The WOKE Thread (Merged from WTF?)

[Guardian]

Truth is so different for people.  I turn on one network to watch coverage of the George Floyd riots, and the next channel down has coverage of the George Floyd protests.  And they are covering the same thing.  Everyone seems to be in violent agreement that the dude was murdered by the cop, and should be prosecuted.  They arrested the cop and charged him.  Now what?  Restore law and order?  Remove the police and let communities fend for themselves?   I can't seem figure out what the point is now.
 

True. To an extent. But there shouldn’t be individual truths. There is only the truth.

I agree. Can’t figure out why we are going so far out on the race limb. It doesn’t make sense.

[gearhog]

21 minutes ago, Guardian said:

True. To an extent. But there shouldn’t be individual truths. There is only the truth.

I agree. Can’t figure out why we are going so far out on the race limb. It doesn’t make sense.

It doesn't make sense because the upheavel is not entirely about race. This race issue is a part of the larger generational cycle taking place. We've seen an abrupt increase in mass civil unrest around the globe the last few years. People are having an impulse to upend the world, and searching for an explanation, or excuse. Race happens to be it at the moment.

Check out the theory of the "4th Turning", or the "Crisis Generation"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strauss–Howe_generational_theory

[nsplayr]

10 minutes ago, Guardian said:

What causes that? Is feminism a factor?

If we could agree on the causes and the solutions it would be an easy problem to solve! But personally, no, I don't think income inequality is caused by the idea that people of different genders should be treated equally.

[nsplayr]

40 minutes ago, Guardian said:

Like the movie Wall-E?

Nah thinking more like the Thunderhead from the Scythe series. Even The Federation in Star Trek would be great. Lots of examples of post-scarcity societies in sci-fi.

[DSG]

46 minutes ago, Guardian said:

What causes that? Is feminism a factor?

Are you asking if nearly doubling the supply of labor reduces its value?

[Guardian]

Uh. Not exactly. He said something to the tune of men’s earnings going down. And I was just curious if a (not the) contributing factor could be more women in the work force.

[busdriver]

A single CPI based estimation of real wage growth or decline is flawed.  Everything is not inflating at the same rate.  

I also don't think income inequality is a very good measure of anything by itself.  It might be a good indicator to look deeper, but by itself doesn't tell you much.  It's like chasing metrics. 

An increase in minimum wage also isn't going to do much (if the underlying problem is a loss of manufacturing jobs) other than help drive inflation.  Service industry jobs are already low margin sectors of the economy (the restaurant industry as an example). 

Thought this was interesting, I obviously can't vouch for accuracy, but it at least seems to match my own anecdotal experience (mainly that the fun stuff is far cheaper now).  My main thoughts:

-"Higher education" has become a scam box-check requirement for no good reason. 

- What is actually driving up the cost of healthcare?  Nationalized healthcare seems like a great way to keep paying ever increasing costs without solving the root cause.

 

 

Maybe Andrew Yang is right and we'll all be served by robots soon, better get on some nuclear power plants to power it all, Star Trek here we come......

Edited June 8, 2020 by busdriver

[Prosuper]

Back to our POW survival training, is the news babe blinking a code for help?

[kaputt]

2 hours ago, Prosuper said:

Back to our POW survival training, is the news babe blinking a code for help?

I would be laughing at this shit if they weren’t so serious about it. 
 

 

[Lord Ratner]

15 hours ago, nsplayr said:

If we could agree on the causes and the solutions it would be an easy problem to solve! But personally, no, I don't think income inequality is caused by the idea that people of different genders should be treated equally.

Strawman. Weak.

 

There is lots of interesting conversation about the after effects of the feminist revolution. That revolution (first and second wave) was necessary and good, but as usual, no one took the time to look ahead.

 

The introduction of women into the workforce at all levels, not just a few select professions, is having profound impacts on social norms far beyond workplace humor and who watches the kids. Again, worth it, but many are pretending like those changes are either fabricated or not nearly as impactful. 

