What good comes from diversity?

What good comes from diversity?

Other urls found in this thread:

journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0095660
bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Putnam#Diversity_and_trust_within_communities
tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2015.1130785
fredoneverything.net/Diversity2.shtml
youtube.com/watch?v=4o4KeIJE7JU&t=178s
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>muh spicy foreign food

If you are talking about diversity of origin in a common area (and you are) : Lower communautarian violence as long as the minority groups don't grow too much.

studies show that proximity to niggers encourages racism, so that's a plus

200 years ago? Trade.
Today? Hatred.

I don't like shooting at my fellow white folks

Ariana Grande explodes.

Liberals killed in terror attacks and minorities killed in gang violence.

virtue signaling highground

There is none user we have been bamboozled by the kikes.

journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0095660

“Our analysis shows that peace does not depend on integrated coexistence, but rather on well defined topographical and political boundaries separating groups, allowing for partial autonomy within a single country. “

bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.abstract?etoc

“For every ten percentage point reduction in own-group density, the relative odds of reporting psychotic experiences increased 1.07 times (95% CI 1.01–1.14, P = 0.03 (trend)) for the total minority ethnic sample. In general, people living in areas of lower own-group density experienced greater social adversity that was in turn associated with reporting psychotic experiences.”

“His conclusion based on over 40 cases and 30,000 people within the United States is that, other things being equal, more diversity in a community is associated with less trust both between and within ethnic groups.”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Putnam#Diversity_and_trust_within_communities

“We show that ethnic diversity or fractionalization and values diversity are distinct and while the former has a negative effect on innovation, the latter contributes positively. However, countries are bound to have both types of diversity. We find that countries that are ethnically homogenous but diverse in values orientation are the best innovators.”

tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13504851.2015.1130785

Alienation, increased violence, isolation, destruction of community and loss of intermediate institutions, reduced civic participation and isolation from the aggregate social structure, psychosis, reduction of innovation. Humans are fundamentally a communal, not an individualist species and diversity destroys connection and solidarity. It's a communal pollutant.

More VAT returns.

>BUT MUH FOOD
>BUT MUH HIJABS

The people who encourage it are also most likely to be killed by it

This.

>Implicit Association Test
It's shit.
Seriously, even the people who came up with it have taken their distances due to its inaccuracy and uselessness to mesure anything other than speed of cognitive response.
>doesn't stop american and canadian universities using it to tell their (white) students they are actually racist though

food and that is all

basically nothing. Diversity is just a way to erode national unity and pride in our group so the elite can institure a global fascist capitalist government that rules over all of us and sees us only as workers until they automate everything and kill us all off. it'll be like elysium but worse.

Awesome happenings like today. 10/10 entertaiment.

there is nothing wrong with diversity.

but A diversity of IQ is a bad idea. Everyone should be smart.

Cheap labor for the (((elites))).

So having a small Jewish community like in medieval times makes goys kill each other less?
Or what do you mean?

Nothing.

lol

.

If you ask this the actual response is "ethnic restaurants", followed immediately by suggestions that you are a racist for questioning Diversity.

EXPLOSIONS

I mean acceptence of diversity leads to less adversity from the majority towards the minorities (and otherwise) as well as possibly lower tensions between minority groups themselves.
It does however fall apart if some groups within the host society grow too large relative to the majority and shift the balance OR if some violence remains between subgroups due to conflits based on origin.

>What good comes from diversity?

Proof in the form of explosions that (((their))) agenda is literal death.

>What good comes from diversity?
distrust, creative offense-taking, virtue signaling, grievance mongering, and feel-goodism for lazy people

fredoneverything.net/Diversity2.shtml

TPBP

So the benefits of diversity are that if the majority really, really likes diversity, they might be less violent toward the minorities?
>wow it's fucking nothing
How is this good for anybody but the minority population?

You get more like Brazil, diversity is a delicia.

Dead leftists as tonight's events have proven

War.

Cultural enrichment. Just look at Manchester for an example.

It was pretty good for trade at points, like in some areas of the Roman Empire, south-eastern Asia, the larger cities of the Silk Road and for a brief moment in major cities of the Levant (until it fell back into sectarian infighting because shias gonna shia and sunnis gonna sunni) because it made the establishment of foreign communities possible within towns and these would then attract trade from their place of origin.
As for more modern cases, I'd say the least violent a place is, the better. Less damage on public property, less police involvment, less unrest among the population, less possible retaliation from attacked minorities.

Lots of really awesome happenings that never affect me because I'm not a normie.

>they didn't get Ariana
Sad!

But the Appalachians are supposedly so much less violent than people in the more diverse areas. At what point does the scale tip and lead to low trust and shittiness?

people on the right revile the IAT because of the implications it has for being proclaimed a racist.

People on hte left distance themselves from it because it demonstrates the obvious fact that humans an inherently hostile to racial outgroups and multiculturalism probably will never work.

Harvard opened up a Pandora's Box with this one and now everybody wants to seal it. Tell me precisely how do you accurately measure racism anyway, do you depend on honesty of those surveyed to report their racism?

Need i remind you of the Bradley effect or preference falsification?

