you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]america_first_1776 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Show me the science in favor of diverse communities. Show me that they are more efficient, have more community trust, and more community involvement. Show me the studies that show diverse communities have less crime than homogeneous white communities.

the many benefits of increased immigration and diversity, among them: greater creativity; better, faster problem-solving; and more rapid economic growth, among others.

Basically, "muh GPD." So your community is rat-infested, filled with gang-bangers, and blacks are coming to your house to steal what dey deserve n sheit. But we get more "creativity" (other studies in the article I posted went over innovation, so I'm not sure what kind of "creativity" he's talking about... it could mean anything), "better problem solving" (again, could mean anything), and "more rapid economic growth" (I'll give you the "muh gdp" even though my article contradicts this). Wow, that sounds like heaven.

And the fact that this meta-analysis didn't bring up the very few positives of diversity doesn't make anything stated in the meta-analysis less true whether you like it or not. In fact, showing that even the most leftist authors can't ignore the downsides of diversity only strengthens the argument.

[–]FediNetizen 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

And the fact that this meta-analysis didn't bring up the very few positives of diversity doesn't make anything stated in the meta-analysis less true whether you like it or not.

But it does make any conclusions you would draw from this less correct. The goal of any real scientific endeavor is objective truth. A real meta-analysis, or meta-study, is useful because it takes all available evidence (or a slice that is as representative as possible when the sheer volume of work becomes an unreasonably large undertaking) and steps back to try to find the consensus. Again, all of this is in search of objective truth.

But that isn't what your friend is doing. He's just picking quotes from works where those pieces in isolation seem to support his agenda.

Speaking of agenda, you're making this much easier by being honest about yours

"So your community is rat-infested, filled with gang-bangers, and blacks are coming to your house to steal what dey deserve n sheit. But we get more "creativity""

Time and time again when arguing with white nationalists the open contempt for minorities eventually comes out.

[–]america_first_1776 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Dude, the entire narrative driven by practically ALL cultural, educational, and government institutions already points out the "value" of diversity. You literally have the entire narrative on your side already. Having to rehash what was already said and what is already being said by every talking head serves no purpose other than restating arguments people already have heard. For example, I've already seen "studies" showing the effects of immigration on GDP. Most people who are interested in learning more already have seen such studies. But what if our enemies, like you and the entirety of our institutions constantly blabbered on about how there are only positive effects from diversity? Well, we would need a quick and true rebuttal of that statement, especially if it pertains to certain outcomes of diversity that we care about most (like having a nice, stable, crime-free community). I've said this before to you and I'll say it again... we are FORCED to deal with your narrative. There is no escaping it. We've already heard what you have to say because it is shoved in our faces from the time we are in Kindergarten all throughout college. It's shoved in our faces on all social media sites. It's shoved in our faces on every television program (just look at the last Superbowl for God's sake). It's YOU who have never had to deal with a conflicting opinion from our side your entire life because you have the entire establishment on your side.

Time and time again when arguing with white nationalists the open contempt for minorities eventually comes out.

Whether I have "contempt" or not doesn't make anything I say less true. I don't have contempt. I understand different communities have different needs and desires. That's why I'm both compassionate and analytical enough to see the ~value~ need for balkanization.

[–]FediNetizen 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

That's why I'm both compassionate and analytical enough to see the ~value~ need for balkanization.

Just move somewhere racist and dominated by white people if you want to live with white people that agree with you. Those places still exist you know. There's nothing compassionate, or practical, about uprooting whole swaths of the country to fix a problem most people don't have. This is not a national problem, this is a you problem.

[–]america_first_1776 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

I actually don't know if you're from America or not, so I'll actually give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you aren't. However, doing what you want me to do in the U.S. will not work, at least long-term, for a few reasons. First, is because there are laws prohibiting you from creating a community that is mono-racial. There are federal laws that will force whites to admit browns and blacks into their schools, businesses, and pretty much everywhere but places of worship. Second, you have mass demographic shifts that are coming from third-world migration that these smaller homogeneous white communities have no control over. Immigration restriction comes from the Federal Executive Branch and states have little, to know, say on who comes into their states based on the 14th Amendment. As you can plainly see by any electoral map, the browns and blacks eventually take over cities and suburbs that were historically white because their populations are growing and they can never create communities themselves that can sustain their populations. Third, the Obama-era Democrats enacted HUD policies for "low-income housing" (cuck-speak for black/brown housing) that specifically targeted safe-white areas.