 

Specifically to the topic of incoming quality, female professionals are a driving factor in the separation between successful families and unsuccessful families. There's a fantastic podcast on Sam Harris discussing this, and it's something that I've noticed over the past few years. It goes something like this (very short version):

 

Modern income inequality has nothing to do with the historical carries, that is to say family wealth. Now that women are an active force in the workplace, their performance in the business world is something that is now measured, both societally and by themselves. However unlike men, women (statistically) prefer a mate who exceeds their own abilities. There's a lot of debate as to why this is, or if we even have a firm understanding of the cause, but statistically it remains. So that leaves us now with an entirely different dating dynamic, and women who might have partnered with men of a lower income or professional level are now aiming higher (than their new, elevated position in the world). This creates a dynamic where intelligent, driven men are partnering with intelligent, driven women. What do you think the odds are that their children will have the best schools the best resources the best tutoring and overall the best opportunities? This dynamic was made possible by the second order effects of the feminist revolution.

 

Again, for those perpetually seeking something to get upset about, I'm not arguing that the feminist movement was a mistake, but as with all movements the after effects can be just as or even more devastating than the prior condition.

[hindsight2020]

You're describing the water bro. We know the dynamics of female labor participation post 1970. We've also known about Hypergamy in Western women behavior post- labor market flooding for ages. The subtext is whether you want to pursue the reversal of the trend by coercive forces. That's what gets people defensive, high-achievement women of course included. Stop feigning neutrality, say what you really think. Are you on the "Johnny get my belt! and whip her back to the kitchen" crowd or not? 😄 

[frog]

2 hours ago, hindsight2020 said:

You're describing the water bro. We know the dynamics of female labor participation post 1970. We've also known about Hypergamy in Western women behavior post- labor market flooding for ages. The subtext is whether you want to pursue the reversal of the trend by coercive forces. That's what gets people defensive, high-achievement women of course included. Stop feigning neutrality, say what you really think. Are you on the "Johnny get my belt! and whip her back to the kitchen" crowd or not? 😄 

I don’t know what this means, but I am sure it should be in the next PME curriculum rollout.

😂🍺

[GrndPndr]

5 hours ago, Prosuper said:

Back to our POW survival training, is the news babe blinking a code for help?

Hope they go through with it.  Sorry regular folks in Minneapolis, but I want to get my popcorn and watch your city self-destruct.  We can then all learn from this idiocy.

[disgruntledemployee]

Minneapolis - a crazy experiment, Wild West style.

With no police, those that can afford it will hire private police, like gated communities and corporations.  Lots will move away, tanking its local real estate and economy.  Crime will go unchecked.  Shootings will increase as folks defend themselves.  Crime lords will come out and take over.  Eventually, after the mayor learns his lesson, the Gov will have to send in the Guard.  Companies located there will decide they must leave to survive.  Here's top the top 50 employers of MN in the MSP area.  If I were a CEO of Target, Best Buy, Ameriprise, Wells Fargo, hell, even the USPS (they should band together), they should tell the mayor if the police go, they go, and take tens of thousands of jobs with them. 

