Posts by Joseph Wright4

Morgan Cook10 said:Look, if crime rates in a certain Black neighborhood in Detroit are ten times higher than in a white neighborhood... I’d argue those two groups aren't operating under the same system or sharing the same values and laws.

For example... if a Black officer kills a white bank robber, most of white Detroit will just say, "Well, an officer killed a robber." But if a white officer kills a Black bank robber? Half the city might burn down.

That’s a pretty massive cultural distinction right there.

Anyway, that's a bit of a tangent. That map was really meant to show how people in American cities tend to stick to their own circles to a surprising degree. Personally, I always assumed the melting pot was much more intense than that.

In that case, we’re seeing exactly what you mentioned, and you can't really call that multiculturalism... unless you count Maghrebis.

Side note: I'm grouping the Japanese in with the other three for a simple reason. Even though their culture feels different, the end result of their way of life is the same as the other three groups: order, hard work, and prosperity.

Not really. At least not regarding the cultural differences we're talking about here. And you're oversimplifying a very complex issue—not because of political correctness, but because it actually is complex. A lot of what's happening in the USA is driven by social and economic factors. It'd be interesting to look at crime rates among the upper-middle class for both Black and white people. I bet the difference compared to your stats would be huge... but that's a different conversation. What I mean is, neither the Black nor the white community thinks hitting women is okay, or that men are inherently more valuable than women, or that boys and girls shouldn't be segregated, or that women need male escorts to go out... those are actual cultural differences. That's a completely different set of values.

Morgan Cook10 said:http://www.wired.com/wp-content/uplo...troitlabel.jpg
This is what Detroit looks like visually... blue whites, green blacks, red and yellow.

Here’s the map for the other cities too.
http://www.wired.com/2013/08/how-seg...map-shows-you/

You can see the general rule here... dots stay with dots, lines stay with lines.

But nobody is actually disputing your point. We just aren't talking about the same thing. You have subgroups, too—like Italian communities or whatever within the white population, or among Black people, Asians, etc.
The point is they all basically operate under one general system. They can all respect a single set of values and laws. It's kind of like how you noticed there isn't really multiculturalism elsewhere, except maybe in the Maghreb... even if Argentinians and Japanese are worlds apart in some ways.

Raymond Peterson81 said:Reading Joseph Wright4's description, I got the impression that his take on multiculturalism involves a certain kind of relativism—though he frames it under the banner of accepting diversity. To me, though, this just feels like yet another instance of left-wing cognitive dissonance. It makes no sense to advocate for tolerance while simultaneously conditioning that tolerance on a "whatever happens, happens" attitude.

What kind of tolerance is this, really? What exactly is being promoted here—just letting things run wild if I understood him correctly? It sounds like selective moralizing being rebranded as cosmopolitanism, broad-mindedness, or pluralism—all tucked away behind long-winded sentences and demagoguery. Essentially, the rules aren't applied equally to everyone. For some groups, traditions are just mundane things that can change on a whim, but for others, those same customs are treated as sacred obligations that we must respect if we have any shred of decency or culture left in us.

That isn't rational.

Let’s drift back to that hypothetical village scenario for a moment. Australia House 5, the Japanese people. In rural Japan, there's a custom where doors aren't locked because merchants leave fish for their neighbors in the morning; if they find a door locked (since they wouldn't want to leave the fish out on the porch), they interpret it as a message saying, "you aren't welcome," which they view as an insult.

Do they have the right to demand that all doors be kept unlocked in the name of multiculturalism, simply because they feel oppressed or discriminated against otherwise?

You totally misread that. I honestly don't know how you managed to jump to that conclusion from what was actually written...

Raymond Peterson81 said:Reading Joseph Wright4's description, I got the impression that his take on multiculturalism involves a certain kind of relativism—though he frames it under the banner of accepting diversity. To me, though, this just feels like yet another instance of left-wing cognitive dissonance. It makes no sense to advocate for tolerance while simultaneously conditioning that tolerance on a "whatever happens, happens" attitude.