>At what point does the scale tip and lead to low trust and shittiness?
Could be for a lot of different reasons depending on the communities themselves, local circumstances, etc
>hostility among communities due to origin-based conflicts (see the small-scale recreation of the indo-pakistanese conflict in the UK)
>principle-based non integration (could be said of literalist muslims, orthodox jews, chinese traditionalists...)
>economic morosity creating unsatisfaction among populations that will create some blame narratives among the groups (from majority ro minority and otherwise ; pretty much what has been happening in France with the algerians since the 80s)
>manipulation of a minority by a foreign source (might become a huge problem with the turks of Germany and the Netherlands)

>less possible retaliation from attacked minorities.
Lmao they will kill you anyway, we're tlking about muslims those guys kill people that didn't did anything literally everyday simply because they're not muslims.

That's the thing though, we are dealing with a group that based on religious principles cannot integrate into any other society. That does not say anything about multicultiral/multicommunitarian societies, only about muslims.

creating division in white civilizations and destroying them

None of this seems to point away from the superiority of monogamous communities like the aforementioned Appalachians, or really most of rural Europe and USA, and perhaps even urban centers in places like Finland

virtue signalling currency

This is not a matter of "superiority" or "inferiority".
In the current state of population movement and global mobility, we cannot avoid having at least a small quantity of foreigners in any nation. You cannot have continental let alone intercontinental trade without local implantation of foreigners. Multiculturalism did not appear as a principle, it appeared out of necessity because faster movement and thus "reduction of distances" made these implantations not only possible but also necessary in order to gain access to ressources of all sorts that cannot be gained by a host nation.
There is a good reason why the most homogenous places demographically speaking are the least prosperous ones : they remain homogenous due to their distance from trade routes and exchange and thus remain isolated unless they have something to offer.

Nothing because it doesn't work. People just segregate themselves when forced into it.

microaggressions

confusion

uncertainty

Nothing good comes out of it, isn't that kind of obvious by now?

>THINK OF ALL THE NEW RESTAUR-

youtube.com/watch?v=4o4KeIJE7JU&t=178s

You get awesome netflix shows like dear white people

bombings in europe

döner

she is product of European diversity, not global diversity

>What good comes from diversity?

>You cannot have continental let alone intercontinental trade without local implantation of foreigners.
why not?

10th crusade

>we cannot avoid having at least a small quantity of foreigners in any nation.

A small quantity of foreigners in a metropolis filled with commerce, politics, and tourism is one thing.

Ethnic enclaves filled with incompatible peoples is a completely different thing.

You misunderstand what multiculturalism mean. It first was implemented to contain Quebec. Foreigners can be implanted in a different way.

This

>Ethnic enclaves filled with incompatible peoples is a completely different thing.
My point precisely.
The current failing of multiculturalism (which really is caused by unnecessary high capson visa and religious communities that refuse integrations plus the deep misunderstanding of the point of multiculturalism by an elite that lost touch with its people) does not undermine the concept itself.

population control

Think about a tool box full of copies of the exact same tool.
Exactly

The core idea of liberal multiculturalism rests on the idea of western enlightenment, which is that despite differences among groups and individuals, there are some human universals that can be found everywhere. Thus the individual is a meeting point of caracteristics that can come from both a cultural context, as well as personnal growth and experience, the culture is internalized and becomes a defining factor of the individual. Culturally, this means that cultures themselves are created by highlightling or restraining some elements, meaning various cultures will have more or less in common based on their inherent caracteristics, btu there can always be a deeper commun elements, although it might be faint in some cases.
Thus the role of the state when it comes to multiculturalism is to provite a context for lawful coexistance of the cultures among a dominant national host. This is not only true for national cultures.
The problems mainly came from the idea of the national melting pot that requires the abandonment of elements of one's identity, namely the abandonment of one's national culture. The other source of the problem is the idea of the radical left that culture is fully relative and can be disregarded for the sake of class struggle, which has time and time again proven to be false.

Oh, okay, I get it. You're not saying "multiple peoples in the same spot is just inherently good" you're saying "it's necessary for capitalism, and so we should find the best way to make it work", and that is your proposed small groups of foreigners as opposed to very big groups.

Noice OC

Even worse, they use racial struggles to advance class struggles, which imo only hinders class struggle, as the race which is targeted for being dominant starts to see capitalism as a part of their own identity which is under attack, which is counter-productive af!

Pretty much yes.
Unless you want to revert to isolated states (and honestly, there is a case to be made for smaller comunities, but that's another question for another day) it will not be possible to insure complete homogeneity. that would require cutting traffic from and to the state, reaching full self-sustainance and I really don't think this is remotely possible in our current modern world. Industrial activity requires a variety of ressources, hence the need for exchanges from outside of the state.
But what we are currently seeing is the limit of welcoming outside populations at all cost, to the point of opening the gates to a hostile element. I'd say this was caused by the sort of "high" western european countries were in after the massive growth of the 60s and to some extent the 70s, that lead to believe the strong state could welcome any number of people of any origin, it somewhat died down in the two following decades, and it has started seriously dysfunctionning in the 2000s.
the whole undermining of the national host is something else, but holy shit is it retarded. I'm not even going to try and make sense out of it.

A cheaper workforce with lower personal aspirations

Cultural Enrichment

Are ugly people a positive? Is dying at a concert fun times? Hmmm I'm trying hard here.

Has anyone heard of a recipe book????

>What good comes from diversity?

Explosions!

HOW GOODS THE FOOD

GOOGLE THE RECiPE REEEEEEE

Ask Manchester.

food and the only good foreign food is Indian and Asian which usually don't involve a specific religion

nothing good comes from inbreeding