Peter Thiel wrote a book called The Diversity Myth where he said that race mixing would destroy white culture.
Here's a list of more of his extreme views: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-21/the-strang...
Here's a list of more of his extreme views: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-21/the-strang...
This is a lie, and it's exactly the kind of lie that Thiel is trying to call out as insufferable oppression on campus and in intellectual discussion.
Having lived in very 'multicultural' places, and fairly homogeneous places, it's clear to me that there are both advantages and disadvantages to each - and to quash all discussion in one direction is totalitarian and oppressive.
Japan is the most orderly and civilized place on planet earth and it has a lot to do with the homogenous nature of their culture. Nordic countries, though they are 'intellectually liberal' - are culturally extremely conservative and traditional and 'homogenous' in culture and thinking, and this is one of the key ingredients to their social successes, and why simple socialist policies will not reproduce what they have. Sweden has a very popular Monarchy, and official religion (Christianity), a state Church into which 1% of tax revenues goes. Of course they are not very religious at all, but can you imagine a 'state religion' in America? And 1% of taxes going to it? That would be considered 'extreme, extreme right wing' - and yet it is a very real fact in Sweden. It's one piece of the 'underlying base social fabric' there.
I'm not arguing for or against multiculturalism, other than to say there are many drawbacks of multiculturalism, and that in North America especially there is a vicious oppression of ideas and debate in this area, fostered by comments such as the one you made. The issue obviously can be commandeered by populists racists (which is scary), but it never gets that far because someone yells 'racist' and shuts down all intelligent thinking.
I grew up in very Multicultural Toronto and thought it was superior. After living around the world I now live in a very 'Quebecois' part of Montreal that is nearly homogenous - and though I'm definitely a 'minority' and not part of that culture, I like it much better. People here are happy, civil, and there is a sense of community that absolutely does not exist in Toronto or Vancouver (or San Francisco, for that matter).
So enough with the knee-jerk reactionary hyperbole, try to allow for a little more nuance in issues like this.
1. Peter Thiel indeed wrote a book called 'the Diversity Myth' and
2. that book claims that multiculturalism exists to destroy white culture
If you're going to argue that the above claim is a "lie", you are obliged to show where that lie is.
Your only plausible avenue (as I can see it) is to somehow object that 'multiculturalism' is not essentially the same thing as meant by the term 'race-mixing', but your response here only convinces me that you agree that in this context the two terms mean effectively the same thing .
> If you're going to argue that the above claim is a "lie", you are obliged to show where that lie is.
If you're going to claim that Thiel's book states that multiculturalism exists to destroy white culture, then aren't you obliged by your own logic to show proof of your claim?
I don't have a horse in this race, but it's irritating to see you make a claim and then say that any contradictor is required to show proof when you haven't actually done so yourself.
My point was, edblarey objecting "that is a lie!" and then decrying that multiculturalism is bad is nonsensical.
Is the lie that Thiel wrote the book? Its existence is a matter of public record. Does he instead mean that it is a lie that the book makes the claim that "multiculturalism exists to destroy western culture"? Did Bloomberg fabricate the quote? Or does the quote exist but when considered in context mean something different than Bloomberg claims?
All of these are certainly possibilities, but we can't hope to divine which one edblarney means because he spent his comment defending the multiculturalism-is-bad angle (irrelevant to whether Thiel made the claim in question) rather than point out how Thiels claim either does not exist, or does exist but has a different meaning in context.
[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-21/the-strang...
https://www.amazon.com/Diversity-Myth-David-Sacks/dp/0945999...
The book is not arguing against multiculturalism or diversity but rather it is arguing that multiculturalism and diversity are being used as an excuse to stifle free speech and silence dissenting opinions in institutions of higher learning. You are misrepresenting what the book is about.
Any quotes or anything to substantiate this claim?
It's entirely possible to be 'offended' by the total destruction of one's culture and not so much by any inherent 'race mixing' that may be the result of that.
But yes - multiculturalism will definitely 'destroy' any culture wherein it is implemented - white/black/red or brown. That's a simple fact.
'Diversity' in the world is destroyed with multiculturalism. You get a 'rainbow of skin colours and last names' - sure - but you get a narrowing of culture and ideals. You get the lowest common denominator - not 'multiple viewpoints'.
You don't get 'more ideas' - you get 'officially sanctioned ideals'.
'Cultures' need 'critical mass' to exist, and they cannot be defined by GDP or social policy. Once there are too many cultures, or culturally secular ideals - the 'local culture' is completely abolished.
When you have 'diversity' in a locale - you break down cultural bonds - and replace them with material products - like Starbucks and McDonald's - and culturally secular values.
Example: I was in Tunisia recently, I drank a 'Tunisian tea' (what I called it). It was dirt cheap. The Coca-Cola was 2x more expensive. Paradox: selling 'coca cola' is essentially better for the GDP - 2x more dollars changing hands. Culturally secular politicians and economists will see this 'GDP growth' and push hard on it across all consumer and business sectors. New shopping malls with H&M, Zara, Starbucks, Monoprix, Carrefour etc. etc. - are literally up-ending all of the unique culture of some parts of that country.
After a while, 'Tunis', 'Toronto' and 'Singapore' will be the same place: same secular laws, same products, same services, same clothes, possibly speaking English, working in cubicles, driving the same cars back and forth.
All unique cultural artifacts - and there are many of them - abolished.
Tunisia is a very strange place to me - and that's what makes it great. I'm not looking forward to going back in 25 years when it's all been wiped out by globalism.
'Multiculturalism' is really just a very short transition period between 'culture' (i.e. diversity in the world) and 'globalized, culturally secular nation states'.
