That is really shocking. A great guy, legendary classic tetris player and by far the most entertaining to watch. Can't even imagine how tough it must be for Heather.
Can you tell us more please? How would a regular person go about using bio-feedback to reduce anxiety and stress?
How have you observed people in the hedge fund industry using Propranolol? How would they acquire it, use it, and was there any talk of negative side effects?
Japan has very little immigration when compared to other countries. In 2015 ~2% of the population was from immigrants. The USA for comparison, has a 14.5% rate (+/- a few tenths, I'm pulling that from memory.)
12% in the most foreign-populated area still seems very low by European standards. Given that a lot of the foreigners are Chinese and Korean, to the European eye it looks even more homogeneous than that.
Seine-Saint-Denis, for comparison, had 27% residents born outside Metropolitan France, and that was in 1999. Marseille is 25% muslim.
- "Capitals tend to attrack [sic] most inmigration."
- "Not all capitals - it is a question of policy."
- "Interesting. So in Japan people inmigrate [sic] more uniformly?"
... then you don't answer but proceed to compare capitals of the world to each other. I thought we were comparing countryside immigration to capitals vs to the rest of the country. Not between countries.
But narag was talking about immigration between countries: "...had more than a third of inmigrant parents, including Russia, Iran, South America (most) and Morocco". I understood narag's point as "that's a fast demographic change, but inevitable in any modern large capital city, as capitals tend to attract immigration".
My counterpoint was that there is nothing inevitable about it, and that it is a policy choice. Tokyo is a very large, very modern city with a massive economy, yet it has a very modest foreign population and is recognizably Japanese almost everywhere you go (which results in being really safe even at night, almost completely litter-free, and certainly a great experience of Japan for a visiting tourist).
A misunderstanding then. I just meant the difference between big cities and the rest, similar to Paris/rest of France.
The difference you meant was between Spain and Japan. Only 14 km of sea separate our mainland from Africa, with little boats full of desperate people crossing every day. Also we have two towns in continental Africa with land borders with Morocco where border barriers are sometimes just rammed.
But that's just the most dramatic side of it. Most immigrants simply cross the borders as tourists and stay for work. I guess Japan is a little different.
FWIW, Madrid is very safe at night. Only a few neighborhoods, far from downtown, are dangerous.
Edit: immigrant, note taken. Inmigrante in Spanish.
Not all of Paris is like that. Those that can afford to tend to move out from such areas, resulting in a fairly segregated city. The politicians responsible tend to not live in such areas either.
Not just the politicians. The very people commenting that it's a great thing with "great food" (surprisingly the most common argument) don't live there either.
It is not racism or xenophobia to want to preserve what is good about a nation's culture, and limit the import of other nations' and culture's problems.
Could you please answer the following questions:
1. Is there a limit at which you believe mass migration into France would be undesirable?
2. If you believe that there is such a limit; what would a legitimate movement to argue for limiting mass migration look like, such that you would not be accusing them of xenophobia and racism? How would their arguments differ from core-questions'?
>1. Is there a limit at which you believe mass migration into France would be undesirable?
Too much mass immigration to anywhere would be undesirable, but for economic and population density reasons. I am skeptical of the idea of the idea that culture is fixed and immutable.
> what would a legitimate movement to argue for limiting mass migration look like
It would exist in a time where mass immigration is causing the problems I mentioned above.
> Too much mass immigration to anywhere would be undesirable, but for economic and population density reasons. I am skeptical of the idea of the idea that culture is fixed and immutable.
There is clearly more to it than just economic and population density reasons. Culture matters. Consider, for example, that female genital mutilation is now a European problem. Or that Europe today has de facto implemented Islamic blasphemy laws - where people are afraid to criticize Islam publicly for fear of being murdered. Or that the number of rapes has gone up significantly in Sweden, with more than 80% of rape assaults being carried out by foreign-born individuals? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_Sweden) Or that 52% of British muslims believe that homosexuality should be illegal, and that close to half of British muslims believe that wives should always obey their husbands? (https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/publication/doc...)
So mass immigration can clearly change society for the worse outside of simply economic and population density reasons.
But suppose that it is perceived by the public that the net benefit from mass immigration is negative. How should they organize into a political movement or even voice their concerns, such that they do not get accused of being racist, xenophobic, populist, fascist, far-right?
> Too much mass immigration to anywhere would be undesirable, but for economic and population density reasons.
This seems like a very... austere, perhaps even autistic lens to use on the problem. It sounds like if we were just able to pack people in as perfectly as possible, like apples in a box, and somehow still maintain an average tax profitability from them, you'd be okay with whatever was happening inside the apple box.
Clearly that's a mis-characterization of you or any other reasonable person's viewpoint. The welfare of individuals, their life experience, their safety, their freedom, their ability to express themselves and find their niche... all of this matters.
> I am skeptical of the idea of the idea that culture is fixed and immutable.
Of course not. However, it moves slowly! There's a viscosity to it, and part of that resistance to change is something like an implicit Chesterton's Fence:
> Chesterton's fence is the principle that reforms should not be made until the reasoning behind the existing state of affairs is understood.
Just because you _can_ change a culture (in this case by force, by changing the cultural makeup of a region, often by fiat) does not mean that it is a moral act, or that the result you get out the other side is some predictable good. It is too complicated, too reactionary, too slippery of a concept to deal with in any way other than the purely speculative. Trends don't always continue - and conversely, pretending a trend or other demographic factor doesn't exist can be just as bad. There are far too many inconvenient truths to learn that illustrate the fallibility of humanity in every form, _particularly_ in terms of how we collectively get along with one another.
> It would exist in a time where mass immigration is causing the problems I mentioned above.
A compelling argument that this is already the case is being made by many. The solution thus far has been to remove them from the public square so we can go on pretending there are no problems.
> The solution thus far has been to remove them from the public square so we can go on pretending there are no problems.
Clearly, this is what is happening with your contributions to this discussion. No matter how carefully written, your original contribution is nowhere to be found now. This only goes to show that these matters can not be debated.
>I am skeptical of the idea of the idea that culture is fixed and immutable.
It's absolutely not fixed and immutable. That's what this whole discussion is about: whether there should be policies directed at preserving culture as it exists.
>It would exist in a time where mass immigration is causing the problems I mentioned above.
That the Far Right has gained power in Germany, Austria, Poland, Hungary, Italy, etc etc (not to mention the US) today is all the evidence I need that we live in that time already.
Japan is a fairly ethnically and culturally homogeneous country. It is natural that they would expect Parisians to look and behave a certain way. When they don't, it is of course a big negative to many visitors - they come to Paris expecting a certain look and feel, a certain atmosphere and culture, but they are getting something else.
You do not need to be from Japan to feel that way when visiting Paris either. And I do not see anything wrong with pointing that out.
Here's how it sounds if worded more frankly: "Paris sucks. The transport sucks, bathrooms suck, food sucks, everyone's rude, and there's lots of immigrants."