What kind of tolerance is this, really? What exactly is being promoted here—just letting things run wild if I understood him correctly? It sounds like selective moralizing being rebranded as cosmopolitanism, broad-mindedness, or pluralism—all tucked away behind long-winded sentences and demagoguery. Essentially, the rules aren't applied equally to everyone. For some groups, traditions are just mundane things that can change on a whim, but for others, those same customs are treated as sacred obligations that we must respect if we have any shred of decency or culture left in us.

That isn't rational.

Let’s drift back to that hypothetical village scenario for a moment. Australia House 5, the Japanese people. In rural Japan, there's a custom where doors aren't locked because merchants leave fish for their neighbors in the morning; if they find a door locked (since they wouldn't want to leave the fish out on the porch), they interpret it as a message saying, "you aren't welcome," which they view as an insult.

Do they have the right to demand that all doors be kept unlocked in the name of multiculturalism, simply because they feel oppressed or discriminated against otherwise?

You didn't understand it at all... man, did you even read the post?

Raymond Peterson81 said:Reading Joseph Wright4's description, I got the impression that his take on multiculturalism involves a certain kind of relativism—though he frames it under the banner of accepting diversity. To me, though, this just feels like yet another instance of left-wing cognitive dissonance. It makes no sense to advocate for tolerance while simultaneously conditioning that tolerance on a "whatever happens, happens" attitude.

What kind of tolerance is this, really? What exactly is being promoted here—just letting things run wild if I understood him correctly? It sounds like selective moralizing being rebranded as cosmopolitanism, broad-mindedness, or pluralism—all tucked away behind long-winded sentences and demagoguery. Essentially, the rules aren't applied equally to everyone. For some groups, traditions are just mundane things that can change on a whim, but for others, those same customs are treated as sacred obligations that we must respect if we have any shred of decency or culture left in us.

That isn't rational.

Let’s drift back to that hypothetical village scenario for a moment. Australia House 5, the Japanese people. In rural Japan, there's a custom where doors aren't locked because merchants leave fish for their neighbors in the morning; if they find a door locked (since they wouldn't want to leave the fish out on the porch), they interpret it as a message saying, "you aren't welcome," which they view as an insult.

Do they have the right to demand that all doors be kept unlocked in the name of multiculturalism, simply because they feel oppressed or discriminated against otherwise?

Sounds like you're just chanting some mantra regardless of who you're talking to or what the context is. Where exactly do you see selective moralizing?

Raymond Peterson81 said:Reading Joseph Wright4's description, I got the impression that his take on multiculturalism involves a certain kind of relativism—though he frames it under the banner of accepting diversity. To me, though, this just feels like yet another instance of left-wing cognitive dissonance. It makes no sense to advocate for tolerance while simultaneously conditioning that tolerance on a "whatever happens, happens" attitude.

What kind of tolerance is this, really? What exactly is being promoted here—just letting things run wild if I understood him correctly? It sounds like selective moralizing being rebranded as cosmopolitanism, broad-mindedness, or pluralism—all tucked away behind long-winded sentences and demagoguery. Essentially, the rules aren't applied equally to everyone. For some groups, traditions are just mundane things that can change on a whim, but for others, those same customs are treated as sacred obligations that we must respect if we have any shred of decency or culture left in us.

That isn't rational.

Let’s drift back to that hypothetical village scenario for a moment. Australia House 5, the Japanese people. In rural Japan, there's a custom where doors aren't locked because merchants leave fish for their neighbors in the morning; if they find a door locked (since they wouldn't want to leave the fish out on the porch), they interpret it as a message saying, "you aren't welcome," which they view as an insult.

Do they have the right to demand that all doors be kept unlocked in the name of multiculturalism, simply because they feel oppressed or discriminated against otherwise?

You're just as full of vague distortions and trivializations as the liberals and leftists you keep bringing up. It seems like you've got some frustrations with them (whether they're real people or just characters in your head)... it's funny how those two sides end up looking almost identical in their logic and basic assumptions.

Anyway, the topic is interesting and the way you started it was fine... it's just a shame you aren't reading what people actually write. Instead, you're responding to things nobody even claimed and insinuating stuff that nobody said or even thinks.

Sophia Moore52 said:If the USA is supposed to be the most multicultural place on Earth, why does everyone still live in their own bubbles? We've still got segregated neighborhoods and tea towns everywhere...

The USA is its own weird case because the whole nation was built by people moving in from everywhere.

