The Great Replacement Isn't Real - General

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;52453543]Yeah, the majority does own the country. We have this whole thing called "democracy", and one of its fundamental flaws that the group with the most votes has more influence. That's why "majority" and "minority" are political terms to begin with[/QUOTE] oh now i get it, people are scared of immigration because of all the left wing voters coming over from africa it's practically a conservative genocide

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;52453619] It's obviously not happening, and Europeans are not becoming a minority. However, how can you disagree that it would be a problem if they actually were?[/QUOTE] Why

[QUOTE=DiscoInferno;52453007]"Bad quality" whites[/QUOTE] Those dirty octoroons.

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;52453619]I'm not the best at debating, obviously, I have to work with what I've got It's obviously not happening, and Europeans are not becoming a minority. However, how can you disagree that it would be a problem if they actually were?[/QUOTE] For a citizen of a democratic western society, that is owning property and voting in elections, what should matter for qualifying you to do those things is that you follow the law and pay your taxes. That's it. If someone from Africa comes to the country and gets citizenship, learning the local language and law, they can settle there and have a family, at that point they are no more or less important than any other normal person with an everyday job, property and inclination to vote in elections. From that point on their newly born children will be natural born citizens of that country. Every argument you could make that "white europeans" as a demographic have an inalienable permanent right to dominate their state is irrational. You might say "europeans" instead but lets get real, that makes any attempt to justify any argument like that below even more wishy-washy and ambiguous 1) Skin colour - nonsense for obvious reasons 2) Ancestral history - irrational to begin with, even more so when taking into account that second generation migrants become natural born citizens, and that virtually every family has an ancestor that migrated from another region, (i.e during the great migration of the 5th century) this does not matter either 3) Culture - culture is not static, it constantly evolves. Culture is not exclusive to one demographic either. You could take a snapshot of culture in most decades of the same country in the 20th century and it would be alien to modern culture. In so far as fears of invading "inferior" culture, the most important social customs and tenets are already enshrined and protected by law.

[QUOTE=Naught;52452338]I wonder who will be next?[/QUOTE] We'd literally return to Europe pre-WW1.