1	Mayo Clinic	Rochester	26,308
2	3M Co	St Paul	12,000
4	Thomson Reuters Legal Sltns	St Paul	6,700
5	Mayo Clinic Hosp St Mary's	Rochester	5,167
6	Ameriprise Financial Inc	Minneapolis	5,065
7	Andersen Corp	Bayport	5,000
8	Best Buy Co Inc	Minneapolis	5,000
9	Target Corp	Minneapolis	5,000
10	Hennepin County Med Ctr Red	Minneapolis	4,900
11	IBM	Rochester	4,800
12	Park Nicollet Methodist Hosp	St Louis Park	4,650
13	Abbott Northwestern Hospital	Minneapolis	4,573
14	Carlson Inc	Minnetonka	4,500
15	SMSC Gaming Enterprise	Prior Lake	4,500
16	North Memorial Health Care	Robbinsdale	4,300
17	Health Partners	Minneapolis	4,000
18	Little Six Casino	Prior Lake	4,000
19	M Health Fairview Clinic	Minneapolis	4,000
20	US Post Office	Minneapolis	4,000
24	SMSC Gaming Enterprise	Prior Lake	3,750
25	Wells Fargo Home Mortgage	Minneapolis	3,750
26	Children's Minnesota	Minneapolis	3,710
27	Blue Cross & Blue Shield of MN	St Paul	3,500
28	Boston Scientific Corp	St Paul	3,500
29	Seagate Technology	Bloomington	3,500
30	St Paul Board of Education	St Paul	3,401
31	Mayo Clinic Hosp-Mthdst Campus	Rochester	3,304
32	General Mills Inc	Minneapolis	3,100
35	Fairview Health Svc	Minneapolis	3,000
36	Medtronic Inc	Minneapolis	3,000
37	Prudential Financial	Minneapolis	3,000
38	Stanke Supply Co	St Paul	3,000
39	Travlers Insurance	St Paul	3,000
40	U.S. Bank Branch	St Paul	3,000
41	Regions Hospital	St Paul	2,918
42	Star Tribune Media Co LLC	Minneapolis	2,814
43	M Health Fairview Univ-Mn Med	Minneapolis	2,788
44	CHS Inc	Inver Grove Hts	2,500
45	Marsden Bldg Maintenance LLC	St Paul	2,500
46	Wells Fargo East Corporate	Minneapolis	2,500
47	United Hospital	St Paul	2,265
48	Human Services Dept	St Paul	2,200

[FLEA]

14 minutes ago, disgruntledemployee said:

Minneapolis - a crazy experiment, Wild West style.

With no police, those that can afford it will hire private police, like gated communities and corporations.  Lots will move away, tanking its local real estate and economy.  Crime will go unchecked.  Shootings will increase as folks defend themselves.  Crime lords will come out and take over.  Eventually, after the mayor learns his lesson, the Gov will have to send in the Guard.  Companies located there will decide they must leave to survive.  Here's top the top 50 employers of MN in the MSP area.  If I were a CEO of Target, Best Buy, Ameriprise, Wells Fargo, hell, even the USPS (they should band together), they should tell the mayor if the police go, they go, and take tens of thousands of jobs with them. 

1	Mayo Clinic	Rochester	26,308
2	3M Co	St Paul	12,000
4	Thomson Reuters Legal Sltns	St Paul	6,700
5	Mayo Clinic Hosp St Mary's	Rochester	5,167
6	Ameriprise Financial Inc	Minneapolis	5,065
7	Andersen Corp	Bayport	5,000
8	Best Buy Co Inc	Minneapolis	5,000
9	Target Corp	Minneapolis	5,000
10	Hennepin County Med Ctr Red	Minneapolis	4,900
11	IBM	Rochester	4,800
12	Park Nicollet Methodist Hosp	St Louis Park	4,650
13	Abbott Northwestern Hospital	Minneapolis	4,573
14	Carlson Inc	Minnetonka	4,500
15	SMSC Gaming Enterprise	Prior Lake	4,500
16	North Memorial Health Care	Robbinsdale	4,300
17	Health Partners	Minneapolis	4,000
18	Little Six Casino	Prior Lake	4,000
19	M Health Fairview Clinic	Minneapolis	4,000
20	US Post Office	Minneapolis	4,000
24	SMSC Gaming Enterprise	Prior Lake	3,750
25	Wells Fargo Home Mortgage	Minneapolis	3,750
26	Children's Minnesota	Minneapolis	3,710
27	Blue Cross & Blue Shield of MN	St Paul	3,500
28	Boston Scientific Corp	St Paul	3,500
29	Seagate Technology	Bloomington	3,500
30	St Paul Board of Education	St Paul	3,401
31	Mayo Clinic Hosp-Mthdst Campus	Rochester	3,304
32	General Mills Inc	Minneapolis	3,100
35	Fairview Health Svc	Minneapolis	3,000
36	Medtronic Inc	Minneapolis	3,000
37	Prudential Financial	Minneapolis	3,000
38	Stanke Supply Co	St Paul	3,000
39	Travlers Insurance	St Paul	3,000
40	U.S. Bank Branch	St Paul	3,000
41	Regions Hospital	St Paul	2,918
42	Star Tribune Media Co LLC	Minneapolis	2,814
43	M Health Fairview Univ-Mn Med	Minneapolis	2,788
44	CHS Inc	Inver Grove Hts	2,500
45	Marsden Bldg Maintenance LLC	St Paul	2,500
46	Wells Fargo East Corporate	Minneapolis	2,500
47	United Hospital	St Paul	2,265
48	Human Services Dept	St Paul	2,200

