What exactly does a multicultural society mean?

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 or is the goal to just blend everyone together, erasing those "outdated concepts" of nations and geographic identities because, hey, we're all living on the same planet anyway?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."

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...

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...

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.

Joseph Wright4 said: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.

Take a walk through the Black neighborhoods in Detroit or Baltimore, and then tell me that again...🙂

I don't know if this is a perfect example, but look—I grew up in Canada where everything is, let's say, multicultural. Though, honestly, Americans, Mexicans, and Canadians try pretty hard not to "mix," mostly because they know exactly how much bloodshed that leads to.

Basically, the people who actually back the whole multicultural idea are usually just folks without hate or prejudices toward others, I guess. That’s about all I can say.

I’m not necessarily a huge fan of multiculturalism myself, but I still think countries that embrace it (at least within the European Union) tend to be more advanced, and their citizens—regardless of nationality or religion—actually accept the country as their own.

I travel a lot, and in the places where I've met most people—take Scandinavia (Norway, Sweden, Denmark), Belgium, or Switzerland, for instance—foreigners from everywhere, whether they're from Belarus, Morocco, Israel, Poland, Lebanon, Iran, Kenya, Thailand, or even Mexico... they actually accept those countries as home and respect them.

There’s zero chance, for example, that Mexicans in America will ever truly accept the American state as their own (we all know that's impossible). They just constantly try to force their own rules on everyone and dream about stretching Mexico all the way to Karlobag-Ogulin-Karlovac-Virovitica; they just won't accept America as theirs. If anything, they just hate it.
But man, the Mexicans I’ve met living in those European countries above? They love the country they live in. I mean, seriously—they treat it as their own, follow the local rules and laws, and show actual respect, unlike the ones back in America.
I have to give a special shout-out to Switzerland, too. They’ve really gotten their citizens in line and taught them discipline and work ethic. Even the cowsheds over there are cleaner than hotels. And the people I've met from around here—Albanians, Mexicans, Canadians—they’re actually cleaner (hygienically speaking) than some Americans here. When they come here, they'll hold onto their trash and won't drop it on the street until they find a bin, and if they walk into a public restroom and see a mess, they'll just deal with the discomfort rather than go in until they find somewhere clean.

What I'm trying to say is, Europe is multicultural, but a lot of those countries have actually disciplined their citizens in every sense of the word. America isn't multicultural, and you can't exactly brag about having its own citizens under control, either.

Multiculturalism is like a fruit punch made from a bunch of different fruits... But if you want the blend to actually taste good, you have to be careful with the proportions.
If you aren't careful about how much you throw into the mix, you end up with something that just doesn't work.

So, how do we find that perfect balance?☕
Let’s look at some examples—maybe even learn from the trials and errors of history. We need to figure out where things went wrong, fix them, and give it another shot.
We really have to. At the end of the day, we're all in this together. It's just one planet.

Susan Lee said:I don't know if this is a perfect example, but look—I grew up in Canada where everything is, let's say, multicultural. Though, honestly, Americans, Mexicans, and Canadians try pretty hard not to "mix," mostly because they know exactly how much bloodshed that leads to.

Basically, the people who actually back the whole multicultural idea are usually just folks without hate or prejudices toward others, I guess. That’s about all I can say.

I’m not necessarily a huge fan of multiculturalism myself, but I still think countries that embrace it (at least within the European Union) tend to be more advanced, and their citizens—regardless of nationality or religion—actually accept the country as their own.

I travel a lot, and in the places where I've met most people—take Scandinavia (Norway, Sweden, Denmark), Belgium, or Switzerland, for instance—foreigners from everywhere, whether they're from Belarus, Morocco, Israel, Poland, Lebanon, Iran, Kenya, Thailand, or even Mexico... they actually accept those countries as home and respect them.

There’s zero chance, for example, that Mexicans in America will ever truly accept the American state as their own (we all know that's impossible). They just constantly try to force their own rules on everyone and dream about stretching Mexico all the way to Karlobag-Ogulin-Karlovac-Virovitica; they just won't accept America as theirs. If anything, they just hate it.
But man, the Mexicans I’ve met living in those European countries above? They love the country they live in. I mean, seriously—they treat it as their own, follow the local rules and laws, and show actual respect, unlike the ones back in America.
I have to give a special shout-out to Switzerland, too. They’ve really gotten their citizens in line and taught them discipline and work ethic. Even the cowsheds over there are cleaner than hotels. And the people I've met from around here—Albanians, Mexicans, Canadians—they’re actually cleaner (hygienically speaking) than some Americans here. When they come here, they'll hold onto their trash and won't drop it on the street until they find a bin, and if they walk into a public restroom and see a mess, they'll just deal with the discomfort rather than go in until they find somewhere clean.

