERFUCKER, DO YOU SPEAK IT?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3220481&forum_id=2#30454707)

The notion of cultural relativism, that pile of shit theory upon which your proposition is heaped, will be the downfall of western civilization. Making cultural judgments is okay. Humanity owes much of its progress to people who said "this is fucked up and it should be done differently."

It's okay to say "fundamentalist Muslims believe in subjugating women, killing gay people, and abolishing the free exchange of ideas -- and that's bad." In fact, we can tie certain cultures to objective indicators of shit (low HDI rankings) and say, objectively, this is a shit culture and it shouldn't be celebrated.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3220481&forum_id=2#30455159)

No, everyone doesn't. I would guesstimate that anywhere from a majority to a strong plurality of people don't give a fuck about diversity.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3220481&forum_id=2#30456246)

http://nypost.com/2016/05/08/obamas-last-act-is-to-force-suburbs-to-be-less-white-and-less-wealthy/

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3220481&forum_id=2#30454874)

A 2011 study sponsored by HUD found that adults using more generous Section 8 vouchers did not get better jobs or get off welfare. In fact, more went on food stamps. And their children did not do better in their new schools.

Worse, crime simply followed them to their safer neighborhoods, ruining the quality of life for existing residents.

“Males … were arrested more often than those in the control group, primarily for property crimes,” the study found.

Dubuque, Iowa, for example, received an influx of voucher holders from projects in Chicago — and it’s had a problem with crime ever since. A recent study linked Dubuque’s crime wave directly to Section 8 housing.

Of course, even when reality mugs leftists, they never scrap their social theories. They just double down.

The problem, they rationalized, was that the relocation wasn’t aggressive enough. They concluded they could get the desired results if they placed urban poor in even more affluent areas.

HUD recently tested this new theory in Dallas with disastrous results.

Starting in 2012, the agency sweetened Section 8 voucher payments, and pointed inner-city recipients to the far-flung counties surrounding Dallas. As government-subsidized rentals spread in all areas of the Metroplex (163 ZIP codes vs. 129 ZIP codes), so did crime.

Now Dallas has one of the highest murder rates in the nation, and recently had to call in state troopers to help police control it. For the first time, violent crime has shifted to the tony bedroom communities north of the city. Three suburbs that have seen the most Section 8 transfers — Frisco, Plano and McKinney — have suffered unprecedented spikes in rapes, assaults and break-ins, including home invasions.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3220481&forum_id=2#30454898)

Tommy's existence in America proves the study's point

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3220481&forum_id=2#30455019)

Relying on diversity measures computed at the apartment block level under conditions of exogenous allocation of public housing in France, this paper identifies the effects of ethnic diversity on social relationships and housing quality. Housing Survey data reveal that diversity induces social anomie. Through the channel of anomie, diversity accounts for the inability of residents to sanction others for vandalism and to act collectively to demand proper building maintenance. However, anomie also lowers opportunities for violent confrontations, which are not related to diversity.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3220481&forum_id=2#30456199)

i don't think the latter approach "sells" as well as the earlier one, though.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3220481&forum_id=2#30456211)

multi-ethnic societies are third world by default. the differences are incredible. i dont need to list all of the benefits of first world living, as i am sure most posters already know them

99% of the insufferable racial animosity comes from MAF NOWWGs who rant about blacks, asians, hispanics, etc. yet do not actually move to (relatively) homogeneous white countries (sadly, there are literally zero homogeneous white countries due to whiteys past sins)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3220481&forum_id=2#30456900)

safer

more efficient

cleaner

more social capital

and about a million other differences

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=3220481&forum_id=2#30457178)