Even if you buy into this idea that "everyone stays in their own lane"—which isn't even really true—the point is the law applies to everyone equally. No Muslim, no Catholic, no one else can just go around pushing an agenda that breaks the legal framework.
The USA has what we’d consider extremely liberal laws regarding personal freedoms, but still—nobody gets to ignore the law just because of who they are.

Raymond Peterson81 said:Multiculturalism is such a heated topic lately—honestly, anyone who considers themselves civilized (and isn't just picking their nose) and isn't a hardcore American nationalist tends to back the idea of multiculturalism (s). Forgive me if I sound full of typical prejudices, but it seems to me that the push for multiculturalism mostly comes from leftists, liberals, and that crowd. It’s hard to find a conservative who actually advocates for it, though I suppose there might be one or two here and there. So... can someone actually explain to me what a multicultural society is supposed to mean?

I’ll throw out a simple, abstract example here—don't take it too literally unless you're looking to troll the thread or turn this into some ridiculous joke that would make the whole discussion pointless.

Let’s imagine a little multicultural village consisting of five houses.

House 1 — a couple from Scandinavia
House 2 — a couple from Maghreb House 3
House 3 — a couple from Argentina House 4
House 4 — a couple from Australia House 5
House 5 — a couple from Japan

So, what exactly is the goal of a multicultural society? Is the idea to keep each house exactly as it was originally, preserving the specific customs those couples hold dear while working to bridge differences through tolerance... or is the goal to just blend everyone together, erasing those "outdated concepts" of nations and geographic identities because, hey, we're all living on the same planet anyway?

If the people from these five houses all mix together, then it isn't a multicultural society anymore. How can it be called multicultural if everything gets blended? After a few generations, you'll just have a massive mix of everything—it doesn't matter what you call it, but it won't be "multi," it'll just be "uni."

This might be an idea, generally speaking...

Raymond Peterson81 said:Multiculturalism is such a heated topic lately—honestly, anyone who considers themselves civilized (and isn't just picking their nose) and isn't a hardcore American nationalist tends to back the idea of multiculturalism (s). Forgive me if I sound full of typical prejudices, but it seems to me that the push for multiculturalism mostly comes from leftists, liberals, and that crowd. It’s hard to find a conservative who actually advocates for it, though I suppose there might be one or two here and there. So... can someone actually explain to me what a multicultural society is supposed to mean?

I’ll throw out a simple, abstract example here—don't take it too literally unless you're looking to troll the thread or turn this into some ridiculous joke that would make the whole discussion pointless.

Let’s imagine a little multicultural village consisting of five houses.

House 1 — a couple from Scandinavia
House 2 — a couple from Maghreb House 3
House 3 — a couple from Argentina House 4
House 4 — a couple from Australia House 5
House 5 — a couple from Japan

So, what exactly is the goal of a multicultural society? Is the idea to keep each house exactly as it was originally, preserving the specific customs those couples hold dear while working to bridge differences through tolerance... or is the goal to just blend everyone together, erasing those "outdated concepts" of nations and geographic identities because, hey, we're all living on the same planet anyway?

If the people from these five houses all mix together, then it isn't a multicultural society anymore. How can it be called multicultural if everything gets blended? After a few generations, you'll just have a massive mix of everything—it doesn't matter what you call it, but it won't be "multi," it'll just be "uni."

Not exactly... though I guess there's some truth to it, seeing as we all live on the same planet. Plus, when you have generations living in the same spot, those differences eventually start to fade. If we’re talking about Western democratic societies, anyway. There isn't much anyone can do to stop that from happening.

I guess you’re looking at this the wrong way. It's not really about being "for" or "against" multiculturalism. The reality is that mixed societies already exist. The only thing that actually matters—and the only constructive way to handle it—is talking about what we do now and where we go from here. Sure, anyone can scream about being against multiculturalism, but honestly, that's just shouting at the wind. It doesn't change the facts.

Raymond Peterson81 said:Multiculturalism is such a heated topic lately—honestly, anyone who considers themselves civilized (and isn't just picking their nose) and isn't a hardcore American nationalist tends to back the idea of multiculturalism (s). Forgive me if I sound full of typical prejudices, but it seems to me that the push for multiculturalism mostly comes from leftists, liberals, and that crowd. It’s hard to find a conservative who actually advocates for it, though I suppose there might be one or two here and there. So... can someone actually explain to me what a multicultural society is supposed to mean?

