If you could redraw countries borders today on world what would you change? and resettle people

[Seaside]

Yes, I can see that you're a deeply unserious man.



Says the guy who wants to murder people for believing in individualism and equal rights.

also why should one care what happens to someone who go somewhere else to cause trouble? if they not know them

Now it looks like you're the one taking the discussion too seriously. Is your view that if I oppose him on this, I'm saying that I want to go to his little fishing town or whatever and bring some minorities to settle there? Because that is not my plan. But if he makes a statement that diversity in general makes a place less safe or trusting, I'll point out that that claim is not supported by evidence.

yeah i did not pay attention to his argument diversity make a place less safe. i could care less and i am sure examples can be given to support either place there are diverse places of subsaharan africa that seem constant fighting and also places in india or pakistan and then there are diverse places in america or canada that do not. it depend on place.

glad you not make that argument it seem you were saying whole world should become one giant nyc and ´diverse´ i hate that argument. keep it to you all country. if japanese want it and vote for it okay that there thing.

 

[Seaside]

Didn't think you would. What gives you the impression that they are embracing diversity?

How long was America known as a country that let in everyone from around the world?

It's not good for them. Yes fuck the lunatics in those countries that want to export their whacked out social change.

i have no idea. i think personaly maybe america needs less muslim immigrants because muslims around world prefer to live with themselves and often push there views to become the normal. but if america wants a bunch then okay dont care. i always thought you guys had immigrant nature becuase it was a country by immigrants and then many other immigrants.

 

[TheGreatA]

OK, but generally, New York is safer than most homogeneous places so your argument that racial purity = more safety has some problems.

Racial purity has less to do with it. Unity under cultural, linguistic, religious, and yes, to some extent ethnic (but perhaps less so compared to many other factors) attributes, generates safety and stability.

Part of why a New York city can function today, is because they have access to the most advanced technology available, to bring about the level of surveillance, law-enforcing and welfare production that is necessary to run a multicultural metropolitan city successfully.

Not all countries today have the privilege of residing as a major center of trade, education and productivity in the world, as New York does. For a 3rd world country, for example, a harmonous co-existence between a firmly united people, is more effective in bringing about the required peace and stability to further their social progress, than introducing a "diversity" of ethnicities, languages, religions, to the equation.

I'm not saying that a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic country cannot afford the same level of stability or safety as a mono-cultural ethno-state, but it has to work a lot harder for it. That's a fact. A fact that most American pioneers admitted and were fully willing to live with, without necessarily deeming their way "superior" or inferior, to what they abandoned in Europe. It was just how they chose to live, and that's all there was to it.

That's all there ought to be to it, today. If Europeans wanted to live the American way then they would've left for America. If Americans wanted to live the European way, then they would've stayed in Europe. They still possess that choice to choose however they want to live, although there may no longer be such an alternative if we see Europe become another United States.

 

[Soul Crusher]

i have no idea. i think personaly maybe america needs less muslim immigrants because muslims around world prefer to live with themselves and often push there views to become the normal. but if america wants a bunch then okay dont care. i always thought you guys had immigrant nature becuase it was a country by immigrants and then many other immigrants.

Those immigrants eventually became Americans, Canadians and Australians. More kept coming but they were eventually absorbed by the established majority population. It's harder to absorb large quantities of non European immigrants.

Judging by the travel bans and all of that I think it's safe to say America doesn't want total diversification.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Part of why a New York city can function today, is because they have access to the most advanced technology available, to bring about the level of surveillance, law-enforcing and welfare production that is necessary to run a multicultural metropolitan city successfully.

Nope. I could have used many examples, including my own smallish town (of 70K or so). Your theory is simply wrong. There are high-crime areas that are very homogeneous and low-crime areas that are very heterogeneous. There's no consistent correlation.

 

[Islam Imamate]

The Middle East and most of if not all of Africa.

HOW I would redraw them I have no idea but those are the two obvious places that come to mind.

Yeah I mentioned that I would have those two regions combined into one large state, a federated one ideally. Extreme Balkanization is the opposite approach with every ethnic and tribal group getting their own state.

 

[Gregolian]

Yeah I mentioned that I would have those two regions combined into one large state, a federated one ideally. Extreme Balkanization is the opposite approach with every ethnic and tribal group getting their own state.

I know it's pretty fucked to say this but:

Let their tribal/group leaders war it out for half a century and go from there.