It's a dumb idea but it won't be anarchy. The sheriff and staties will take jurisdiction of the city and will handle the most severe stuff. It won't be ideal but it will hardly be anarchy. Sovereign citizens might all move to Minneapolis though. 

[hindsight2020]

3 hours ago, frog said:

I don’t know what this means, but I am sure it should be in the next PME curriculum rollout.

😂🍺

Dude I'm in the middle of that garbage right now. I question my decision to continue with every module, and now they're subcontracting Arizona State Univ to handle the thing, so only Lord knows what the migration will do. I'm taking screenshots of my transcripts as we speak. If they short me credit, I'm quitting. Figured Iron Major suits my career aspirations well anyways lol. Cheers!

 

[Lord Ratner]

5 hours ago, hindsight2020 said:

You're describing the water bro. We know the dynamics of female labor participation post 1970. We've also known about Hypergamy in Western women behavior post- labor market flooding for ages. The subtext is whether you want to pursue the reversal of the trend by coercive forces. That's what gets people defensive, high-achievement women of course included. Stop feigning neutrality, say what you really think. Are you on the "Johnny get my belt! and whip her back to the kitchen" crowd or not? 😄 

Nonsense. "We" don't know shit. I have virtually no progressive friends who are aware of even the simplest facts surrounding their platform, and hypergamy is blasphemy. Meanwhile the right denies income inequality as a threat because the left mischaracterizes it as "income" inequality when really we may be facing a completely unintentional eugenics program. Both sides have their heads firmly in the sand. Do not mistake your own awareness as common. That aside.

 

I'm not sure what the answer is. The system is *great* for me. My partner is a doctor, and I'm a pilot. We will make a fortune and our children will have amazing opportunity, as long as they don't lose the genetic lottery. To me it's just one more example of a narrowly-focused goal that overwhelmingly disregards human nature. Which one needs to be fixed first? Urbanization? Multiculturalism? Equality of outcome for the genders? Affirmative action?

 

I think we would be just as stupid to assume we can do something to fix all of the problems these programs have caused with another narrowly focused policy. We probably need a broader return to the concept of human nature. This is not a new concept considering the founders crafted our entire system around it. I don't think most people actually want what the modern world is providing in many cases. Suicide rates in the developed world support the idea. Maybe we stop telling people what they *should* want from a young age.

 

Viciously protect and provide opportunities for all kids. Remove any and all government policies or programs that discourage two-parent homes. Stop incentivizing behavior unless the behavior limits someone else's rights and freedom. Overall, stop thinking that you can reengineer the human race quicker than over the course of several generations.

 

Beyond that, 🤷‍♂️. Hopefully a broader conversation on the above rather than sloganeering and sign waving will result in some specific answers.

[nsplayr]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

Which one needs to be fixed first? Urbanization? Multiculturalism? Equality of outcome for the genders? Affirmative action?

Are you saying all of these are problems?

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

We probably need a broader return to the concept of human nature. This is not a new concept considering the founders crafted our entire system around it.

As defined by...whom exactly?

As great as our Constitution is and many of our founders were, many also found it to be within the concept of human nature that the black race was rightly subjugated to the needs of the white race. Just saying that calling something "human nature" does not make it right and who gets to decide what is "human nature" and what is an aberration makes all the difference.