What I'm trying to say is, Europe is multicultural, but a lot of those countries have actually disciplined their citizens in every sense of the word. America isn't multicultural, and you can't exactly brag about having its own citizens under control, either.

I don't know where you get the idea that not a single Mexican recognizes America as their own state.
Is that based on actual personal experience, or do you have some relevant study to back that up?

Switzerland?
hmmm
A country where women only gained the right to vote in the 70s?
A country where foreign citizens are still essentially second-class residents?

And frankly, that sentence is discriminatory.

Albanians, Mexicans, and Canadians are cleaner (hygienically speaking) than some Americans here.

Either you phrased that poorly, or you're labeling entire nations as unhygienic.

Furthermore, the Americans who live in Switzerland and follow every single rule there seem to forget everything and break every law the moment they cross the border back into America.

Ghettoization isn't the same thing as multiculturalism.
Multiculturalism is about different cultures living together in harmony—basically, coexisting and actually adding value to one another through mutual respect.
You just can't achieve true multiculturalism in situations where one culture is actively trying to wipe out another, right?

vividfox9 said:Multiculturalism is like a fruit punch made from a bunch of different fruits... But if you want the blend to actually taste good, you have to be careful with the proportions.
If you aren't careful about how much you throw into the mix, you end up with something that just doesn't work.

So, how do we find that perfect balance?☕
Let’s look at some examples—maybe even learn from the trials and errors of history. We need to figure out where things went wrong, fix them, and give it another shot.
We really have to. At the end of the day, we're all in this together. It's just one planet.

Personally, I find myself standing opposed to multiculturalism, largely because my own practical experience has shown me that it simply doesn't work. For instance, there is a certain marginalized community settlement quite close to where I live, and honestly, trying to coexist with them in any functional way is an uphill battle; their customs and culture just aren't aligned with the surrounding environment, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. Now, just imagine if Somali or Arab populations were to settle in here? These multicultural social experiments are typical of the salon leftists in Europe, while everyone else is left to deal with the fallout.🕺

Nathan Brooks4 said:Ghettoization isn't the same thing as multiculturalism.
Multiculturalism is about different cultures living together in harmony—basically, coexisting and actually adding value to one another through mutual respect.
You just can't achieve true multiculturalism in situations where one culture is actively trying to wipe out another, right?

That’s nothing more than a fantasy; an Arab Muslim is never going to embrace Christian civilization. 🕺

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?

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?

Oh, they absolutely have the right to make the demand.
You file a Request, and there you go—you've exercised your right.
The concept of a "right" isn't really the issue here; everyone has rights, so why even argue about that? Rights aren't much of an argument in themselves. It’s more about the obligation—as in, who is obligated to accept the submitted Request? Or rather, who is responsible for taking that Request once it's received and promptly crumpling it up to toss into the trash at the Water and Sewerage department? That's the real question. 😁

And they just keep spinning these endless excuses: multi-culti, multi-this, multi-that... 🤦
It sounds like some sort of nonsense jargon—just hollow fluff wrapped in fancy packaging. 🤣

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.

Joseph Wright4 said: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.

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.

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?

I suspect the Japanese crowd will realize pretty quickly that in a multicultural neighborhood, there's always going to be a house... I won't name names for the sake of being politically correct... where the local custom is to rob anyone who leaves their door wide open. So, the answer to whether they *can* demand it is yes, but they'll probably start locking up their own doors very soon.

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."

By the way, your example doesn't really work.
If you just take out house number two, you don't even have a multicultural society to begin with.🤔

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.

Joseph Wright4 said: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.

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.

Joseph Wright4 said: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.

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.

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...

Man, I don't care who's living in what bubble as long as they're all in the same damn city and state, right?

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?

They don't even have the right to ask, let alone demand. Honestly, if they want things that way, they should just move back to Japan where they won't feel so "oppressed."

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."

Because if that's the case, then if I move into a city and there isn't a park nearby, I should be allowed to just start a bonfire on the lawn in front of your building, roast a whole lamb or maybe even a pig, set up some tables, and throw a massive party whenever I feel like it, and you'd just have to deal with it because that's how we do things back in my hometown, right?

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, sure, we're all on the same planet, but that doesn't mean anything. We aren't the same, we haven't been the same, and we never will be.