 

[TheGreatA]

Nope. I could have used many examples, including my own smallish town (of 70K or so). Your theory is simply wrong.

You don't seem to be able to address my arguments in any way other than by proclaiming them to be wrong somehow.

Let's not forget that New York's crime rates were 4 to 5 times as high as they are now, only as recently as the 1990's. Something interesting took place during that 90's era:

There's also another interesting fact about New York City:

https://www.cnsnews.com/news/articl...c-78-abortions-were-black-and-hispanic-babies

It appears to me that there has been a systematic "purging" of the multi-ethnic element, since the 70's.

If you compare New York's crime rates to a homogeneous city of similar standing in the world, such as Tokyo, the crime rates still cannot compare.

It's a fool's errand to act as if homogeneity does not play a large part into a society's stability and safety. Whether that should be the end goal or not, is another question entirely. That is precisely why America was never built on top of the principles of safety or stability, but rather freedom and individualism. The latter principles allowed America to continue on a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic path, unquestioned. Less so nowadays, as safety and stability have become more of an "end goal" for many citizens, over individual freedoms.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I know it's pretty fucked to say this but:

Let their tribal/group leaders war it out for half a century and go from there.

I think we're about to see a lot of improvement in the region in the next 20 years. Major underrated source of problems there is lead exposure, and the region only started catching up to the rest of the world on that in 1998 (meaning people born before that have issues), and that was just the beginning (Egypt led the way and others started slowly following--still a problem in Iraq and Afghanistan, though).

 

[sub_thug]

You'd probably contaminate them and transform them into assholes, too.

That was kind of an asshole thing to say. Are you sure it’s us contaminating people?

 

[Jack V Savage]

You don't seem to be able to address my arguments in any way other than by proclaiming them to be wrong somehow.

Your arguments are all over the place. Standard alt-right stuff.

Let's not forget that New York's crime rates were 4 to 5 times as high as they are now, only as recently as the 1990's.

Yes. U.S. crime in general rose sharply from the 1960s to the early 1990s and then started reversing. Lead is the most likely cause of both the rise and the fall.

It appears to me that there has been a systematic "purging" of the multi-ethnic element, since the 70's.

It seems that way to you as a non-American who knows most of what he knows about our country from alt-right websites, yes? New York was 52% white in 1990 and is 44% white now. Whoops!

It's a fool's errand to act as if homogeneity does not play a large part into a society's stability and safety.

It's a fool's errand to try to convince alt-right types. That much is true. But anyone else can look into the issue for themselves. Good start here (balanced piece, BTW):

http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-siren-song-of-homogeneity.html

 

[TheGreatA]

Your arguments are all over the place. Standard alt-right stuff.

Atleast I have an argument.

Yes. U.S. crime in general rose sharply from the 1960s to the early 1990s and then started reversing. Lead is the most likely cause of both the rise and the fall.

Sounds like a very convenient thing to believe in. Chalk that all down to lead poisoning.

I would say that America's success in cracking down on its criminal gangs, as well as increasing technological standards, bringing about a greater level of welfare and surveillance, have had the largest effect.

It seems that way to you as a non-American who knows most of what he knows about our country from alt-right websites, yes? New York was 52% white in 1990 and is 44% white now. Whoops!

The demographics that have increased since the 90's, are Asians (from 3% in the 80's to 13% today) and Latinos (20% in the 80's to 28% today).

It might be inconvenient to point out that the black population in New York has actually decreased from the 90's.

It might also be inconvenient to point out that New York is recognized as a somewhat "racially segregated" city, by American standards.

https://danielkayhertz.com/2014/04/14/how-segregated-is-new-york-city/

I'm merely pointing out that I do not necessarily consider New York a picture perfect depiction of racial harmony. If there are holes in my theory, then there are certainly many in yours, as well.

It's a fool's errand to try to convince alt-right types. That much is true. But anyone else can look into the issue for themselves. Good start here (balanced piece, BTW):

http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2017/04/the-siren-song-of-homogeneity.html

It seems that you resort heavily into the standard rhetoric (alt-right, blah blah) when somebody presents facts contrary to the views that you feel comfortable with.

Fine, if you don't want to have the discussion, then we need not bother. I'm not here to argue against some opinion blog, nor would I expect anyone else to.

 

[ryan3434]

Id draw the American border around Quebec.. You guys can have the french..

 

[rearnakedchoke]

Put palestine in jordan.