[QUOTE=Spacewizard;52453288]What's wrong with being a minority?[/QUOTE] losing control over your ancestral homeland, culture, language, etc the natives of the americas are very much sidelined as a result of european colonisation for instance, and must exist within the confines of a society changed/created by the majority [QUOTE=Killuah;52453416]Since when do majorities "own" a country? What about the people who already ARE a minority in their "own" country? Are you aware of the attrocious implications of your way of thinking?[/QUOTE] since forever? and give minorities their own places to rule, not that hard to do [QUOTE=MrJazzy;52453504]Hold up, so much wrong with this post. First of, what's wrong with being a minority? Second of all, is the country the property of whatever "majority" there is or what do you even mean, does a country belong less to a person who is part of a minority than to a person who is part of the majority? Third of all why does any of this matter when we're working toward making society equal for everyone regardless of race or whatever?[/QUOTE] becoming a minority means the loss of power and control (something important if you are in a land you consider your own). ownership of a country by a nation or community supersedes property of the private individual. why not instead of making a society of mixed peoples in large states with no shared common culture nor heritage, give those peoples the power to live as they want in their lands instead of forcefully integrating them into a society that causes them to lose some of what makes them a particular ethnicity in the process?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52454886]losing control over your ancestral homeland, culture, language, etc the natives of the americas are very much sidelined as a result of european colonisation for instance, and must exist within the confines of a society changed/created by the majority since forever? and give minorities their own places to rule, not that hard to do becoming a minority means the loss of power and control (something important if you are in a land you consider your own). ownership of a country by a nation or community supersedes property of the private individual. why not instead of making a society of mixed peoples in large states with no shared common culture nor heritage, give those peoples the power to live as they want in their lands instead of forcefully integrating them into a society that causes them to lose some of what makes them a particular ethnicity in the process?[/QUOTE] Good Christ, there is so much to unpack here. Are you really going to roll out the "Send the blacks back to africa" type argument?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52454886]losing control over your ancestral homeland, culture, language, etc the natives of the americas are very much sidelined as a result of european colonisation for instance, and must exist within the confines of a society changed/created by the majority since forever? and give minorities their own places to rule, not that hard to do becoming a minority means the loss of power and control (something important if you are in a land you consider your own). ownership of a country by a nation or community supersedes property of the private individual. why not instead of making a society of mixed peoples in large states with no shared common culture nor heritage, give those peoples the power to live as they want in their lands instead of forcefully integrating them into a society that causes them to lose some of what makes them a particular ethnicity in the process?[/QUOTE] Or you could not view ethnicity and culture as exclusive traits and recognize that the merging of various isolated cultures and ethnicities and societies leads to the development of new, interesting ideas, beliefs, cultures, and peoples, and that has always happened throughout all of human history. Let's take China, which I'm most familiar with. The Han Chinese, specifically. They can supposedly trace their cultural and societal lineage back thousands of years. But, in reality, they can't. At all. Hundreds of years of that dynastic cultural heritage was open warfare between competing groups. Hundreds more were rule via conquering ethnic groups (Mongols and Manchus). The idea of what was "Han" and what was "Chinese" has drastically changed over the centuries due to imperialism, both coming from the Han and being imposed upon them. The concept of the "Han" nowadays isn't remotely similar from what it was only a century ago, and a century before that it was even more different. Viewing ethnicities and cultures as bubbles with defined borders is just a side effect of humans trying to explain our unbelievably complex history with each other. Like mentioned before, why is Obama "black" when he's half white and half black? Why do we define it that way? Because of some need for exclusive definitions of what is and isn't an ethnicity. Cultures aren't bubbles, and they never have been, and they never will be. Cultural crossover has always existed. China has a long history of Christian influence, with the largest Chinese revolt in history being sourced by a guy who literally claimed to be Jesus's brother. True Chinese would be Confucius and Legalism, no Buddhism whatsoever, no Christianity whatsoever, no Neo-Confucianism, nothing but exactly as it was, frozen in time, since the idea of the Han was created. Stop putting things in bubbles like this, that's not how the world works.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52454886]why not instead of making a society of mixed peoples in large states with no shared common culture nor heritage, give those peoples the power to live as they want in their lands instead of forcefully integrating them into a society that causes them to lose some of what makes them a particular ethnicity in the process?[/QUOTE] But there will [I]always[/I] be minorities, regardless of your ideological point of view. Minorities are a vital aspect of western democratic societies.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52454886]losing control over your ancestral homeland, culture, language, etc the natives of the americas are very much sidelined as a result of european colonisation for instance, and must exist within the confines of a society changed/created by the majority since forever? and give minorities their own places to rule, not that hard to do becoming a minority means the loss of power and control (something important if you are in a land you consider your own). ownership of a country by a nation or community supersedes property of the private individual. why not instead of making a society of mixed peoples in large states with no shared common culture nor heritage, give those peoples the power to live as they want in their lands instead of forcefully integrating them into a society that causes them to lose some of what makes them a particular ethnicity in the process?[/QUOTE] First up, please stop comparing the European colonisation of the Americas to modern migration patterns. The colonisation of the Americas involved the settlement of Europeans without permission or regard for the wishes of the natives, the sort of action that would be illegal under international law in 2017. The natives did not initially have to follow colonial law or customs so long as their tribes stuck to their territories. When the colonial Europeans became powerful enough, they imposed on the natives their laws, then used violence and intimidation to expand their territory into native homelands and forcefully remove and relocate the native populace. This is very little like a foreign demographic from a different continent migrating legally to a country in Europe and going through the legal process to acquire local citizenship and live in that country in accordance with its laws and customs. Second of all, nations and communities do not own a "country". Nations and communities are abstract, loosely defined concepts and are inherently irrational. How do you differentiate between say, a second generation migrant and someone with many generations of ancestors on the same landmass being in the same "nation" or not? One of my best friends is a second generation Indian migrant who goes out of his way to stylise himself as British, in what he wears, the movies he watches, the paraphernalia he collects (i.e pictures of classic British cars, vintage Bond movie posters), even the way he speaks. What isn't an abstract concept is the idea that you have citizenship, pay your taxes, and follow the law. These things permit you to be involved in the state.

