>>10449
opee here
Fun fact I realized is that liberals are encouraging irrational decisions, even for people that don't agree with them.
For instance: because I am concerned about being demonized as a racist, I would rather accept a multicultural status quo that discourages civic engagement, volunteerism, social trust, etc. and encourages crime as opposed to advocating a monochromatic society that is better for civic engagement and promotes lower crime BUT also being accused of racism.
Literally, people (including myself) are accepting/forced to accept more crime/less trusting society because the alternative is being accused of racism.
In a free society, immigration is called moving. This does not mean a free society would necessarily be a melting pot, people could have "immigration" policies for their own communities (if I am selling a bunch of houses, I could only sell to a specific ethnicity/cultural group.) However, such a policy (which would objectively be better for crime and volunteerism) would be criticized as racist (not sure if that's entirely fair) and segregationist (that's accurate, I suppose.) I like to be inclusive- honestly, I don't like to exclude people for the sake of being an asshole- but exclusivity (based on ethnicity) may be warranted because of the practical benefits of a monochromatic society.
It is not necessary to be a bigot (intolerant to those of other opinion/race) nor racist (belief one race is superior to another) to oppose extremely diverse communities. It seems exceedingly obvious that a society that is 100% Polish is going to have less crime than a society that is 10% Polish, 10% Croatian, 10% Slovenian, 10% Serbian, 10% French, 10% Finnish, 10% German, 10% Russian, 10% Czech, and 10% English. These ethnic groups all have pretty similar IQs, but the cultures and languages are radically different and such a society would inevitably have more conflict than a society that is nearly 100% Polish (like Poland, which has very low crime, big fucking surprise, they're all Polish!) It's entirely possible to firmly oppose the idea that any race has a lower average IQ due to genetics, be tolerant of other views, and still oppose efforts to promote multiculturalism due to the negative effects of diversity. Diversity might have some strengths, but it also has some obvious drawbacks nobody wants to acknowledge.
I'm curious as to what you guys think about Charles Murray/Flynn in terms of genetics/socioeconomic factors in the disparity of racial IQ. There has been a massive close in the gap between black and white IQs, which proves environment (at least in the past) has accounted for much of the gap between racial IQs; this does not necessarily mean there is no genetic gap. As Murray has pointed out, it's unlikely that during tens of thousands of years of human evolution in radically different environments there was no disparity in the selective pressures for IQ- if there was, we'd expect a difference in genetic IQ for different ethnicities INCLUDING different ethnicities within the same race. For example, Caucasians on the same continent (Europe) would face different selective pressures and therefore have a different genetic propensity for high IQ.
Anyways, what are you goys guys thoughts on this? I'm curious.
>>10449
rude tbh, free market wouldn't be about killing (which is coercion i.e. not the free market) anyone, at worst it would segregate them voluntarily.