Ethnic diversity harms a country's social cohesion

[Dougie93]

5 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

It was my inference from your post.  Who cares who you know who is nice? 

Me. I care.  My experience with immigrants is all that matters,   What are your asserting in contravention of that?

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

There was nothing in your cite which said he had dual citizenship or was born elsewhere...

I agree, he may not be a dual citizen.  Or may be, who knows.  But still a snake in the grass.  We don't the motive yet, could just be money, could be something more sinister.

But either way, a high-level RCMP intelligence worker committing some kind of treason like this is breaking his oath of true allegiance to Canada in one of the most serious ways possible.  Off to jail you go!

Edited September 13, 2019 by Moonlight Graham

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Me. I care.  My experience with immigrants is all that matters,   What are your asserting in contravention of that?

Yeah, my experience with immigrants is the same.  It doesn't matter.

[Dougie93]

Just now, Moonlight Graham said:

I agree, he may not be a dual citizen.  Or may be, who knows.  But still a snake in the grass.  We don't the motive yet, could just be money, could be something more sinister.

C'mon American "brother", this is Emmanuel Goldstein, haven't you ever read Orwell? 

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

Yeah, my experience with immigrants is the same.  It doesn't matter.

Do you have a cogent point in there somewhere?    Not seeing it.

[Moonlight Graham]

3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

C'mon American "brother", this is Emmanuel Goldstein, haven't you ever read Orwell? 

Hey random queston, if Britain (by order of the Queen) and the USA ever went to war, who would you fight for?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Do you have a cogent point in there somewhere?    Not seeing it.

My point was made in my first reply to you.  Since then there's been little point.

But don't get me wrong, it's all fun.

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

My point was made in my first reply to you.  Since then there's been little point.

But don't get me wrong, it's all fun.

Can't get you wrong if you spell it out for me.

The point is to make a point, lest you become the very disingenuous persons you decry. no?

[Dougie93]

4 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Hey random queston, if Britain (by order of the Queen) and the USA ever went to war, who would you fight for?

America.  The light of civilization itself must not perish from this earth.  No foreign giant shall drink a drop from the Mississippi.

[Rue]

1 hour ago, bcsapper said:

It's not being an arsehole that's the issue.  It's being told one mustn't call an arsehole an arsehole, because they look a bit different.  To some, the difference excuses the arseholeness.  That's where the argument occurs.

If your point is people should not hide behind their ethnicity/colour/race/religion/gender/gender prerefence/disability to excuse being an arsehole I whole heartedly agree. An arsehole transcends all that and to many aresholes play whatever victim card they can to avoid their big arse selves. That said the premises of this thread is a generalization and so it is necessarily flawed and illogical. Ethnic diversity may or may not add or detract from the cohesion of the social groups or other groups within a society. Whether it does or does not depends on a wide range of factors. The title of the thread assumes its a given, or an axiom or an absolute truth or fact to claim ethnic diversity is harmful to a country's social cohesion and NO psychologist or social scientist has a study that can make an absolute statement that its absolutely harmful or for that matter absolutely beneficial. The title of this thread repeats a pattern from Argus of making sweeping negative generalizations about immigrants. It should surprise no one.

In fact we can also show  numerous studies of extremist bigoted  groups who deplore ethnic diversity and preach ethnic purity toshow the lack of ethnic diversity leads to in-bred hateful racism and other forms of  bigotry. The point?

Can we discuss phenomena or issues on this board without sweeping assumptions and generalizations or pulling social studies which can not be by their inherent nature absolute and pose them as if they are.

Here is one example of a critique of the thesis that ethnic diversity leads to lack of social cohesion:

https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2018/08/10/ethnic-diversity-and-social-cohesion-a-critique/

Here's one that does have concerns about ethnic diversity impacting on social cohesion but without sweeping generalization and showing its economic benefits:

https://wol.iza.org/uploads/articles/46/pdfs/superdiversity-social-cohesion-and-economic-benefits.pdf

Here is one that says ethnic diversity has neither a positive or negative effect:

https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/can-diversity-cities-create-social-cohesion/36368/

This one points out how easily it is when examining ethnic diversity and social cohesiveness to come up with conflicting or contradictory conclusions:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275508145_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Its_Effects_on_Social_Cohesion

Me personally I embrace diversity the same reason I don't pick vanilla ice cream every time I  buy ice cream.

I want to  learn from people who have different experiences, beliefs and perspectives on things. I find  people and ideas that are not diverse can become  inbred and stagnant.

Certainly we know in biology for life to remain healthy it must remain diverse and it its genetic pools remain lacking in diversity, inbreeding leads to genetic anomalies, disease, insanity.

Thanks but I like to explore new things and try different food and when I was young, I liked women of all varieties of ethnicity and race. I only regret I am old and rotting and can no longer chase women all over the globe. I could not imagine not embracing the diversity of women out there.

Then again I get how some people don't want anyone that does not look or smell like them in their neighbourhood. I don't much have time for such people. They tend to like t play golf and think I want to join their club. No. I prefer dogs of all colours and sizes.

