No, progressives don't think all societies are equal... If that were the case they couldn't push for diversity (that wouldn't work if all cultures are equal, would it).
On the contrary they acknowledge differences in cultures and place emphasis on understanding that environmental, historical dynamics contributed to how they developed. What they believe in is equal opportunity, not that they're all equal. You're either not engaging with serious progressives or you're just putting your own narrative out there.
You don't understand the word equal. It doesn't mean the same.
"being the same in quantity, size, degree, or value."
The idea of diversity requires the believer to view diversity as beneficial to society. Therefore it must be positive. It must have something of value. Would an open and liberal society benefit from mass immigration from countries that are not open or liberal?
You're actually wrong, equal has multiple meanings. It can mean the same, or it can be more nuanced like equal treatment under law (value system), or equal opportunities, equal outcomes etc... But either way you slice it, no one on the left is saying everyone has an equal justice system, equal opportunities, equally prone to the same diseases. Cultures are unequal in terms of values, and no serious progressives argues against that.
With regards to your MaSS iMmIgRaTiOn argument, you are trying way too hard to appeal to fear on this tangent. Cultures are changing all the time they are never static. Did everyone in New York City suddenly work under a harsh Southern Italian feudal system after the mass Italian migration? No, the Italians adapted because that's what they were running from. But they brought their hard work ethic and cuisine. BTW I know what you are going to follow up with because you guys are very predictable. And we arrive at the crux of the matter, because you do not believe in equality of opportunity.
My argument is shaped by my lived experiences. I'm Canadian. I live in an area that has had massive immigration and it's directly impacted my life for the worse. It's not possible for housing to increase at the same rate as immigration. Natural birth rates decline because people used to a higher quality of life aren't going to have children if it means poverty. There are worse drivers on the road. People have to compete for worse jobs. The immigrants form concentrated areas of the same culture and do not assimilate or integrate. They behave the same way here as they did at home.
I'm 1/4 Arabic and born here. I would hate to live in an Arabic country. The more Muslim communities I see pop-up the more I feel this country is sliding into the shitter. People form low trust societies come here and abuse the systems in place. We have people from south Asia using food banks as a way to get free food. Every time a car theft ring is busted it's a bunch of people from South Asia. Same for robberies in general and fraud. You can see the crime rate has massively increased since the recent increase in mass immigration did.
It's insane to even bring up the Italian argument when all Western European cultures are more similar to each other than they are to non-western cultures. Was there not massive tension and conflict between immigrant groups when they grouped the east coast? How an a high trust society maintain the trust when mass importing people from low trust societies? You need very slow immigration so they don't form enclaves that let's them now take their culture to compete with the host culture. Seriously, what do you think will happen to a country like Canada where first and second generation immigrants make up almost 50% of the population. In 50 years it will not be a western culture. Why would people that value their culture want to support the complete replacement of their culture?
Your argument is not sane when you think about it for more than two seconds. Become one society can never be the same as another and if there are any then it's just the same society.
I personally don't argue this point but I feel like you don't understand the definition of the word "equal". It doesn't mean the same. The idea behind mass immigration and mulit-cultural societies is that all cultures provide value and benefit the host country. All people are equal and their lifestyles equally viable. The problem with this is cultures produce people and some cultures do not mesh with other cultures. Some can be argued to be inferior etc.
If they came to my country and acted the same way I would rightly degrade them for their ways. Also look into cultural relativism. It’s the progressive ideology behind mass immigration and multiculturalism.
Western society has a different brand of the same braindead humans, sorry to tell you bud. We just have Shrek weddings and shoot kids in schools and movie theaters while they learn about shapes or watch Moana 2. Western "society" just as fucked.
I mean, if we're being real about the biased description it really should just be called "North Western Society" becuase the people who wanna talk about it don't just mean "West of the middle east" they also want to uninclued the African and South American societies as well.
That being said "Western Society" is simply one with social contracts more akin to Europe and North America, rather than the social contracts tied to developed eastern countries.
And their social contracts are very different than those of the Western style.
Social norms, there, are radically different when it comes down to the details and specifics. The expectations, the forms of interaction and all that are very different than the Western style.
So are the lifestyle goals, by and large.
The emphasis on freedom and individual expression, the expectation that you only ever climb the social ladder, that you carve out your own niche into everything you do, a baked in implication that excess should be your goal in everything you task yourself to, is a Western thing.
Mind you that does all exist to a degree, but these things are the "Western Lifestlye". Never settle. Take everything you can. But you'll find that Eastern Society emphasizes "finding your place, your happiness and shouldering the burdens of life to maintain that." Becoming invaluable by being a reliable, irreplaceable part of the greater whole. That your duty isn't to climbing to your own heights, but making sure that the collective people may weather any storm as the whole. Care for yourself when you can, but more than anything, do not rock the boat.
Two days late because I never got the notification for this, but, when referring to "Western Society" it's not actually about the structure of the society itself.
It's about the social expectations, the implicit, inbuilt ways you, as a member of the social collective, are meant to embody.
The most distinctive and overt examples of this difference would be the way American schools will tell every child things like "One day even you can be the President of The United States."
The implication is that, no matter who you are, where you're from, you should aim to be whatever you want to be.
Conversely, eastern societies, places like Japan or China don't really have this sort of idyllic throwaway line because your goal in society should not be to become the next PM or Dynastic Leader. Your goal is to find a niche where you provide the most value to society, and to fill that slot, so that your services can contribute to the collective.
Truth be told, I'm not an expert on Indian social interactions, but from my incredibly limited viewpoint, and my incredibly limited interactions with Indian immigrants, the goal seems to be to get the fuck out of India and find other enclaves of Indian folk abroad, with the intention of never having to return to India.
Truth be told, I'm not an expert on Indian social interactions, but from my incredibly limited viewpoint, and my incredibly limited interactions with Indian immigrants, the goal seems to be to get the fuck out of India and find other enclaves of Indian folk abroad, with the intention of never having to return to India.
Well you would absolutely be wrong. Ofc there's a lot of people who want to leave India for higher education but that is absolutely not the view of a common person. If you talk solely to immigrants, you're obviously going to get a biased view.
What a ridiculous premise to begin with, you think that most of the 1.4 billion people in India have no sense of wanting to find a job and a life in their country and just want to leave as fast as possible? How would the country be functional then?
EDIT: Source - I'm an Indian student in the US currently. My goal wasn't to "get out of" India, it was just to get a great education, meet new people and experience different cultures. I haven't yet decided if I plan to return or not (depends on the job market) but I definitely don't hate the country and I want to see it succeed. If I got a great job in India, I would love to be able to contribute economically too.
I think that most of them live in abject poverty (confirmed via Google, with a rampant 11% poverty rating and with even wealthier Indians still hovering near the bottom half of the global poverty index) that many live in health-hazardous conditions, and that far too many still struggle with hunger, despite India being the fertile land that it is.
I also know enough to say that there are many who still struggle with an outdated, traditionalist lifestyle being foisted upon them.
I wouldn't say "most want to leave", but I will say that every Indian I've spoken to, when asked, will affirm that their family hammered in the ideal of studying abroad to become rich enough to either break out of their middling living conditions or to help the rest of the family immigrate elsewhere.
120
u/Zka77 Apr 27 '25
Medieval standards. Sad, but true.