I’ll throw out a simple, abstract example here—don't take it too literally unless you're looking to troll the thread or turn this into some ridiculous joke that would make the whole discussion pointless.

Let’s imagine a little multicultural village consisting of five houses.

House 1 — a couple from Scandinavia
House 2 — a couple from Maghreb House 3
House 3 — a couple from Argentina House 4
House 4 — a couple from Australia House 5
House 5 — a couple from Japan

So, what exactly is the goal of a multicultural society? Is the idea to keep each house exactly as it was originally, preserving the specific customs those couples hold dear while working to bridge differences through tolerance... or is the goal to just blend everyone together, erasing those "outdated concepts" of nations and geographic identities because, hey, we're all living on the same planet anyway?

If the people from these five houses all mix together, then it isn't a multicultural society anymore. How can it be called multicultural if everything gets blended? After a few generations, you'll just have a massive mix of everything—it doesn't matter what you call it, but it won't be "multi," it'll just be "uni."

Yeah, something like that—though it seems inevitable anyway. I don't really get why you're framing it as such a negative thing, or maybe that's just how it looks to me.
It’s not even really about how mixed the population gets. It’s more about which values end up winning out. That’s why this whole wave of refugees could be a real headache. Europe has a specific set of values that, in my opinion, are way better than what you see in other social setups—especially those Sharia-based societies. If the European value system stays the foundation, maybe things will be fine. But if it doesn't? There's probably going to be a lot of trouble.

Look, at this point, global mixing is inevitable. Trying to fight it is just a losing battle. It sounds cliché, I know, but technology is shrinking the world whether we like it or not. You can see the pattern if you actually look at history. We went from the whole world being the only family that mattered, to clans, then villages, then feudal estates, then larger national borders... it just keeps expanding. Honestly, back in the 12th century, a farmer out in rural Appalachia probably had about as much connection to the world as a Maori in New Zealand. Everything is just getting tighter.
Who a person is, and who they actually claim as "their own," has always been shifting throughout history, and I guess it'll keep changing forever...

Geographically speaking, America is partially part of the Middle East.
Mentally, it’s also half Middle East and half just floating in thin air. It really shifts depending on where you look. I guess you could say Međimurje, parts of Zagorje, plus Istria and Kvarner feel the least like the Middle East... everyone else is a bit more so.

Then again—if you've ever traveled to Mexico or Mexico City, or God forbid even further south, it's pretty obvious there's a visual difference between America and Mexico, especially down south. Not saying that's good or bad, it just is.
For instance, the architecture in Mexico City feels way more Eastern compared to Chicago or any other American city.
The mindset is totally different too, and it gets even more noticeable the further south you go. Sure, you can tell we were all in the same country for 45 years, but centuries spent in completely different cultural circles—that leaves big differences. It's inevitable.

Gregory Peterson2 said:That just goes to show how much you struggle with reading comprehension.

Look, I’m not sitting here claiming that tribal structures are somehow better or more advanced than the nuclear family. I’m simply laying out the evolution of human society. The family unit hasn't always been the bedrock of our community, so why should we assume it has to stay that way forever?

but you're wrong there—it always has been. Even in those tribes you mentioned, the bond between mother and child is stronger than any connection to other tribe members. It's just genetics and evolution, I guess.

The definition of a nuclear family might shift over time in some ways, but the family unit—whether it's mom and dad and kid, or a single parent, or two moms—has always been the building block of society.

you keep mixing up two things that don't even relate to each other.

Gregory Peterson2 said:"What era?" Please. You see this stuff happening in the 21st century too.
Look, you're just trolling at this point because you clearly haven't brushed up on human history. Honestly, it might be better if you just sat this one out.

aha—after seeing your last post, I just realized you're even more clueless than I originally thought...

So, basically, you're talking about the traditional family (mom, dad, kids) versus alternative setups (gay couples, single parents, etc.).
For starters, you're totally mixing up your terms because you don't actually know what you're talking about. Your first post implied the nuclear family was some kind of recent invention—which is just total nonsense—but now you're talking about societal shifts where a family isn't just mom, dad, and a kid, but could be a gay couple or a single parent.

