What exactly does a multicultural society mean?

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.

Joseph Wright4 said: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.

And people like that really only belong back where they came from.

So here’s the question: name me just one successful multicultural nation that actually owes its success to multiculturalism. And please, don't say Sweden—that country became successful by being a homogeneous society (and I'm not counting Finns as having the same culture as Swedes anyway), and all the fallout from their multiculturalism is currently playing out through the leading political parties fighting against immigration and rising crime rates.

And for heaven's sake, don't even mention the USA...

It seems to me that everything is being lumped into the same bucket lately; I think we need to clarify what "multiculturalism" actually means—or rather, I'll try to explain it based on today's typical leftist perspectives.

Post-World War II, Europe was indeed multicultural in the sense of containing various groups—Slavs, Anglo-Saxons, etc.—with different languages and religions, and that worked perfectly fine.

However, today's version of multiculturalism is fundamentally different. First off, it isn't just cultures clashing; it's races too, which makes integration much harder because people are acutely aware of their specific origins.

When discussing immigration in the UK, you often hear people claim it has always been a multicultural nation, but what really distinguishes the UK of sixty years ago from the multicultural UK of today?

I’d put it this way: if you put sheep, goats, and horses in one enclosure, you’ll have a diverse range of animals that truly enrich your farm. But if you introduce a wolf into that same group, you're going to have a massive problem because they simply cannot coexist, and someone is going to get hurt. Just because multiculturalism worked with certain groups doesn't mean you can shove anyone together and expect it to work with everyone.

Most importantly, true multiculturalism doesn't exist in that framework because something always ends up dominating. People have always felt a need to be where they feel they belong, which is why we see Chinese quarters, Black neighborhoods, white neighborhoods, and so on. They are simply trying to force an idea that has repeatedly failed throughout history—though it has been quite a success for those who benefit from such conflicts to make control and manipulation easier (and now we could start talking about the USA).

By its very nature, any democratic society is inherently multicultural. It’s just how it works—you have individuals making up the fabric of that society, and those people are free to do as they please within the boundaries of the law and the state.

But here’s where things get messy. A real issue crops up when someone living within that multicultural mix actually harbors hatred for the very society and the government that guarantees freedoms for everyone—including themselves. What I mean is, the friction comes from those who soak up all the perks of a free society while simultaneously despising it, along with anyone else who doesn't fit their mold. If they believe their "divine will" dictates that this kind of society needs to be torn down because it clashes with their specific ideology or religion... well, that's a problem.

Basically, you can't build a truly multicultural society if you're dealing with all these undemocratic worldviews. I'm talking about fascism, racism, communism, Islam, and even Christianity.

It's almost like they were all born from the same crazy mother; at the end of the day, they're all siblings. There isn't much of a fundamental difference between them, really. They just wear different packaging or different uniforms, but the goal remains the same: trying to force a dictatorship or total conformity by killing and suppressing others in the name of some god, nation, or race.

But let's be real for a second—the biggest headache facing the world today is Islam. To me, it feels like an aggressive offshoot of Judaism and Christianity that has morphed into this incredibly nasty, dogmatic ideology. Its whole aim, as the doctrine itself states, is to establish an Islamic state governed by Islamic law, viewing everyone else as morally or spiritually inferior until they convert.

Do you generally feel like religions prevent peaceful coexistence? And how much of that is just human laziness—you know, the refusal to actually sit down and learn or read? Personally, I think I could live side-by-side with the most devout Muslim imaginable if he were the type of person who actively seeks knowledge, shares what he learns, and uses his faith to understand himself rather than just preaching at everyone else. We’d just agree to disagree and move on with our lives.

The real issue arises when you have the power to force some idiot to accept your worldview. Honestly, I don't think religion itself is the culprit here—though, then again, maybe the problem lies with me and my own way of thinking. Suggesting we just "abolish or ban religion" is totally irrational. It's like people eating burgers and ice cream and getting overweight—should we just ban burgers and ice cream to end obesity? Through education, you can create a world where people enjoy their burgers but stay fit; it's about balance. Prohibitions aren't constructive in the long run.

For those individuals who claimed my previous example wasn't good enough—well, get ready, because I love coming up with these, and here is another one, arguably even worse than the last;

I built a house and designed the living room exactly how I dreamed it. The entire floor is covered by this plush, ten-inch deep shag carpet that you sink into when you walk—and naturally, there is absolutely no way anyone is walking on it with shoes; slippers only.

I keep guest slippers right at the entrance. Whoever visits takes off their shoes and puts on the slippers. Then, one day, a neighbor stops by and starts heading toward the living room still wearing his outdoor shoes. I tell him, "You can't wear shoes in here, please put on some slippers."

And he says, "I don't believe in the concept of taking off shoes; it's completely foreign to me, I'm not doing it."