 

[Gregolian]

I think we're about to see a lot of improvement in the region in the next 20 years. Major underrated source of problems there is lead exposure, and the region only started catching up to the rest of the world on that in 1998 (meaning people born before that have issues), and that was just the beginning (Egypt led the way and others started slowly following--still a problem in Iraq and Afghanistan, though).

I just feel like there's too many people that historically hate each other getting shoved into small zones and being forced to work together.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Atleast I have an argument.

You really don't, though. That's the thing. Remember, I pointed out that the factual basis of your claim was false and you responded with excuses that don't really salvage your position.

Sounds like a very convenient thing to believe in. Chalk that all down to lead poisoning.

Convenient for what? It's convenient for people who are focused on the data here (other explanations are subject to inconvenient factual claims).

I would say that America's success in cracking down on its criminal gangs, as well as increasing technological standards, bringing about a greater level of welfare and surveillance, have had the largest effect.

You would say that based on what? I submit that the answer is nothing. You're using your biased intuition to draw conclusions, but the data contradict those conclusions. Hypothesizing is fine, but the ones you're proposing have already been tested and failed.

The demographics that have increased since the 90's, are Asians (from 3% in the 80's to 13% today) and Latinos (20% in the 80's to 28% today).

It might be inconvenient to point out that the black population in New York has actually decreased from the 90's.

So you're amending your claim here. Previously you were saying that diversity leads to crime, but now you're saying that diversity is fine as long as blacks are a smaller part of the equation, no?

I'm merely pointing out that I do not necessarily consider New York a picture perfect depiction of racial harmony. If there are holes in my theory, then there are certainly many in yours, as well.

What is your understanding of my theory? I'm pointing out that your claims are false.

It seems that you resort heavily into the standard rhetoric (alt-right, blah blah) when somebody presents facts contrary to the views that you feel comfortable with.

You didn't do that at all, though. I pointed out facts that were contrary to your views. You responded to that on multiple occasions by A) changing the supposed basis of your claims and B) repeating your claims. Sounds like your position is not being driven by what you're claiming it is driven by. Further, what standard rhetoric are you referring to? Your making claims associated with a particular ideology so what is the issue with referring to that ideology?

Fine, if you don't want to have the discussion, then we need not bother. I'm not here to argue against some opinion blog, nor would I expect anyone else to.

You misunderstand. I get that you're deeply emotionally committed to your views even though they are objectively wrong, and I said that if anyone is really interested, they should do their own research. Then I linked to a resource that links to a lot of data on the issue along with some interpretation (which you foolishly call "some opinion blog") as a starting point in that process.

 

[D Train]

Can I get a Scandinavian country put in my neighborhood? because those girls are fine as hell.

 

[A.S. Deep]

Thought this may be funny.

I give more land to the Armenains they are an oppressed people and have a really small country (fun fact they almost got more land when stalin considered annexing a good chunk of turkey that border armenia),, i give kurds some land for kurdish homeland in turkey, iran, iraq, syria, and i give israel all of west bank, sinai and jordan what they had before, i give crimea to russia obviously and parts of east ukraine since they want be part of russia anyways, i would give alaska back to russia, china would keep tibet, japan gets back sakalin islands which soviets took from them, greece gets its old cities back like izmir and Istanbul and that area, also cyprus, ukraine gives back land to hungary and romania that was historically part of them, oh and


and my favorite. US gives back its territories to mexico and mexico gives them back to spain and spain gives them back to indians. LOL oh and give canada to USA

oh and Sweden and norway combine, and Greenland gets freedom! and ethiopia gets all of east horn of africa!

LOVE this idea for a thread.

1. Replace all countries in Middle East with a country for Kurds, a country for Sunnis, a country for Shia, and of course Israel. Would fix a lot of the sectarian violence, though the nations would still want to blow each other up.

2. Divide Pakistan in two. Right side goes to India, left side goes to Afghanistan. Ethnically Pakistan is already two countries anyway. Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, and Bhutan also go to India.

 

[Cuzcatlan]

California independence and we annex Baja California to finally unify Alta and Baja Californian.

Central American unification once again including Panama this time. Annexing Chiapas from Mexico and return it back to Central America.

Give Bolivia back the territory they lost to Chile and Peru in the war of the Pacific.
Bolivia has been psychologicallyn damage as landlocked nation.

"What was ours will be ours again!"

"Take that! Chilean Rat!"

 

[Cuzcatlan]

I wonder if Japanese wives have to always playact like they hate the sex in order for their husbands to get off.