Will segregation become a thing again in the future? -

[Hide the Pain Sagman]

There has been a lot of tension in the past 3 years and past 3 months; with people demanding more "safe spaces" and media being more far-left. But I can't help but wonder what will happen if the Government starts complying to these demands and enforce segregation again. Do we blame people or the power of the internet?

 

[UE 558]

Yes, we will become the KKKiwiFarms and only be allowed in "based" places like Italy or Trump Tower

 

[Bassomatic]

As we've seen people more and more group up for racial, sexual, tribal, social lines we see how the only thing not letting us do it more is the goverments forcing us against our wishes to not.

Not everyone would choose to nor want to if we had a choice, we don't have a choice because throwing the serfs together is fine and good in their ivory towers of other rich powerful people who think just like them.

As much as I shit post and joke here, I'm really not as bigoted as I come off, I am 100% being allowed to segratate, why should shop owner who hates me have to sell to me? I sure as fuck rather him/her tell me no men at the door so I know they are a bigot and I don't support them. Now they have a gun to their head literally and figurtively to have us exchange.

Now, we as consumers are allowed to hold our dollar in protest, being we can't close our doors to those we don't want in exchange, we are in the blind. We may support racism, sexism etc. I can see a Trump 2020 sign out of a store and then make my choice if I want to support that. I don't know this person may hate blacks, or jews etc. A big old swastisa outside may make it pretty clear and attract people and push aways others.

We will keep seeing it grow online as people are tribal in nature and more closed minded than they should be, but in the end of the day that's both our nature and reality. The fact we try to fight it is just another battle against the waves.

 

[The Flawless Gazelles]

i consider the kiwifarms one of the safest spaces on the internet. the rules are clear and simple, no one cares what you are unless you want to be a snowflake. and people will help you learning to code.

 

[Professional iPad Hoarder]

After the shared bathrooms I would not be surprised if they demanded a full segregation because they are exceptionals, but it's very unlikely to happen, unless you live in a very politically correct country.

 

[Clop]

I am optimistic, I think the political pendulum is starting its journey back and the people demanding more government intervention in every single detail in everyone's lives are going to lose. Most people don't want segregation and most people will start pushing back.

 

[Bassomatic]

After the shared bathrooms I would not be surprised if they demanded a full segregation because they are exceptionals, but it's very unlikely to happen, unless you live in a very politically correct country.

This won't work but if only in theory. No one would clean the rest rooms, fix their broken buses or go to their job sites. Then what? Gov hand outs.

As we saw here in the US, after civil rights act forced us to intermingle, the areas that were really heavy black got tons of gov bux from tax payers because the poor blacks didn't pay taxes. Then they shipped their kids to the rich white burb schools anyways.

Or on a global scale, europe stopped slave trade and left Africa alone to thrive on it's vast wealth, and kept the place a wonderful free POC contient the only of it's kind.

Guess who's still getting bailed out? Not very segrataed to live on my tax dollars now is it.

 

[ColtWalker1847]

The intent of "separate but equal" was divide society with the goal of diverting public resources and supporting the rights of the favored side. Breaking that down and homogenizing society was an attempt to correct that.

What we are seeing now it another attempt to divide society for exactly the same reasons. The only thing that has changed is the side that is being favored.

 

[HeraldofNurgle]

I think it may be possible, but it would backfire spectacularly. Nobody wants to hear a bunch of screeching people blaming whitey and men for literally every bad thing in the world. They want to segregate themselves, let them. They can be screaming in their own 'safe spaces' while the rest of us can have some goddamn peace and quiet.

Congrats! You claim that white supremacists want to separate blacks and such from society, so you just go ahead and do it for them!

 

[Knucklehead]

Nah. If so the people who create it will then complain when it fails.

 

[Lensherr]

I'd go a step further and say that carving up the United States into multiple different nations based on ethnic and/or ideological grounds seems to be a much more plausible scenario than it used to be.

Ethnic diversity within a nation inevitably breeds conflict, and the only way to really keep things under control is with a strongman dictator being in charge of things: as we saw with Tito in Yugoslavia and Saddam in the Middle East, once they were removed from power, things went to hell in a handbasket as the various ethnic groups that were under their control started slaughtering each other. In that regard, ethnic separation would be preferable to avoid such a situation and having to live under an oppressive regime.

