*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[OngBonga]

lol it's really common for people to say racism when they mean xenophobia, but it's rare to see xenophobia instead of racism.

If we're talking about biology, then that's ethnicity, not nationality.

[oskar]

lol it's really common for people to say racism when they mean xenophobia, but it's rare to see xenophobia instead of racism.

If we're talking about biology, then that's ethnicity, not nationality.

I misuse xenophobia because it's the less racy term if you pardon my pun.

When I said I have never heard wuf's argument in a scientific context, but I've heard it plenty elsewhere, this is an example:

If I understand wuf correctly, he's simply saying that there are biological/evolutionary benefits when people identify with a particular race/ethnicity that is different from someone else's race/ethnicity. Those benefits can be amplified if people organize themselves into societies and systems of ideas along those ethnic lines.

Only that there isn't much in terms of actual numbers that would support that. The US and Japan are both high up the list when it comes to prosperity and quality of life, yet they are polar opposites in terms of diversity. Studies that deal with the economic impact of immigration unanimously agree that it's a positive driving force on economy in the long term. It is only in hand-wavy hypotheticals that you can attempt to paint diversity as a net negative.
Even if the evolutionary analogue would hold any water, which it does not, that doesn't make it a useful tool. From a biological perspective we should be living in communities of 100-250 people. In the real world this is neither applicable nor practical.

[BananaStand]

Only that there isn't much in terms of actual numbers that would support that. The US and Japan are both high up the list when it comes to prosperity and quality of life, yet they are polar opposites in terms of diversity.

So? Is it really a numerical analysis?

Is a unified ethnicity important in Israel? Fuck yeah it is. Just because it's less important, or even unnecessary, in the United States doesn't mean that it's less important, or even unnecessary, everywhere. The influence of ethnicity on cultures and customs differentiates those customs and cultures from others. There are obviously downsides to this, as illustrated in the pic you posted. But there are also upsides as well. For example, the ability of free people to choose the cultures and customs that best suits them is really important.

I'm sure you agree with this because you said:

Studies that deal with the economic impact of immigration unanimously agree that it's a positive driving force on economy in the long term

.

So, if diversity is diluted, then obviously that effect would extend to the cultures and customs of the diluted groups. And as things become more homogenized, you no longer have any need, or practical purpose, for differentiating customs and cultures. It's not hard to imagine this effect to lead to the convergence and merging of governments. And then following this to its logical conclusion, you end up with one homogeneous, all-powerful, planet-ruling super government.

[wufwugy]

Studies that deal with the economic impact of immigration unanimously agree that it's a positive driving force on economy in the long term.

I think for the most part these studies have things mostly correct. However, it should be noted that the data is very insufficient to say if the good is long term since the systems probably have fat tails. Granted, you can say that about LOTS of stuff (and be right). For example, science and technology might not even be good in the long term. We've only had a few hundred years of them, but events relative to them that have not happened yet that may happen in the future are near unlimited. The tails could be fat and we could find in the future ruin comes from them.