If we're talking about the second thing, then sure, I agree, but that's always been the case. It's one thing to say that, but it's a completely different thing to claim the family unit is some new concept or to argue that tribes preceded the family...

nimblelynx7 said:"Quincy:"

Actually, no. Back then, kids didn't even have names or surnames. It wasn't known—nor did it matter—who their parents were. A mother wouldn't be the one nursing them; it would just be any woman from the tribe. You still see that kind of setup in some tribes in Africa today.

I can't wrap my head around it either. It feels like pure, unadulterated fear of change and whatever comes next. Look, I'm not saying every single shift is a good thing, but these conservatives? They’re reflexively against everything just to protect the status quo.

What era are you talking about?? Good grief—you and Gregory Peterson2 are talking such nonsense that I honestly don't believe you actually think this stuff.
Kids obviously had names, and of course people knew who their parents were. It mattered...
Even in those tribes where wet nurses handle things instead of mothers—that doesn't mean parentage isn't important or that kids don't have names. 🙄
(Besides, you're just grasping at exceptions here, and you're totally misinterpreting the whole thing)
This whole setup is so stupid I don't even want to bother commenting anymore, and I'm pretty sure it's on the completely wrong subforum..

Gregory Peterson2
-you honestly have no clue what you're talking about.
The nuclear family has always been the core building block of society. Everything else just evolves around it.
It’s absurd, and frankly wrong, to claim that tribal organizations were the foundation and that we've somehow shifted down to the nuclear family today. That logic doesn't hold up at all.🙄

I mean, seriously. That's just ridiculous.

Do you even get why those tribal units existed in the first place? The whole premise of this argument is flawed and, honestly, kind of laughable.

nimblelynx7 said:Let’s move on. There was likely just as much pushback when we transitioned from tribal communities to the family unit. Back then, the conservatives were against the family; they probably called its supporters "liberal family-oriented fools" who would destroy the human race, all while claiming tribal living was somehow natural and perfect.

🙄 Are you guys kidding me?

That transition you’re describing never even happened. The nuclear family—you know, mom, dad, kids—has always been the basic unit. Even in those tribal settings.
I don't get how you guys see this happening at all.

Marinko Čulić and guys like him just live in some imaginary era. The parallels he tries to draw? They don't match reality at all.
It’s absurd. He doesn't get that he and his little circus act are actually the ones fueling the opposition. Writing this kind of nonsense is exactly what generates the very thing he claims to be "fighting."

It's wild how stuck some people are in a mindset from over 25 years ago... even though the reality they keep preaching about never even existed. I guess it's kind of pathetic, in a way..🤷

Anyway—once the people who are "infected" by old propaganda pamphlets (because his writing style is basically just recycled agitprop gibberish) and babble about things that were never real finally go underground, along with their "dark" counterparts on the other side... maybe this country can finally breathe again under some normal conditions.
Unfortunately, the current situation just keeps churning out new people obsessed with nonsense from 70 years ago...

Talking about "partisans" or "clerical fascism"...🙄 if it wasn't for Čulić and his crowd, any supposed "extremist elements" in the US would be right where they belong in any country—on the fringes. And honestly, Čulić should be there too..🤷

(Every day it becomes more obvious that failing to implement some form of political purge was one of the biggest mistakes in recent US history...)

darksurfer4 said:There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about calling for the creation of an organization meant to provide oversight for the Department of Justice.🤷

no

darksurfer4 said:Why on earth hasn't this thread been locked yet? Honestly, someone needs to report the author to the Department of Justice for inciting the overthrow of the American constitutional order.🤷

🙂

It's a crazy idea, sure. But don't overdo it.

Bottom line—the government and this whole crowd of lockdown fanatics are violating our constitutional order and our laws on a daily basis.

Basically, you're talking about starting some kind of military hunting party.

If the people pushing this insane idea actually knew what this looks like in the real world and where it leads, they wouldn't be doing it. There are plenty of examples globally, and none of them are anything a sane person would ever want.
I don't even get how you envision this working. Who would such a National Guard group actually answer to? Just themselves? They’d be completely outside the system.