This kind of goes into your second point too. Any sort of white flight you are suggesting has been tried by more than just me. It's failed because of policies that are specifically enacted to discourage white homogeneity and well-being.

[–]FediNetizen 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

You're not going to get everything you want, because America as a whole has moved beyond racism. But nothing is stopping a group of like-minded racists from choosing to all live in the same area and only voluntarily associate with other white people.

[–]america_first_1776 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

because America as a whole has moved beyond racism.

Lol

lol

lol

lololoololol omg you are so wrong it's hilarious

But nothing is stopping a group of like-minded racists from choosing to all live in the same area and only voluntarily associate with other white people.

I... I just went over why monoracial societies aren't allowed in the U.S....

[–]FediNetizen 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

There is something to address with most of the rest of what you've posted, but I'm baffled as to why you're including interracial crime stats. Do you think a non-racist is only supposed to rob people of their own race or something?

Furthermore, what you quoted me saying doesn't imply that I don't think racists or examples of racism still exist, yet you seem to be responding as if it does.

But back to the main point, you can't get elected as an openly racist person, and could lose your job if you get outed as a racist, etc. There are narrow exceptions, as there are pockets (left leaning web news outlets and maybe the San Francisco political sphere) where you could be anti-white. But posting a bunch of headlines all from the same outlet kind of proves the point here: you can only get away with it in a few small circles. The polling about people's perception of race relations tells a story, which is that people were optimistic when Obama got elected, and less so as smartphones became commonplace and videos of people being racist would go viral. But that perception doesn't match reality. Will Smith said it best: "Racism isn't getting worse. It's getting filmed."

[–]america_first_1776 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

There is something to address with most of the rest of what you've posted, but I'm baffled as to why you're including interracial crime stats. Do you think a non-racist is only supposed to rob people of their own race or something?

I'm going to answer this in two parts, with the first pointing out the obvious, that blacks are indeed more likely to be perps of counted hate-crime statistics than whites.. I say counted because I believe that many instances of black crime against whites that were racially motivated are not counted as hate crimes because of political pressure. I could give countless examples, but I don't have the time to get into anecdotal evidence. However, my second part to this answer is this... if the statistics were reversed and it was whites committing a disproportionate amount of violence on blacks, you bet your ass that every government and cultural institution would say that it was because of some sort of implicit hatred/bias whites had against blacks. That whites did it because they thought blacks were "easier targets" or something. But you don't even get to explore that option here because any such study that attempted to figure this out conclusively would get pulled for "racism."

But back to the main point, you can't get elected as an openly racist person, and could lose your job if you get outed as a racist, etc.

Racism is a made up word popularized by the jew Trotsky back in during the bolshevik revolution. And the reason why you lose your job if you are deemed to be racist is that <2% of the population controls all media, government, and cultural institutions.

There are narrow exceptions, as there are pockets (left leaning web news outlets and maybe the San Francisco political sphere) where you could be anti-white.

This is such a gross understatement of where it is acceptable to be anti-white that I can't believe you really think that.

The polling about people's perception of race relations tells a story, which is that people were optimistic when Obama got elected, and less so as smartphones became commonplace and videos of people being racist would go viral.

Or, maybe it's because the people saw what happens when you elect a black guy who wasn't initially seen to have huge grievances against whites, but were eventually revealed? I don't think the smart-phone explanation explains the poor race relations in the 90s though. I think it is part of the reason, I'll give you that. However, maybe the way to look at the smart phone use is that it's pointing out the reality and breaking the facade the media/government has been lying to us about since the pro-diversity movements first started in the 60s. Seeing your own people being brutally assaulted or killed by others is something that drives a protective natural instinct in many people throughout this country that hasn't gone away despite all the brainwashing. I don't see smart phones going away any time soon, though I do see social media sites banning inter-racial violence videos only when it's anyone else on white crime. So the future of this country is either going to be that all races including whites have their own racial interest (if all videos of violence are able to be shown) or a future where everyone else hates white people (if these social media sites are successful).