It's something that should be avoided but sometimes it is a necessary procedure for various reasons.
Avoided why?
The argument you're making with the black population doesn't work. Because you're conflating two seperate issues. Ethnic diversity is bad and needs to be fixed and you're not going to fix that problem with abortions.
Sure, but now you've moved into another gray area -- you say common sense is pattern recognition, and pattern recognition would dictate that ethnic diversity is bad, but how do you permanently prevent people from becoming diverse? Outlaw it like the Jim Crow era?
What about the passport bros with yellow fever? Ban them from marrying outside of their ethnic nationality?
Because it causes physical and psychological harm.
but how do you permanently prevent people from becoming diverse?
You don't have to. Modern day 'diversity' did not occur naturally. Let me remind you that desegregation happened at gunpoint. Flooding white countries with non-white immigrants and propagating race mixing is also being done deliberately by hostile actors.
Diversity is enforced by government at gunpoint. So I don't see how this is a grey area.
Because it causes physical and psychological harm.
So what makes it necessary to not outright outlaw if it generally causes physical or psychological harm?
Diversity is enforced by government at gunpoint. So I don't see how this is a grey area.
Absolutely... except that doesn't address the passport bro situation. It should be outlawed according to those standards, yes?
Also, we look at situations like China and Japan -- they're the same ethnicity but are culturally very different. Chinese have shown that they typically cannot integrate well into Japanese culture, whereas Japanese can integrate into Chinese culture, but oftentimes are despised due to historical conflicts. It's why some regions in Japan bar Chinese nationals from visiting their shops/places, etc.
This leads back to the question of laws related to segregation -- even if people are of the same ethnicity, cultural differences can lead to disruption. So do you also outlaw disruptive cultures based on pattern recognition even when dealing with the same ethnicity?
So what makes it necessary to not outright outlaw if it generally causes physical or psychological harm?
Except for certain situations it definitely shouldn't be allowed.
Absolutely... except that doesn't address the passport bro situation. It should be outlawed according to those standards, yes?
No. It should if you want complete racial purity but otherwise it's a non-issue. Being against 'diversity' doesn't mean you're against race mixing.
they're the same ethnicity
When's the last time you looked at a Chinese and Japanese side by side? That's like saying Finnish and Germans are the same ethnicity. Or Russians and French.
So do you also outlaw disruptive cultures based on pattern recognition even when dealing with the same ethnicity?
You can disallow immigration from any part of the world you deem disruptive to your nations health. Not sure what the problem is supposed to be.
You can disallow immigration from any part of the world you deem disruptive to your nations health. Not sure what the problem is supposed to be.
Immigration isn't the issue, culture is.
Even if you have an all-white nation, what happens when your women start travelling abroad and learning tantric yoga or feminism from "socially progressive" nations?
You can easily make the argument that common sense dictates that feminism is a net-negative to the growth of any society based on modern day pattern recognition. Do you outlaw it?
The other problem arises because while the average non-effeminate male will note that feminism is a net negative, the average woman believes it's common sense -- based on their own pattern recognition -- that feminism that enables equal rights is a good thing.
That goes back to my original point about "common sense" being variable to the culture and time. Because equal rights is not a good thing based on recent trends and the pattern recognition of those trends; so who gets the final say in that matter?
Avoided why?
Sure, but now you've moved into another gray area -- you say common sense is pattern recognition, and pattern recognition would dictate that ethnic diversity is bad, but how do you permanently prevent people from becoming diverse? Outlaw it like the Jim Crow era?
What about the passport bros with yellow fever? Ban them from marrying outside of their ethnic nationality?
Because it causes physical and psychological harm.
You don't have to. Modern day 'diversity' did not occur naturally. Let me remind you that desegregation happened at gunpoint. Flooding white countries with non-white immigrants and propagating race mixing is also being done deliberately by hostile actors.
Diversity is enforced by government at gunpoint. So I don't see how this is a grey area.
So what makes it necessary to not outright outlaw if it generally causes physical or psychological harm?
Absolutely... except that doesn't address the passport bro situation. It should be outlawed according to those standards, yes?
Also, we look at situations like China and Japan -- they're the same ethnicity but are culturally very different. Chinese have shown that they typically cannot integrate well into Japanese culture, whereas Japanese can integrate into Chinese culture, but oftentimes are despised due to historical conflicts. It's why some regions in Japan bar Chinese nationals from visiting their shops/places, etc.
This leads back to the question of laws related to segregation -- even if people are of the same ethnicity, cultural differences can lead to disruption. So do you also outlaw disruptive cultures based on pattern recognition even when dealing with the same ethnicity?
Except for certain situations it definitely shouldn't be allowed.
No. It should if you want complete racial purity but otherwise it's a non-issue. Being against 'diversity' doesn't mean you're against race mixing.
When's the last time you looked at a Chinese and Japanese side by side? That's like saying Finnish and Germans are the same ethnicity. Or Russians and French.
You can disallow immigration from any part of the world you deem disruptive to your nations health. Not sure what the problem is supposed to be.
Immigration isn't the issue, culture is.
Even if you have an all-white nation, what happens when your women start travelling abroad and learning tantric yoga or feminism from "socially progressive" nations?
You can easily make the argument that common sense dictates that feminism is a net-negative to the growth of any society based on modern day pattern recognition. Do you outlaw it?
The other problem arises because while the average non-effeminate male will note that feminism is a net negative, the average woman believes it's common sense -- based on their own pattern recognition -- that feminism that enables equal rights is a good thing.
That goes back to my original point about "common sense" being variable to the culture and time. Because equal rights is not a good thing based on recent trends and the pattern recognition of those trends; so who gets the final say in that matter?