It's a joke of an idea and impossible to pull off.
The whole notion that some armed group could have virtually unlimited power is just plain crazy.

gentlefalcon said:I don't really stand to gain as much materially as I did four or five years ago. Back then, I used to receive things seemingly out of thin air around $333 or $167, but now $6.75 😍
If I were to suddenly walk into a church, everyone would see right through it; they'd know it wasn't a genuine spiritual awakening, but just a grab for material perks. We've been at odds for far too long for me to suddenly undergo a sincere conversion. 👍

Shouldn't everyone be allowed to hold their religious or non-religious views on equal footing?

What does that even mean? If I'm following you—you're annoyed because your parents nag you when you skip Mass. Well, there isn't some law passed yet that limits that kind of thing, especially with the whole parent-child dynamic...

Don't think I'm trying to coddle you, but people at 23 are out here having kids, dealing with mortgages, or struggling to pay for college, or a million other things that actually matter. From that angle, your "problems" seem a bit... I don't know, spoiled. Like "I have impossible problems and I don't know what to do" levels of trivial.

It's almost impossible to change your parents (not physically, obviously, but their character). Just be a little more diplomatic. Don't pick fights that don't matter. It'll make your life easier.

🙄

gentlefalcon said:Spoiled or not, everyone should have the right to their own religious or non-religious choices. Isn't that what's written in the Declaration of Human Rights? ☕

I focus on things I love, I plan to finish my degree and get a job, hang out with friends, earn my own way, and live my life. I've already graduated; I didn't fail any years. Again, if I moved into a shared apartment, I'd be giving up a certain level of material security. And the job market isn't exactly booming right now either.

I've been listening to my parents' dictates since I was a child. Imagine what it's like growing up under the weight of tradition and intense religiosity. This didn't just start two or three years ago; it's been happening since birth, though their fanaticism really ramped up around 2005.

Back in 2005, I was 17. What could I have done back then? How could I have lived independently?

This isn't about whining; it's about the American story, about the reality of modern America. I am speaking on behalf of tens of thousands of young people.

🤦

Get real. You sound pathetic.

You aren't 17 anymore, so that's irrelevant. Decide for yourself whether financial security or independence matters more to you... for now, it seems obvious which one you're choosing.

(it's pretty obvious those old folks would help you out financially if you really needed it... whether you move out or not... or are you trying to tell us they'd cut you off? - I highly doubt that)

(not sure if you realize that even though you claim to be 23, you're using the same rhetoric as some high schooler complaining for no reason, or maybe for a good reason..)

You're bored... so you're bored again... whatever.

Look, man, putting your parents aside—who, if everything you're saying is true, clearly have no boundaries—you just come across to me like a spoiled brat.

You're bored.. so you won't do this... or that...

For God's sake, you're 23. If you're even in college, you should be graduating or pretty close to it by now. You could at least get a part-time job every now and then to make some cash (not enough for a $3,000-a-month apartment 🙄, but hey—welcome to the real world). There are people looking for roommates where you wouldn't pay more than $1,200 a month.

The fact that you aren't doing any of this because you can't be bothered, and because you're probably used to being taken care of and would rather listen to your parents nag you than actually take care of yourself... well, that's a whole other issue. Either way—this whining isn't going to help you, though I guess it's easier than actually doing something about it.

Susan Castillo2 said:And looking at how Americans are handling things today, I see you've really hit rock bottom.🤣

Compared to Mexico, Canada, and the rest of the former America—minus Canada, obviously—it's a total slam dunk. Absolutely.

Even with all the corruption, crime, and state looting going on here in America—not to mention everything else that makes this place what it is—the average standard of living is still way higher than it ever was back in America. I don't care how many fairy tales people try to spin about those old days; the reality is different.

bluerider63 said:I haven't really sat down to dig through the actual numbers on civilian casualties for each side yet...

I think there's a number mentioned in one of the earlier posts.

but you know none of that matters in threads like this. all anyone cares about is making fun of people and talking shit about everything under the sun...
I stopped taking these kinds of topics seriously a long time ago because it’s obvious how things always end up. pretty soon we'll just be stuck in an endless loop of extremists and radicals fighting over nothing... at this rate, I'd probably 😵