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?
Culture is only an issue if it immigrates to your nation. And even if you let people with a culture you deem compatible immigrate en masse you'll still threaten the stability of your own nation.
Immigration IS the issue.
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?
Why would they in a healthy, homogeneous society where people can actually take pride in their own community? Feminism is being actively pushed on us. We're indoctrinated from childhood on. A healthy nation can easily defend itself against it.
Why would they in a healthy, homogeneous society where people can actually take pride in their own community?
It's happened in Finland, which is a proud homogeneous country, same with Norway, and even Greenland.
It's also unfortunately taking some roots in China, which actually has taken steps to prevent it from establishing footholds in social institutions.
Which goes back to the previous question: if you want a healthy and productive country (long term) do you outlaw feminism? And how do you reconcile that nearly (or above) half of all women either agree with or believe in feminist tenets, thus adopting that feminist rights feel like common sense to them?
It's happened in Finland, which is a proud homogeneous country, same with Norway, and even Greenland.
And all of their governments were infiltrated by hostile actors. In other words these changes did not happen organically.
Which goes back to the previous question: if you want a healthy and productive country (long term) do you outlaw feminism?
For me to answer that question you'd have to define feminism first.
And how do you reconcile that nearly (or above) half of all women either agree with or believe in feminist tenets, thus adopting that feminist rights feel like common sense to them?
Women are extremely susceptible to societal/peer pressure and media propaganda. Far more so than men. They follow whatever trend they feel is mainstream.
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?
Culture is only an issue if it immigrates to your nation. And even if you let people with a culture you deem compatible immigrate en masse you'll still threaten the stability of your own nation.
Immigration IS the issue.
Why would they in a healthy, homogeneous society where people can actually take pride in their own community? Feminism is being actively pushed on us. We're indoctrinated from childhood on. A healthy nation can easily defend itself against it.
He who has the power and will to do so.
It's happened in Finland, which is a proud homogeneous country, same with Norway, and even Greenland.
It's also unfortunately taking some roots in China, which actually has taken steps to prevent it from establishing footholds in social institutions.
Which goes back to the previous question: if you want a healthy and productive country (long term) do you outlaw feminism? And how do you reconcile that nearly (or above) half of all women either agree with or believe in feminist tenets, thus adopting that feminist rights feel like common sense to them?
And all of their governments were infiltrated by hostile actors. In other words these changes did not happen organically.
For me to answer that question you'd have to define feminism first.
Women are extremely susceptible to societal/peer pressure and media propaganda. Far more so than men. They follow whatever trend they feel is mainstream.