Is it "multiculturalism" if I let him stomp all over my expensive carpet with his dirty shoes? Or is it "multiculturalism" if I just lay down a small patch of laminate flooring in my living room specifically for him?

🙂

Raymond Peterson81 said:Do you generally feel like religions prevent peaceful coexistence? And how much of that is just human laziness—you know, the refusal to actually sit down and learn or read? Personally, I think I could live side-by-side with the most devout Muslim imaginable if he were the type of person who actively seeks knowledge, shares what he learns, and uses his faith to understand himself rather than just preaching at everyone else. We’d just agree to disagree and move on with our lives.

The real issue arises when you have the power to force some idiot to accept your worldview. Honestly, I don't think religion itself is the culprit here—though, then again, maybe the problem lies with me and my own way of thinking. Suggesting we just "abolish or ban religion" is totally irrational. It's like people eating burgers and ice cream and getting overweight—should we just ban burgers and ice cream to end obesity? Through education, you can create a world where people enjoy their burgers but stay fit; it's about balance. Prohibitions aren't constructive in the long run.

For those individuals who claimed my previous example wasn't good enough—well, get ready, because I love coming up with these, and here is another one, arguably even worse than the last;

I built a house and designed the living room exactly how I dreamed it. The entire floor is covered by this plush, ten-inch deep shag carpet that you sink into when you walk—and naturally, there is absolutely no way anyone is walking on it with shoes; slippers only.

I keep guest slippers right at the entrance. Whoever visits takes off their shoes and puts on the slippers. Then, one day, a neighbor stops by and starts heading toward the living room still wearing his outdoor shoes. I tell him, "You can't wear shoes in here, please put on some slippers."

And he says, "I don't believe in the concept of taking off shoes; it's completely foreign to me, I'm not doing it."

Is it "multiculturalism" if I let him stomp all over my expensive carpet with his dirty shoes? Or is it "multiculturalism" if I just lay down a small patch of laminate flooring in my living room specifically for him?

🙂

Just because someone's culture dictates they stay shod at all times doesn't mean they won't take their shoes off when visiting you.

But, if that person follows a religious tradition where, for God's sake, it is written that they must remain shod constantly, then yeah, if I were in your shoes, I'd probably kick them out on the spot because they're showing zero respect.

In my house, nobody even takes their shoes off, and I don't have carpets anywhere except the bedroom.
So, I don't really strip down to socks either, mostly because I wouldn't want someone spreading "foot odors" all over my place. I only take my shoes off if the host asks or if my boots are just straight-up covered in mud.😁

Check out this example of "multiculturalism."

Jewish and Muslim communities practice circumcision, and nobody stops them. But if you and I belonged to some religion that required us to tear off a child's ear or pluck out their fingernails as part of a ritual, we'd probably end up in prison or a psych ward, and the state would take our kids away in a heartbeat.

Can you imagine this crap!!🙄

Now, just picture this: we organize a massive event in honor of our god (let's call him Taylor Swift) and collectively pluck children's fingernails, hand out gifts, and then tuck some cash under their pillows!!😁

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."

The real issue is the state they're aiming for—the powers that be (call them the nomenclature, whatever)—which is basically what could happen in the not-so-distant future...

And that is what a multicultural society actually looks like... the way they want it...
1. the rulers
2. the technocracy
3. internal security forces (military and police)
4. the workers

Each of these 4 layers will have its own distinct culture, so yeah, we'll be "multicultural."

They'll crush any sense of belonging to a specific community or culture that the security forces can't control through straight-up repression or every other form of manipulation.

u passing said:White people are always the villains in these stories, unless the killer is a woman. Then suddenly, she can get away with anything.

So, according to you, there aren't even any women in US prisons.

I have to wonder—does everyone actually grasp the nuance here? Can we all truly distinguish between a society and a herd, or a pack, or even just a mindless mob...😬

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."

In the US, you won't find a single mainstream conservative fighting for multiculturalism. Honestly, if a certain leader from a group like the Heritage Foundation were in charge, she’d probably just scatter them all out into the rural Midwest; she doesn't really care about these newcomers unless they're messing with her own interests or heading toward Canada.

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."

That's the idea, I guess.

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."

That is just how things work in practice, I suppose.

It feels as though that society lacks a cohesive identity, and in even more extreme cases, I suppose they lack any real sense of character altogether.

I think this interesting video titled anti-racist Hitler actually gives the real answer to the whole multiculturalism question. Go ahead and check it out, I'm not trying to push any fascist propaganda here.

feralcrane5 said:In the US, you won't find a single mainstream conservative fighting for multiculturalism. Honestly, if a certain leader from a group like the Heritage Foundation were in charge, she’d probably just scatter them all out into the rural Midwest; she doesn't really care about these newcomers unless they're messing with her own interests or heading toward Canada.

That's the idea, I guess.

That is just how things work in practice, I suppose.

So, I guess this forced experiment in unnatural multiculturalism is nothing short of a success. :👍