In the US context, I think that a lot of the ethnic tensions that we have today can be traced back to the 1965 Hart-Cellar Immigration Act, which allowed people from third-world nations to immigrate to the country. Unlike the immigrants before, who were of European stock and readily assimilated with the European-descended natives, many, and dare I say most, of these new migrants did not do so readily, and have never really ever assimilated at all. Simply put, these groups and Europeans build fundamentally different societies, which leads to a lot of this ethnic tension as their ways of life collide with each other.

The way I see it, there are three ways that the US could prevent heading towards the sort of catastrophe that befell Yugoslavia in the future:

1. Close off all immigration. or go back to only letting in Europeans.
2. Allow the country to be ruled by a secular strongman dictator like Tito, Saddam, or Assad who can keep the peace between all the different ethnic groups.
3. Divide the country into ethnostates based on population densities of the various ethnic groups (i.e., whites get the regions that are already most white, blacks the ones that are most black, etc.), including a multiracial one for people not comfortable with segregation.

Of these options, the first and third are the most preferable for me, but I'll admit, both are unlikely at this point in time, although if things keep going the way that they do, it'll be too late for the former and we'll have to go with the latter just to prevent any sort of ethnic cleansing from occurring.

 

[Krokodil Overdose]

"Again?" Inasmuch as people self-segregate as much as they're allowed to now, it's really a matter of the law catching up with (blatantly) revealed preferences.

 

[Bassomatic]

Nah. If so the people who create it will then complain when it fails.

It's ironic there's two groups who want this, people who care about freedom, and bigots. Bigots don't really want others to have sep/equal spaces. People whom care about freedom don't really care one way or the other let the population and market allow.

No one complains about how bad it is in Liberia, but when a few people want to opt out of social security or health care. That needs jack boots stomping on it less the KKK rise up.

 

[FA 855]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women-only_passenger_car It already is. Also look at films which trumpet their diverse cast but are in fact monoracial (Black Panther, near enough). The age of the multiracial, cosmopolitan society could very well be nearing its end.
I think it is very plausible (But not inevitable) that the US is going to go down the way the NZ shooter thought it would. A democrat will be elected, introduce poorly thought out gun control legislation, balkanise the US into two different camps which inevitably turns in civil war which leads to the creation of ethnostates and/or far more authoritarian societies.
Without the help of the US, European democracy will die, the right will realise that the shining beacon of democracy in the US is dead, and they will inevitably then be elected into power with greater spending on the military to protect themselves from Russia, why? Because millions will have become unemployed, crime rates will be up, a little law and order can reduce the crime rate, reemploy people in the military and restore nationalism. Either that or Russia/China will capitalise on the infighting. All those left wing activist groups subsequently will be shut down hard in order to gear the European states towards efficient militarisation and defence in the now clear power vacuum of the late 21st century.

 

[RG 448]

It won’t become a thing again if people keep blabbing about it to the public before everything’s in place smh

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

It's ironic there's two groups who want this, people who care about freedom, and bigots. Bigots don't really want others to have sep/equal spaces. People whom care about freedom don't really care one way or the other let the population and market allow.

A segregated society isn't a free one. If you allow private businesses to refuse to serve people based upon their race/ethnicity, then the freedom of those people to go about their day and enjoy a life free of persecution is being infringed upon. People who moan about the strong arm of the government in this instance are idiots. It isn't only the government that can deny you freedom, and the history of racial discrimination at the hands of private businesses and landowners proves this.

Allowing people to act as an obstruction in other people's daily lives is not a victory for freedom. Freedom is the power that each individual has over their own lives, and laws against unnecessary discrimination help to engender that.

No one complains about how bad it is in Liberia, but when a few people want to opt out of social security or health care. That needs jack boots stomping on it less the KKK rise up.

I fail to see what is tyrannical about using taxpayer's money to fund things which are clearly in the public interest.

 

[Grunt]

They will be allowed to segregate, but not White people. If White people DO NOT stand up for themselves you'll see South Africa repeated in the US in the next generation - the one after generation Z.

 

[Nacho Man Randy Salsa]

I'd go a step further and say that carving up the United States into multiple different nations based on ethnic and/or ideological grounds seems to be a much more plausible scenario than it used to be.

Ethnic diversity within a nation inevitably breeds conflict, and the only way to really keep things under control is with a strongman dictator being in charge of things: as we saw with Tito in Yugoslavia and Saddam in the Middle East, once they were removed from power, things went to hell in a handbasket as the various ethnic groups that were under their control started slaughtering each other. In that regard, ethnic separation would be preferable to avoid such a situation and having to live under an oppressive regime.