America (and Canada) are obviously special places where multicultural identity means something different than say Germany or Tunisia, nevertheless, the conversation should be allowed to had.
We already have a great deal of 'diversity' on planet earth, just get on an airplane! Most attempts to create 'more diversity' in a specific local (usually with the benign objective of wanting people to 'get along better') , actually reduces the 'net diversity' of the world, ironically.
The Church of Sweden is since 2000 no longer a state church. That said, it's been possible to opt-out since 1868, and since 1996 membership is opt-in (upon baptizing) and not inherited based on the membership of the parents. Slightly less than two thirds of the population are still members, and it is losing members far faster than simple attrition would have it (about one percentage point per year).
If you are a member of the Church of Sweden (or any other registered religion), the state will help collect membership taxes for it, but that should be taken more as a measure of Nordic efficiency than as a tacit endorsement of any particular belief.
I take it as neither.
I take it that the 'Church' is a cultural epitaph, not even so much a religious one.
It doesn't matter 'what one believes'. It matters a little bit that colocated people share some common faith, and the rituals, prayers, holidays, sense of spirit, goodwill - are synchronous in some way.
When those are torn apart - and there is no 'common culture' - some of which is based on 'religion' - then there literally is no ethnicity, and arguably no nation.
You mention 'Nordic efficiency'. It's true, Nordic countries are somewhat 'efficient'.
But will Sweden be a 'Nordic' country when it's 20% ethnically Swedish, 10% German, 8% American, 5% Norwgian, 5% Somali, 5% Russian etc. etc.?
What will make Sweden any different from Norway, which has almost the same ethnic composition, the same rules?
The only difference between Norway and Sweden in 100 years might be the colour of your flags. English will be the dominant language, and ethnically, everyone will be 'from somewhere else'.
Anyhow - thanks for your correction, but I don't think it changes the nature of my point.
Multiculturalism has consequences, and it should be a choice, not something that is foisted upon people as a moral position.
You also conveniently cut out the point that the state will collect membership taxes for the Church of Sweden, just as happily as it will for the local catholic branch or one of two registered islamic congregations.
I'm not sure what the rest of your post has to do with mine.
It's certainly the safest. #2 is Singapore, which also happens to be one of the most multi-cultural places on planet earth.
When someone composes an appeal to the tranquil monoculturalism of Japan, the thing they should be immediately confronted with is the fierce racism that makes up the core of that culture. Cultures change; Japan's inevitably will get to where ours is today (hopefully we'll keep making it hard for them to completely catch up).
I'd politely double down on encouraging you to not attempt to win this argument by saying "Japan actually is a monoculture and that culture's core is racism." People will believe you. This is materially less true than the not-a-monoculture argument and, separate from the truth of it, it is internally and externally a dangerous thing to have be believed.
Can you give me a single sentence that you think is closer to the truth, without examples or citations to books?
Would the sentence "Japan is way way more racist than America" work? If not, I'm going to express further surprise, because that is a sentence you have used before.
>> Would the sentence "Japan is way way more racist than America" work? If not, I'm going to express further surprise, because that is a sentence you have used before.
Is this a quote or a paraphrase? I'd be mildly surprised if I said those exact words and did not do an immediate verbal retraction. I have recollection of writing e.g. "[I]s racism a bigger problem in Japan than e.g. in the United States? Yes."
Consider it from the perspective of a government bureaucrat who has the brief Protect Japan From Threats. In the formulation "Japan is a fiercely racist society", and his goal is to protect Japan from threats, anyone opposing racism is a threat. In the formulation "Racism is a big problem in Japan", his goal can plausibly be "Reduce racism in Japan", much like it could be "Reduce poverty in Japan" or "Reduce unemployment in Japan." I like making/keeping space available for people to embrace that second interpretation.
I take your meaning about being careful not to lock in an unsatisfactory status quo with rhetoric. I think you know that's not what I'm trying to do.
Here, the connection between the comment I was replying to and my summary about Japanese society is particularly powerful. That commenter is selecting an attribute of Japanese society for praise that you and I know is deeply problematic. I know you agree with me: importing the cultural attribute that commenter is referring to would be a tragedy.
I know you're not trying to lock in the status quo. If I had a guess, you're trying to win a message board debate? Which is something I'm sort of onboard with. So, just as a tactical discussion between two message board debaters who are approximately on the same side here, you've got tactical option #1 "Grant the untrue premise of an argument which you believe is damaging and then attempt to litigate an implication of it in a fashion which, if your opponent was savvier, he'd be saying feeds the Thiel narrative and which, independently of message board debates, is a net negative thing to have believed in the world" or tactical option #2 "Counter the untrue premise by destroying it in detail with actual facts; score lots of easy Internet debate points with specificity and style."
Since you're retracting your Wells Street comment, could you add some additional value and maybe explain to people not privy to our conversations why I might believe that Japan is far more racist than the US?
Which of those two predictions are correct?
> I do know that japan's last "miss japan" was biracial
Yes, and America doesn't have any race issues since the current president is biracial.
I believe Trump to be deeply racist, and I recognize a fiercely racist strain of his followers. But those people also make great television. I think Trump's followers are willing to abide racism, because the alternative is a status quo that promises hopelessness for their children. I don't condone racism and I think the mainstream middle-aged Trump base will eventually be ashamed to tell their grandchildren they supported Trump --- but that's because they have a moral core that does not accept racism.
I do not believe you can make the same generalization about Japanese society --- or about many other societies in the world! It's a sign of the health of our culture that we so openly confront our racism.