I'll ask you: is same-sex attraction "human nature?" Is interracial marriage?

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

Stop incentivizing behavior unless the behavior limits someone else's rights and freedom.

The idea that the government, or businesses, or other humans are getting out of the "incentivizing other's behavior" game anytime soon is foolish and irrelevant; it's not going to happen.

[Lord Ratner]

34 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

Are you saying all of these are problems?

As defined by...whom exactly?

As great as our Constitution is and many of our founders were, many also found it to be within the concept of human nature that the black race was rightly subjugated to the needs of the white race. Just saying that calling something "human nature" does not make it right and who gets to decide what is "human nature" and what is an aberration makes all the difference.

I'll ask you: is same-sex attraction "human nature?" Is interracial marriage?

The idea that the government, or businesses, or other humans are getting out of the "incentivizing other's behavior" game anytime soon is foolish and irrelevant; it's not going to happen.

1. Absolutely. Urbanization has created high densities of poor (mostly minority) citizens living in the most expensive places in America to live, without the earning capacity to get out. Meanwhile the upper middle class can afford what most people want (human nature) for their families. A house for their kids, a yard to play in, a pool to swim in. So they move out to some suburban paradise (with their tax dollars) and commute to work while the very people meant to benefit from urbanization have to send their kids to terrible schools and rely on ever decaying infrastructure and public services. Equality of outcome for the genders is an obvious one, look no further than the Nordic countries where the world's most gender-equal society has greater occupational disparity between the genders. Turns out women statistically want be be nurses instead of engineers, veterinarians instead of pilots, and teachers instead of welders (human nature). Affirmative action put minority young adults into universities they weren't prepared for, resulting in a higher dropout rate. That doesn't mean you abandon the cause. It means you have to be very, very careful with the policy you develop and willing to abandon it when the results aren't what you hoped for (or after you've succeeded even).

 

2. We can go with "science" if that suits you. Considering that there is ample research into human nature based on scientifically validated research and data, outside of political theater we actually have a pretty developed sense of how humans work. Now, the wide body of sociology writing that has no cited material, no supporting data, and no basis in reality? That we can and should ignore. 

 

3. Many of the founders were deeply conflicted with the inclusion of slavery. Even the ones who owned slaves did not do so under the guise of human nature. Racism *is* human nature, but it's human nature that impacts the ability of others to be free. Eliminating the manifestations of racism that oppress minorities is a worthy and noble goal, and one that has been largely accomplished in the US. Eliminating racism itself is a much bigger endeavor, and will take generations. Pushing the timeline too hard will inflame the issue and delay eventual progress. 

 

4. Same-sex attraction is an abnormality of evolution, but still a part human nature. One of many. It exists in nature outside of humans, and has existed in humans for as long as we have kept track. More importantly, human nature or not, it does not impact the lives of others, so the government should stay out of it.  Interracial marriage isn't even an abnormality, it's a feature.

 

5. It's hardly foolish and it's supremely relevant. It may be impossible to put the toothpaste back in the tube on existing policy, but a whole lot of dangerous new policy ideas are floating around, and the Democrat party is competing with themselves as to who can endorse the most extreme options. We can and should seek to prevent further damage. 

Edited June 9, 2020 by Lord Ratner

[skybert]

12 hours ago, Prosuper said:

Back to our POW survival training, is the news babe blinking a code for help?

Abolish laws and everyone in the city is instantly innocent. 

[nsplayr]

1 hour ago, Lord Ratner said:

1. Absolutely.

Without getting into it too much, I live in the urban core of a mid-sized city (urbanization), my kids go to a racially and demographically-representative public school (multiculturalism), and my wife is paid the same as any other person doing her job regardless of gender (general equality). Life is good! If you'd like to live differently feel free.

On your other points, we seem to come from a place with quite different values and assumptions about life and I'm not sure a detailed explanation of where I'm coming from is going to move the needle for you. I guess we can try to find some common understanding elsewhere.