[QUOTE=.Isak.;52454958]Or you could not view ethnicity and culture as exclusive traits and recognize that the merging of various isolated cultures and ethnicities and societies leads to the development of new, interesting ideas, beliefs, cultures, and peoples, and that has always happened throughout all of human history.[/QUOTE] there's a difference between that and forced/rapid wholesale replacement you mention the chinese as an example, but there is still a continuous strain for thousands of years that connects the chinese in each different historical era from one to another. it's an entire civilization that developed over time [QUOTE=Dr.Critic;52454986]Second of all, nations and communities do not own a "country". Nations and communities are abstract, loosely defined concepts and are inherently irrational.[/QUOTE] inherently irrational? based on what? why shouldn't they have a right to have a place of their own to do things their way?

globalization is going to render these types of things obsolete in time regardless. the only way you could stop it is to wall people off and stop migration entirely. It's just how the world is evolving. Literally nothing is stopping people from still having a place to their own and the ability to do things their way...but the world changes.

[QUOTE=Naught;52455021]globalization is going to render these types of things obsolete in time regardless. the only way you could stop it is to wall people off and stop migration entirely. It's just how the world is evolving. Literally nothing is stopping people from still having a place to their own and the ability to do things their way...but the world changes.[/QUOTE] And not because it's forced to but cause business now stretch national boundaries and private relationships of all kinds do the same, and it's happening more and more. Geographic identity is becoming more dynamic.

[QUOTE=Naught;52455021]globalization is going to render these types of things obsolete in time regardless. the only way you could stop it is to wall people off and stop migration entirely. It's just how the world is evolving. Literally nothing is stopping people from still having a place to their own and the ability to do things their way...but the world changes.[/QUOTE] globalization isn't inevitable nor necessarily desirable, and saying "it will make these things obsolete" smacks strongly of the kind of bullshit "history is on our side" that some idiots like to use to bolster their arguments time isn't your ally. at best it doesn't care globalisation is a very fragile process that's existed for the tiniest fraction of human history and could become undone at any given moment

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52455005] inherently irrational? based on what? why shouldn't they have a right to have a place of their own to do things their way?[/QUOTE] You're missing the point, if nations and similar communities cannot be clearly defined in the first place in this context and have no ideal type for the reasons I explained, they can't be rational, and therefore its not rational to use these concepts to try define who takes part in the state. [quote]globalisation is a very fragile process that's existed for the tiniest fraction of human history and could become undone at any given moment[/quote] Globalisation compared to all of human history is tiny, but compared to the history of human civilisation it has been a very significant and substantial process. You can trace globalisation back not just by centuries, but by thousands of years. One ancient example of globalisation is the silk road, which was being established quite some time before the Roman Empire collapsed. Globalisation is not a fragile process, its a fundamental part of how the modern world works - events on one side of the planet often effect regions on the other side of the planet, or have global consequences. For at least the last 150 years modern western states have not been able to sustain themselves purely on their own agricultural production. At some point during the 20th century you could easily argue that by the same logic the same western states have become utterly dependent on precious resources like fossil fuels - when the global market for these resources is disrupted, as it was in 1973 during the OPEC oil crisis, there are massive global consequences. The conclusion you have to draw is that in the modern world states are increasingly interdependent.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52455041]globalisation is a very fragile process that's existed for the tiniest fraction of human history and could become undone at any given moment[/QUOTE] how the heck

