*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[spoonitnow]

How is being forced into diversity ethically different from being forced to separate? I don't even think there's an equivalency here. I think it's disingenuous to use the word "forced" when you're talking about living in closed proximity to different cultures because the culture part does not impede your personal freedom, but forcing people to separate impedes their personal freedom. If you have data, I'd love to see it. I like data driven arguments.

The argument isn't about being forced to separate: It's about having a home for people who are like you.

It's not unlike the notion that men need all-male spaces, and women need all-female spaces.

But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam -- famous for "Bowling Alone," his 2000 book on declining civic engagement -- has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.

Google is your friend: http://archive.boston.com/news/globe..._of_diversity/

[oskar]

The argument isn't about being forced to separate: It's about having a home for people who are like you.

To what end?
But regardless of the why. Let's be more specific: New York is one of the most diverse cities. Let's say you want to make New York less diverse. How would you do that without forcibly relocating people?

It's not unlike the notion that men need all-male spaces, and women need all-female spaces.

Not sure how that analogy works unless you're advocating for separate bathrooms for ethnic groups.

Google is your friend: http://archive.boston.com/news/globe..._of_diversity/

Here's the actual study: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc...=rep1&type=pdf
(For future reference, I'm never interested in projections and interpretations. We're adults, let's just go to the source.)

So he's being very clear that diversity is very beneficial in the long term, but has some short term drawbacks. Unless you want to argue that the short term discomforts outweigh the long term benefits (much like exercising or eating carrots instead of twinkies,) I don't think this is a source you want to use to argue in favor of separatism.

[spoonitnow]

So he's being very clear that diversity is very beneficial in the long term, but has some short term drawbacks. Unless you want to argue that the short term discomforts outweigh the long term benefits (much like exercising or eating carrots instead of twinkies,) I don't think this is a source you want to use to argue in favor of separatism.

@bold, no, he's not. Not at all. Not in any way, shape or form. He mentioned a few things that are correlated with immigration, not diversity, and showed no causation in his arguments on the supposed benefits. Moreover, he speculated on the long-term with no data or argument whatsoever while overwhelmingly confirming the disadvantages in the short-term (without defining how short of a term short-term actually is) based on causality, not correlation. He also completely debunked contact theory, which is the argument the pro-diversity crowd clings to.

[oskar]

@bold, no, he's not. Not at all. Not in any way, shape or form. He mentioned a few things that are correlated with immigration, not diversity, and showed no causation in his arguments on the supposed benefits. Moreover, he speculated on the long-term with no data or argument whatsoever while overwhelmingly confirming the disadvantages in the short-term (without defining how short of a term short-term actually is) based on causality, not correlation. He also completely debunked contact theory, which is the argument the pro-diversity crowd clings to.

If you want to extend your argument that diversity has adverse economic effects in the long term, we can go there, but that's a slam dunk for me and pretty boring tbh.
I'd honestly rather not because I don't need diversity or immigration to be beneficial at all to argue against separatism. I'm more interested in this part:

But regardless of the why. Let's be more specific: New York is one of the most diverse cities. Let's say you want to make New York less diverse. How would you do that without forcibly relocating people?