One quick, genuine question: why have folks on the right started using the phrase, "the Democrat Party?" From what I can tell it started with Pres. Trump, but IDK...it's just not correct and I'm not sure if it's just a subtle way to own the libs or what. Just curious!

Edited June 9, 2020 by nsplayr

[Lord Ratner]

8 minutes ago, nsplayr said:

Without getting into it too much, I live in the urban core of a mid-sized city (urbanization), my kids go to a racially and demographically-representative public school (multiculturalism), and my wife is paid the same as any other person doing her job regardless of gender (general equality). Life is good! If you'd like to live differently feel free.

On your other points, we seem to come from a place with quite different values and assumptions about life and I'm not sure a detailed explanation of where I'm coming from is going to move the needle for you. I guess we can try to find some common understanding elsewhere.

One quick, genuine question: why have folks on the right started using the phrase, "the Democrat Party?" From what I can tell it started with Pres. Trump, but IDK...it's just not correct and I'm not sure if it's just a subtle way to own the libs or what. Just curious!

I'm not sure. I like that it makes a distinction between Democratic and democratic, but if there's a broader movement behind it I've been unwittingly conscripted.

 

Your definition of multiculturalism is what I would call ethnic diversity. Very different things. And using anecdote to make a point isn't particularly useful. Of course *you* like raising a family in an urban center. You have the resources to choose, and to live in a manner that is better than how the lower class lives. If you didn't like it you would leave, like so many do. But statistically you are in the minority, and that matters for policy decisions. 

 

But I agree, there's not much of a point. You have the tendency to mischaracterize opposing views by their most cartoonish representation then act enlightened that you don't agree with what no one said. Like I said, strawman.

[nsplayr]

40 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

I'm not sure. I like that it makes a distinction between Democratic and democratic, but if there's a broader movement behind it I've been unwittingly conscripted.

 

Your definition of multiculturalism is what I would call ethnic diversity. Very different things. And using anecdote to make a point isn't particularly useful. Of course *you* like raising a family in an urban center. You have the resources to choose, and to live in a manner that is better than how the lower class lives. If you didn't like it you would leave, like so many do. But statistically you are in the minority, and that matters for policy decisions. 

 

But I agree, there's not much of a point. You have the tendency to mischaracterize opposing views by their most cartoonish representation then act enlightened that you don't agree with what no one said. Like I said, strawman.

I mean something like 83% of the US population lives in urbanized areas so 🤷‍♂️ not sure how evil they are. One can quibble with the definitions, but that's what the Census Bureau uses at least.

You're right that what I described is more ethnic diversity...almost everyone I interact with on a regular basis is an American. What do you define as multiculturalism then and why is it bad in your view?

And I mean if you're just going to shit on me and my methods of debating the issues, why even reply to me and bring up points for debate? You do you homie, but if you're not arguing in good faith then I feel even better about a decision not to engage further. I'll show myself out for now, cheers 🍺

[jice]

3 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

1. [...] 

 

2. We can go with "science" if that suits you. Considering that there is ample research into human nature based on scientifically validated research and data, outside of political theater we actually have a pretty developed sense of how humans work. Now, the wide body of sociology writing that has no cited material, no supporting data, and no basis in reality? That we can and should ignore. 

 

3. [...]Eliminating the manifestations of racism that oppress minorities is a worthy and noble goal, and one that has been largely accomplished in the US. Eliminating racism itself is a much bigger endeavor, and will take generations. Pushing the timeline too hard will inflame the issue and delay eventual progress. 

 

4. [...]

 

5. [...]

2. Are you saying that sociology as a whole is not to be trusted or only the pop-sociology that we can digest in 30 second sound bites?