 

 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

Can't get you wrong if you spell it out for me.

The point is to make a point, lest you become the very disingenuous persons you decry. no?

Probably. 

My point was that your experiences are meaningless, in the general sense of what this thread seems to be about.  I say seems, because I haven't read it.  I'm going by the title.  Given that, as I said, your experiences, while riveting, are not relevant.

Why did you bring them up? 

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Rue said:

If your point is people should not hide behind their ethnicity/colour/race/religion/gender/gender prerefence/disability to excuse being an arsehole I whole heartedly agree. An arsehole transcends all that and to many aresholes play whatever victim card they can to avoid their big arse selves. That said the premises of this thread is a generalization and so it is necessarily flawed and illogical. Ethnic diversity may or may not add or detract from the cohesion of the social groups or other groups within a society. Whether it does or does not depends on a wide range of factors. The title of the thread assumes its a given, or an axiom or an absolute truth or fact to claim ethnic diversity is harmful to a country's social cohesion and NO psychologist or social scientist has a study that can make an absolute statement that its absolutely harmful or for that matter absolutely beneficial. The title of this thread repeats a pattern from Argus of making sweeping negative generalizations about immigrants. It should surprise no one.

In fact we can also show  numerous studies of extremist bigoted  groups who deplore ethnic diversity and preach ethnic purity toshow the lack of ethnic diversity leads to in-bred hateful racism and other forms of  bigotry. The point?

Can we discuss phenomena or issues on this board without sweeping assumptions and generalizations or pulling social studies which can not be by their inherent nature absolute and pose them as if they are.

Here is one example of a critique of the thesis that ethnic diversity leads to lack of social cohesion:

https://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2018/08/10/ethnic-diversity-and-social-cohesion-a-critique/

Here's one that does have concerns about ethnic diversity impacting on social cohesion but without sweeping generalization and showing its economic benefits:

https://wol.iza.org/uploads/articles/46/pdfs/superdiversity-social-cohesion-and-economic-benefits.pdf

Here is one that says ethnic diversity has neither a positive or negative effect:

https://www.openaccessgovernment.org/can-diversity-cities-create-social-cohesion/36368/

This one points out how easily it is when examining ethnic diversity and social cohesiveness to come up with conflicting or contradictory conclusions:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275508145_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Its_Effects_on_Social_Cohesion

Me personally I embrace diversity the same reason I don't pick vanilla ice cream every time I  buy ice cream.

I want to  learn from people who have different experiences, beliefs and perspectives on things. I find  people and ideas that are not diverse can become  inbred and stagnant.

Certainly we know in biology for life to remain healthy it must remain diverse and it its genetic pools remain lacking in diversity, inbreeding leads to genetic anomalies, disease, insanity.

Thanks but I like to explore new things and try different food and when I was young, I liked women of all varieties of ethnicity and race. I only regret I am old and rotting and can no longer chase women all over the globe. I could not imagine not embracing the diversity of women out there.

Then again I get how some people don't want anyone that does not look or smell like them in their neighbourhood. I don't much have time for such people. They tend to like t play golf and think I want to join their club. No. I prefer dogs of all colours and sizes.

 

 

No, my point was that there is nothing about an arsehole, not their race, colour, culture, gender, sex, sexual orientation, life experience, state of inebriation, etc, that gives them a pass on being called one.

Edited September 13, 2019 by bcsapper

[Dougie93]

1 minute ago, bcsapper said:

Probably. 

My point was that your experiences are meaningless,

Not to me.  Your unfounded assertions in the face of my real world experiences are what is meaningless, as they are, apparently, fallacious.

[Guest]

Just now, Dougie93 said:

Not to me.  Your unfounded assertions in the face of my real world experiences are what is meaningless, as they are, apparently, fallacious.

One of the first things people do when they want to make a point against another but they can't, is to cut bits off it.

I am quite sure your experiences mean a very great deal to you.

[Dougie93]

5 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

One of the first things people do when they want to make a point against another but they can't, is to cut bits off it.

I am quite sure your experiences mean a very great deal to you.

I make no argument, my experiences are not an argument, when did I ever said they were?  Never did.

Who is being disingenuous now?

[Abies]

Quote

A decade ago the fundamental belief among Danes toward Muslim immigrants was that these newcomers would see how wonderful Denmark was and naturally want to become Danish as quickly as possible.

This turned out to be naively wrong. At least half of all Muslims polled across various western European countries believe today that their Shariah law is more important than national law, according to the Gatestone Institute. In other words, a not insignificant proportion of Muslim immigrants have no intention of assimilating into any western society, including Denmark.

Comparing issues in Europe and Canada as superficially as saying both invite Muslim immigrants forgets that Europe is across the pond from the Middle East and Africa and all the instability that occurs in those regions. 

 

Many western nations assumed that increasing ethnic and cultural diversity through immigration would be beneficial. The dogma of diversity, tolerance and inclusion assumed that all members of the society wanted to be included as equal citizens. Yet, instead of diversity being a blessing, many found that they’ve ended up with a lot of arrogant people living in their countries with no intention of letting go of their previous cultures, animosities, preferences, and pretensions.