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52455041]globalization isn't inevitable nor necessarily desirable, and saying "it will make these things obsolete" smacks strongly of the kind of bullshit "history is on our side" that some idiots like to use to bolster their arguments time isn't your ally. at best it doesn't care globalisation is a very fragile process that's existed for the tiniest fraction of human history and could become undone at any given moment[/QUOTE] how is it not inevitable? the only way it could be undone is if planes and the internet stopped working, basically. And if that happened, well, there would be a lot more problems on peoples hands.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52454886]losing control over your ancestral homeland, culture, language, etc the natives of the americas are very much sidelined as a result of european colonisation for instance, and must exist within the confines of a society changed/created by the majority since forever? and give minorities their own places to rule, not that hard to do becoming a minority means the loss of power and control (something important if you are in a land you consider your own). ownership of a country by a nation or community supersedes property of the private individual. why not instead of making a society of mixed peoples in large states with no shared common culture nor heritage, give those peoples the power to live as they want in their lands instead of forcefully integrating them into a society that causes them to lose some of what makes them a particular ethnicity in the process?[/QUOTE] Nice to see you and Dain have made up.

This is an awesome topic of our generation, I'll give my two cents. Being born and raised in Scotland, immigration was timid at best, there wasn't much in the way of it, and anyone that came integrated very well in the society. Society, as it happens, is incredibly important to any county, in fact it makes it what it is, gives it status, and sets it apart from others. Now if we go south of the Scottish borders to many towns, there are great amounts of muslims moving into cities, which wouldn't necessarily be a problem of course, if it wasn't for the fact that they are moving to particular neighborhoods, shared and spread through social networking. The issue with this is of course integration, and a separation of morality. If multitudes of people move from a particular area, who shared, somewhat, the same moral, ethical & religious belief systems and have no want of experiencing or incorporating the previously mentioned "rules" then indeed, problems start arising. It's quite strange seeing the comments in this section that indicate someone is racist for pointing this out. It has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the culture of where they came from. There really, really ARE places in Europe where you are judged and mocked, even worse, for just drinking alcohol or being pregnant out of marriage because of the communities that immigrants are building within the UK. Granted, these are small localized area's however they are usually within cities. Nevertheless it IS causing problems, and of course so is the uneducated anger that is being directed towards those that are integrating fine. We can't pretend that these small differences don't matter when the gap of how people view the fundamental aspects of life so differently is so large. We are not all the same, and we shouldn't be. Unfortunately people on BOTH sides of the fence feel that the people around them need to share their views, however I think that the original people of a said country have more say than those that are 1st, 2nd or 3rd generation who bring in another culture do. Simply because it was those principals that made the country what it is today (along with alot of politcal stuff good and bad) that attracted the other culture to the location in the first place.

BTW guys, Globalization will not destroy tradition. Look at Europe for example. Their countries migrate to other countries all the time, pretty much everyone speaks English, and they're under an umbrella government. But their cultural traditions are wildly different. Sweden, Germany, and Italy have wildly different cultures even though they're basically stacked on each other (I know Austria and Denmark divide them but you get my point). What I'm trying to say is, Globalisation isn't the opposite of tradition.

It is really telling when someone's reaction to seeing the hardships faced by minorities is "boy I hope that doesn't happen to me" instead of "this shouldn't be happening to them"

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52455041]globalization isn't inevitable nor necessarily desirable, and saying "it will make these things obsolete" smacks strongly of the kind of bullshit "history is on our side" that some idiots like to use to bolster their arguments time isn't your ally. at best it doesn't care globalisation is a very fragile process that's existed for the tiniest fraction of human history and could become undone at any given moment[/QUOTE] Do you have any factual arguments aside from those empty phrases ? Globalisazion has happened ALL throughout human history, there would be no history without globalization, it just didn't happen as fast. Where do you think your parents came from? And their parents? And the paents of the cashier you saw last week?

[QUOTE=Vodkavia;52455378]You're comparing [I][U][B]actual[/B][/U][/I] genocide with white genocide. :excited:[/QUOTE] I don't recall mentioning genocide anywhere nor do I think white people are at risk of genocide at the moment I just think it's a shitty attitude to have when some idiots response to the genuine concern "we face becoming a minority and therefore losing control over our country and getting sidelined on matters concerning us" is to say "who cares". that's not the argument to be using when you want to convince somebody that a particular issue isn't a particular issue. it's extremely arrogant, especially when people reinforce their arguments by saying inane bullshit like "globalization makes it inevitable". a new world or society is being created and you don't like it? then fuck off and go away, we have no room for you and your concerns are trivial and nobody gives a shit about them. get with the flow

