Thread: racial diversity contributing to social isolation

Different physical appearances may have profound psychological effects (not always conscious) that effect social interactions and the formation of relationships. There are also significant personality differences between different races of people that be a hindrance to social interactions, not unlike the general personality differences between the different genders.

I think that increasing diversity is going to create much more social isolation, and this will not be good for society. Immediately, the effects of this isolation will be felt most by the minority children themselves, but in the future, if the main ethnic group itself eventually becomes a minority everyone will feel these negetive effects. Just imagine living in another country where nearly everyone else is from a different race, and it just becomes impractical to meet anyone of your own race. While cultural differences, language, and potentially income levels, may play a role, I believe it is much more than that.

At the very least, increasing diversity is going to create pressing social challenges. Should immigration policy be aimed at trying to minimise ethnic diversity, to protect the best interests of the future generations and the society that they will grow up in?

http://asr.sagepub.com/content/71/3/353.short
Psychlogical effects of racially diverse facial appearances



Social isolation can lead to debillitating childhood experiences. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uf4_KYKWieE

I should think that such a petty, fear-driven person as yourself would have a hard time finding a functioning group of which to be a member even without being swamped by immigrants.

Just try to get along with the people you do meet.

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

I should think that such a petty, fear-driven person as yourself would have a hard time finding a functioning group of which to be a member even without being swamped by immigrants.

Just try to get along with the people you do meet.

Anders Hoveland is correct and I would much prefer to associate with him than the disingenuous ad hominem spewing Leftysergeant.

how old r u again?

Originally Posted by mikemikev

Anders Hoveland is correct and I would much prefer to associate with him than the disingenuous ad hominem spewing Leftysergeant.

I second that emotion. I wonder if lefty realizes that all of America's current and past enemies have had a leftist ideology where most of them have been atheists to boot; just the opposite of what America and we Conservatives stand for and believe in.

Originally Posted by Libhater

I second that emotion. I wonder if lefty realizes that all of America's current and past enemies have had a leftist ideology where most of them have been atheists to boot; just the opposite of what America and we Conservatives stand for and believe in.

And our current doemstic enemies have a racist aggenda and must be put in their places.

Originally Posted by mikemikev

Anders Hoveland is correct and I would much prefer to associate with him than the disingenuous ad hominem spewing Leftysergeant.

At the same time, your kind has no right to tell me or the kinds of people I hang out with where we can live or do business. The needs of the many outweigh the interests of the sociopathic few.

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

At the same time, your kind has no right to tell me or the kinds of people I hang out with where we can live or do business. The needs of the many outweigh the interests of the sociopathic few.

You're right, we don't have the right to tell you and your ilk who to hang out out with or who to intergrate your multicultural philosophy onto, but I don't see you and your ilk refusing to suck up all the tax paid govt bennies/welfare from us during the process in which to survive for your miserable dependency lifestyles. Double standard much?

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

At the same time, your kind has no right to tell me or the kinds of people I hang out with where we can live or do business. The needs of the many outweigh the interests of the sociopathic few.

Well that's a truism, since you are talking about the "sociopathic" few. How could I disagree. Sadly your ad hominem renders the attempted point irrelevant.

If you mean the "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few", this is not always correct.

For example, if everyone with an IQ below 110 "votes" for the others to work for them, while they sit on their ass watching TV, stuffing their face, and reproducing, would that make it right?

Originally Posted by mikemikev

For example, if everyone with an IQ below 110 "votes" for the others to work for them, while they sit on their ass watching TV, stuffing their face, and reproducing, would that make it right?

That has never happened and will not, outside the thick skulls of the right wing nutters.

I have been told by people not fit to shine my shoes that I had no business patronizing places of entertainment that were owned by and catered for mostly black people.

Let them eat 158 grain .357 Mag LSWC.