Comments by "Duskpede" (@duskpede5146) on "KaiserBauch" channel.

  1. 26
  2. 20
  3. 20
  4. 17
  5. 8
  6. 7
  7. 6
  8. 6
  9. 6
  10. 5
  11. 4
  12. 4
  13. 4
  14. 4
  15. 4
  16. 4
  17. 3
  18. 3
  19. 3
  20. 3
  21. 3
  22. 3
  23. 3
  24. 2
  25. 2
  26. 2
  27. 2
  28. 2
  29. 2
  30. 2
  31. 2
  32. 2
  33. 2
  34. 1
  35. 1
  36. 1
  37. 1
  38. 1
  39.  @MatthewVanston  change isn't inherently bad. like the change from having children working in coal mines to them being in school was probably a good change. also the idea that an ethnicity built a country is just kinda wrong. people built a country but there's not a clear line of correlation between them and the people living there today. for instance napoleon was hugely important for making modern france what it is, but the connection between french people and napoleon is super thin. he has a handful of descendants that have direct blood linage to him and most ethnically french people would have to go really far back in the generations to find a common ancestor. this idea of one ethnicity is fake because really its just people who are very slightly more genetically related than they would be to other people. the margin is so thin about what the genetic difference between races is, let alone between ethnicities a couple dozen km away. (most of it just being random mutations in telomeres that are purposefully there as a buffer section of dna that does nothing). again you are still just asserting that ethnicity is important. who cares if one arbitrary group of people is a smaller percentage of an arbitrary chunk of land. (and btw, they are no where near becoming a minority, that would only be possible with a massive sustained amount of immigration and if don't count mixed race people as still being the native ethnicity) i'm talking about wealth because it correlated to the standard of living. life is just getting harder in japan, suicide rates are massive and work expectations are crippling. and its only getting worse. thats why i'm using it as an example
    1
  40. 1
  41. 1
  42. 1
  43. 1
  44.  @dexulescu  they're not? like for instance off the top of my head, the uk, belgium, germany, sweden, Australia, new zealand, Singapore, hong kong, canada, switzerland, luxemborg, estonia, ukraine, czechia, taiwan and sweden are all multi ethnic and often multi racial/mutli religious countries that are by most standards some of the most prosperous and developed nations in the world. on top of that, historically at almost any point in history you can find the great powers being mutli ethnic societies themselves. the ottoman empire, the british empire, all the chinese dynasties, the mughals, Achaemenid Empire, all the other persian empires, the Carthaginians, the romans, the spanish, the caliphate, the french, brazil, the hre, the united provinces, the russian empire and the ussr but most importantly AMERICA. the indisputably richest and most powerful single nation too ever exist, and it is a melting pot of various cultures, ethnicities, relgions and races from across europe, africa, asia and the america's. a lot of those empires did end up collapsing, thats what empire do. but many of them reigned for centuries without trouble and ethnic tensions don't ever destroy a state on their own, they are simply the fault lines where other economic and political pressures crack first. so yeah its actually a lot harder to think of counter examples of homogenous states that are better. like finland maybe if you ignore the swedish and russian minorities, modern china is allegedly mostly han but i've heard people say that thats more propaganda than anything and there are major regional differences in culture that persist. japan is another big one, but the fact that they have refused to use migrants to support the ageing work force is like the number 1 reason that they went from the 2nd largest economy in the world to the eighth.
    1
  45. 1
  46. 1
  47. 1
  48. 1
  49.  @festerbester7801  there's a reason i said sovereign and developed. colonialism is an entirely different dynamic with entirely different causes and effects. (the natives are poor and decimated by plague, the colonisers are loyal to the home crown and are there to annex the land not integrate with the native societies). they only thing they share in common is like, people moving from one place to another. thats not 25% over 20 years that's 25% in 50 years. plus sweden hasn't been "culturally overwhelmed" at all. they're doing fine? fi anything the cultural domination comes from american media. "Is it wrong for someone to take pride in their culture and feel kinship to their relatives that have already passed?" yeah i think it's kinda stupid. whenever i see someone taking pride in some national hero i always just think that they've done nothing good with their life and just want to feel important. like yeah it's human nature but so is wanting to eat nothing but chocolate. because really what country you happen to be born in doesn't actually effect you that much (and you almost certainly share very little direct blood connection with those national hero's). there's already so much diversity of values and idea's inside a nation (certainly more than there is between nations) that it's just a non factor with what a person becomes compared to anything else. you are conflating ethnicity and culture pretty heavily. in the sweden example a large part of the migration came from other parts of europe, germany, finland, russia, poland and others. which given even a single generation would become culturally Swedish after growing up. the same goes for non white people too. its not all just about blood. example: leffen, a top guilty gear/ssbm fighting game player from sweden. he's swedish, everyone calls him swedish, he calls himself swedish and talks about being swedish in interviews. but his father was korean, but no one ever talks about that because he's taken almost nothing from his korean ancestry. also migration will stop when third world birth rates slow down. the only reason they're so high now is because of greater access to medicine. but the trend in every country so far has been birth rates lowering decreasing after a generation or two. the world population is projected to peak under 12 billion. by no means will migration occur forever. ""what even is culture in the first place?" I have no idea what it would be in my nation so I cant answer it clearly." this is exactly my point. it's just a vague idea of something important that plays on peoples tribalistic instincts but no one actually knows what it is. because personally, i just don't see the inherent value of tradition. yeah its nice to see sometimes, but that's also just the case with seeing any history, fashion trend or holiday. for me i don't feel any more or less connection to easter compared to chinese new year. despite the fact that the former has been in my "cultural heritage" for thousands of years, in fact i kinda like chinese new year more because the legends are better and there's cooler traditions associated with it. and thats fine, my city has a large chinese minority (and it has for centuries mind you) and both holidays are free to be celebrated without one super ceding the other. Chinese immigrants haven't done anything to replace the existing culture, they've only added to it. and culture itself is just fun little oddities, which compared to the real consequences of banning immigration (you halt thousands of peoples only option for a better life, possibly forcing them to face death in a war torn country, AND, potentially ruining your own countries economy in the same way that japans has been, by having not enough manpower in the work force which grinds everything to a crawl) it just doesn't seem worth it, especially when the culture isn't even under threat. valuing tradition is only bad when you value it above things that are more important, like human rights. or when the tradition itself is harmful, like foot binding or circumcisions. "So what would you think if Finland would take all Syrian refugees (3.69 million) from Turkey? Most certainly it would be better for those refugees, no? And they could replace their ageing population in one fell swoop while almost doubling their population." in a perfect world they should not all end up in finland. that would also be a humanitarian disaster as the country literally does not have the infrastructure or home to accommodate that many new people. what should happen is across the eu many countries should take in proportional amounts of refugee's. because like you said, it will boost the economy and save millions of people from dislocation and war (including millions of children too) who all did nothing to deserve this. "And here lies the difference in our thought's. You think as long as you or someone like you will keep practicing the culture it wont vanish, but to me everything will end. Even stone yields to water in passage of time." the real difference in our thoughts is that you want to fight the water tooth and nail while i'm hopping in to look at the cool fish in there.
    1
  50. 1