Older people arriving and holding onto their cultural ties isn't unusual. Once they have kids those kids pick up Canadian culture and once those kids grow up and have their own kids those kids also pick up Canadian culture but now have less and less ties to their grandparents culture. 

 

In fact, social trust corresponds more closely than any other factor to predicting economic prosperity. Harvard economists Alberto Alesina and co-authors from a paper titled, Fractionalization, argued that greater diversity leads to stunted economic growth. In other words, diversity is a weakness as far as the economy is concerned.

link to book: https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/4553003/alesinassrn_fractionalization.pdf

quote from the last sentence of the conclusion, " However, it is difficult to evaluate precisely the size of these effects because of the strong correlation of ethnolinguistic fractionalization variables with other potential explanatory variables, especially geographical ones. In the end one has to use theory and priors to evaluate our results."

I will also note he talks mostly about Africa and South America. 

His argument might have some truths but how it applies to Canada is hard to say here is a paper documenting for instance trust which is according to the article correlated with economies and happiness. 

https://sites.ualberta.ca/~pcerii/WorkingPapers/WP06-05.pdf

 

Being closer to the Canadian border means more social capital.” He also finds that the same pattern can be seen moving westward. Using World Values Survey data, the Canadian researcher John Helliwell (1996) found a similar westward pattern in Canada, and also that the northward pattern sustains as the border is crossed. Using the GSS17 data, we detected a similar trend of rising trust levels as we move from central Canada towards west; however, as Figure 2 indicates, we also found a similar trend in the opposite direction (that is, moving eastward from central Canada), although the latter is less pronounced. In other words, as one moves from inland towards both east and west coasts, the level of trust increases. The lowest levels of trust are reported for Ontario and Quebec, particularly the latter whose trust level is about half of what is reported for the highest trusting provinces.

The research also falls inline with earlier data. https://tonquartier.ca/etudes/delhey2005.pdf which puts Canada as high trust along with the Nordic countries. 

 

Overall I think the article is oversimplifying research papers and ignoring other factors in other countries such as geographic proximity and immigration policies as well as social attitudes towards immigrants and willingness to allow them to integrate. 

 

Edited September 13, 2019 by Abies

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I make no argument, my experiences are not an argument, when did I ever said they were?  Never did.

Who is being disingenuous now?

Still you, I'm afraid.  I never said you made an argument.  I just commented on what I inferred from your post.  What I said was true. but you chose to take umbrage with it.

Edited September 13, 2019 by bcsapper

[Dougie93]

9 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

Still you, I'm afraid.  I never said you made an argument.  I just commented on what I inferred from your post.  What I said was true. but you chose to take umbrage with it.

I take no umbrage but at the threshold of  Brandenburg v Ohio, as I clearly stated above,

What did you infer from that?  Spell it out for me.

Edited September 13, 2019 by Dougie93

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

I take no umbrage but at the threshold of  Brandenburg v Ohio, as I clearly stated above,

What did you infer from that?  Spell it out for me.

I already did.

You started crying because I commented on your notion that somehow if you knew someone who was nice, then it made some kind of difference with regard to those of the same stripe who were not.

What?  No, guy.  Neversaidthat. Try again.

I didn't say you said it.  I said it was your notion.

How so?

It was my inference from your post.  Who cares who you know who is nice?  I couldn't think of another reason to post that in this thread.

[Dougie93]

4 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

It was my inference from your post.  Who cares who you know who is nice?

As I said;  I care. 

The sum of my experiences with immigrants, to include growing up in Toronto in an ocean of them, is my reality.

What are you asserting in contravention of that?  Explain.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

As I said;  I care. 

The sum of my experiences with immigrants, to include growing up in Toronto in an ocean of them, is my reality.

What are you asserting in contravention of that?  Explain.

No.  We're going around in circles, and I believe there is a name for it now.  Something to do with seafood.  If you disagree with what I said, say so.

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

No.  We're going around in circles, and I believe there is a name for it now.  Something to do with seafood.  If you disagree with what I said, say so.

No idea what you are prattling on about, can you not explain your point plainly in the Queen's English?

Edited September 13, 2019 by Dougie93

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Dougie93 said:

No idea what you are prattling on about, can you not explain your point plainly in the Queen's English?

I can't remember what it is called.  The process by which a poster asks questions in a variety of different ways to get the person they are arguing with to repeat themselves ad nauseum.

[Dougie93]

2 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

I can't remember what it is called.  The process by which a poster asks questions in a variety of different ways to get the person they are arguing with to repeat themselves ad nauseum.

Eh? Wot?  I've spoken plainly that my experience is my reality, can you not do me the courtesy to explain in kind what your counterpoint is?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Dougie93 said:

Eh? Wot?  I've spoken plainly that my experience is my reality, can you not do me the courtesy to explain in kind what your counterpoint is?

That's what I'm talking about.  I did already.  I can't say anything more on the issue than I already have, so now I would just have to repeat myself.