1. You’ve told us that women really want to be in historically women’s professions; I’d love to see the science (sociology) and whether there was any attempt at separating correlation from causation. It’s way more difficult than just asking. A) Ask 10 aircrew what their first choice of airframes was when they were two weeks from track select. 6-9 will lie and cite their current airframe; 1-2 got their then-first choice. All others were FAIPS. B) Even if you figure out how to get the truth, getting the why behind the truth remains a problem—know any males who quit dancing, singing, playing the piano, or doing art when it became costly socially? That’s acting on a preference and is a measured choice, but is also counter to that individual’s natural predilection.  Not saying it’s impossible or even unlikely, just that the study of such a thing would be difficult. Got a source? “Google it yourself” is fine if you don’t want to point to something specifically.

3. I’ve got a bit of an issue with this one. You use the word progress, as if it’s a march towards a better state. That acknowledges a gradient, two sides. One less desirable, one more desirable. When you say “inflame the issue” when we move too fast, I have a hard time finding an explanation for the “inflammation” that isn’t simply the feelings of those accustomed to the old (less progress) and uncomfortable with the new (progress). I am certain that you don’t mean that we should avoid empowering historically oppressed groups because it might upset people. What exactly do you mean? I think moving towards a less racist world/country/system is worth a bit of discomfort. 
 

4. Honest question: what do you mean when you say ‘human nature’? Plato, Moses, Dennett, and Kant would all reach different conclusions. It’s literally one of the central questions of philosophy. Regardless, agree that the government should stay out.

 

5. It’s a shame that the most outrageous ideas seem to get the most attention. Wouldn’t it be great if critical thinking skills were sexy?

Edited June 9, 2020 by jice
Left out words

[Lord Ratner]

8 hours ago, nsplayr said:

I mean something like 83% of the US population lives in urbanized areas so 🤷‍♂️ not sure how evil they are. One can quibble with the definitions, but that's what the Census Bureau uses at least.

You're right that what I described is more ethnic diversity...almost everyone I interact with on a regular basis is an American. What do you define as multiculturalism then and why is it bad in your view?

And I mean if you're just going to shit on me and my methods of debating the issues, why even reply to me and bring up points for debate? You do you homie, but if you're not arguing in good faith then I feel even better about a decision not to engage further. I'll show myself out for now, cheers 🍺

I'm not sure I would call it quibbling, but if you consider the entirety of Waco, TX, Lawton, OK, and Oshkosk, WI to be part of the Urbanization we are talking about, then we're having two separate conversations. 

For multiculturalism, let's go with the Stanford explanation:

Multiculturalism

First published Fri Sep 24, 2010; substantive revision Fri Aug 12, 2016

The idea of multiculturalism in contemporary political discourse and in political philosophy is about how to understand and respond to the challenges associated with cultural and religious diversity. The term “multicultural” is often used as a descriptive term to characterize the fact of diversity in a society, but in what follows, the focus is on its prescriptive use in the context of Western liberal democratic societies. While the term has come to encompass a variety of prescriptive claims, it is fair to say that proponents of multiculturalism reject the ideal of the “melting pot” in which members of minority groups are expected to assimilate into the dominant culture in favor of an ideal in which members of minority groups can maintain their distinctive collective identities and practices. In the case of immigrants, proponents emphasize that multiculturalism is compatible with, not opposed to, the integration of immigrants into society; multiculturalism policies provide fairer terms of integration for immigrants.

As the first American-born child of Cuban immigrants, I'm not completely removed from the concept. Nations (all groups actually) need a shared identity. The neat thing about America was the use of ideals (espoused in the constitution and bill of rights) to generate that identity rather than ethnic origin, skin color, or other immutable characteristics. Freedom of speech. The rule of law. Individualism. Abandoning the melting pot is a threat to shared identity, which seems pretty clear these days.

Why reply? For the exact reason I "shit on you" in the first place. You use strawman arguments regularly to support your own position. For example:

"and my wife is paid the same as any other person doing her job regardless of gender (general equality). Life is good! If you'd like to live differently feel free"

Absolutely no one has argued for women to make less money for the same work. And they don't. But discussing the reasons why only 4% of airline pilots are women is easier when you can just blame discrimination.

Mostly though, like you I simply enjoy the mental sparring.