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52456319]I don't recall mentioning genocide anywhere nor do I think white people are at risk of genocide at the moment I just think it's a shitty attitude to have when some idiots response to the genuine concern "we face becoming a minority and therefore losing control over our country and getting sidelined on matters concerning us" is to say "who cares"[/QUOTE] Except you're not at risk of becoming a minority. Let's take Denmark as an example. There's about 5,7 million people living here. ~500k of those are or have immigrant background. For Danes to even become a minority, quite literally almost [I]3 million[/I] immigrants would have to move here for Danes to become a minority in their country. It's not any different in any of the other European country.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52456319]I don't recall mentioning genocide anywhere nor do I think white people are at risk of genocide at the moment I just think it's a shitty attitude to have when some idiots response to the genuine concern "we face becoming a minority and therefore losing control over our country and getting sidelined on matters concerning us" is to say "who cares". that's not the argument to be using when you want to convince somebody that a particular issue isn't a particular issue. it's extremely arrogant, especially when people reinforce their arguments by saying inane bullshit like "globalization makes it inevitable". a new world or society is being created and you don't like it? then fuck off and go away, we have no room for you and your concerns are trivial and nobody gives a shit about them. get with the flow[/QUOTE] Who said that about globalization?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52456319]I don't recall mentioning genocide anywhere nor do I think white people are at risk of genocide at the moment I just think it's a shitty attitude to have when some idiots response to the genuine concern "we face becoming a minority and therefore losing control over our country and getting sidelined on matters concerning us" is to say "who cares". that's not the argument to be using when you want to convince somebody that a particular issue isn't a particular issue. it's extremely arrogant, especially when people reinforce their arguments by saying inane bullshit like "globalization makes it inevitable". a new world or society is being created and you don't like it? then fuck off and go away, we have no room for you and your concerns are trivial and nobody gives a shit about them. get with the flow[/QUOTE] You know what, I was tempted to argue with you, but that is exactly whats happening. Were starting to think of other countries as more similar to us. That once distant gap between the east and west is closing. I genuinely think we might have a great world developing thats being hindered by people that are irrationally afraid of losing their culture. Globalization gonna happen no matter what you do, barring some apocalyptic event or a new cold war.

Nobody is losing any culture, we are seeing new culture being developed all around the world, some stufff nice, some stuff not so nice. You get to keep your culture. It's yours. I have mine, I keep it as long as I live and even then it's changing. My neighbour as well. My sons get their own culture.

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52454886]losing control over your ancestral homeland, culture, language, etc the natives of the americas are very much sidelined as a result of european colonisation for instance, and must exist within the confines of a society changed/created by the majority[/QUOTE] >losing control over your ancestral homeland Are you suggesting that minority groups have no say in how democratic governments are run? Do white people have autocratic control over their governments that they will lose if they cease to be the majority? >culture Why would white culture cease to exist if they become a minority group? All the minority groups in the west have managed to maintain their culture. >language Assuming you actually believe that white people becoming a minority would cause English to cease to be the majority language despite English currently being one of (if not the) fastest spreading languages in the world, why would English becoming a lesser spoken language be a bad thing? >the native americans were fucked over by colonization I don't know why you are making this comparison. Immigrants are not using their military to forcefully override western culture. Do you think that white people will be raped and murdered if they become a minority group?

[QUOTE=Funktastic Dog;52456507]You know what, I was tempted to argue with you, but that is exactly whats happening. Were starting to think of other countries as more similar to us. That once distant gap between the east and west is closing. I genuinely think we might have a great world developing thats being hindered by people that are irrationally afraid of losing their culture.[/quote] so it is not just inevitable, but people are irrational for opposing it? [quote]Globalization gonna happen no matter what you do, barring some apocalyptic event or a new cold war.[/QUOTE] based upon what? why is it inevitable?

[QUOTE=Sobotnik;52456545]so it is not just inevitable, but people are irrational for opposing it? based upon what? why is it inevitable?[/QUOTE] Based upon it has always happened as people and ideas, you know, tend to move.