In the US context, I think that a lot of the ethnic tensions that we have today can be traced back to the 1965 Hart-Cellar Immigration Act, which allowed people from third-world nations to immigrate to the country. Unlike the immigrants before, who were of European stock and readily assimilated with the European-descended natives, many, and dare I say most, of these new migrants did not do so readily, and have never really ever assimilated at all. Simply put, these groups and Europeans build fundamentally different societies, which leads to a lot of this ethnic tension as their ways of life collide with each other.

The way I see it, there are three ways that the US could prevent heading towards the sort of catastrophe that befell Yugoslavia in the future:

1. Close off all immigration. or go back to only letting in Europeans.
2. Allow the country to be ruled by a secular strongman dictator like Tito, Saddam, or Assad who can keep the peace between all the different ethnic groups.
3. Divide the country into ethnostates based on population densities of the various ethnic groups (i.e., whites get the regions that are already most white, blacks the ones that are most black, etc.), including a multiracial one for people not comfortable with segregation.

Of these options, the first and third are the most preferable for me, but I'll admit, both are unlikely at this point in time, although if things keep going the way that they do, it'll be too late for the former and we'll have to go with the latter just to prevent any sort of ethnic cleansing from occurring.

I agree with you that the balkanization of America is happening and the end result will be the breakup of the union and the creation of many new nations, but I disagree that they will be drawn up on ethnic grounds.

 

[Bassomatic]

A segregated society isn't a free one. If you allow private businesses to refuse to serve people based upon their race/ethnicity, then the freedom of those people to go about their day and enjoy a life free of persecution is being infringed upon. People who moan about the strong arm of the government in this instance are idiots. It isn't only the government that can deny you freedom, and the history of racial discrimination at the hands of private businesses and landowners proves this.

Allowing people to act as an obstruction in other people's daily lives is not a victory for freedom. Freedom is the power that each individual has over their own lives, and laws against unnecessary discrimination help to engender that.



I fail to see what is tyrannical about using taxpayer's money to fund things which are clearly in the public interest.

Yes it is, because if it's not forced, it's not promised to happen also it respects people's rights to segergate IF they choose, no one holds a gun making me do something or not do something. Im just as against the law being able to deny me seeing a black person or woman etc. I'd love to see how you can call me an idiot when if indeed the strong arm is the only thing forcing this.

If I own land, I should and do choose whom is welcome on it, whom is not. If I own a company, I can't choose this anymore. That's a fact. I don't think saying people are forced to hire, work for or with people they don't like on a basis of bigotry is a step on freedom.

If a group is so universally disliked, what are they even doing hanging around? Since you aren't a slave, go somewhere you are welcome. If you aren't liked by anyone, perhaps you are the problem.

Have you seen a high school in a large city? Tell me that's a public good. 50% grad rates at the good ones, crippling debt etc. Yet the good public schools where tax payers thrive and live don't seem to have this.

Granted you've already sunk to insults with out much substance of your debate other than saying nuh uh. And dude what if racism? My retort is so what you said racism isn't allowed in freedom. I suggest you check what that words means.

 

[ZeCommissar]

What the far left and far right don't want to believe is that they have already lost their powergrab in history. Like starving dying wolves they wait for the bloated diseased body of democracy to finally keel over and die while they sweep in for the kill and set up their own "utopias". What they don't realize is that democracy (at least in the United States) won't die unless a catastrophic event on a scale mankind has never seen before happens to the nation. Then they will inherit nothing but ruins that are almost worthless. The wolves may finally eat their meal, but it won't be enough to sustain them.

They lost their battle in the mid-late 20th century. They might be able to set up societies across the world that will inevitably fall, but they will never take control of the USA. If people honestly believe such 1984 hellholes are what's best for them then by all means move somewhere else and make it.

I do not believe nationwide segregation will come back.

I'd go a step further and say that carving up the United States into multiple different nations based on ethnic and/or ideological grounds seems to be a much more plausible scenario than it used to be.

Ethnic diversity within a nation inevitably breeds conflict, and the only way to really keep things under control is with a strongman dictator being in charge of things: as we saw with Tito in Yugoslavia and Saddam in the Middle East, once they were removed from power, things went to hell in a handbasket as the various ethnic groups that were under their control started slaughtering each other. In that regard, ethnic separation would be preferable to avoid such a situation and having to live under an oppressive regime.

In the US context, I think that a lot of the ethnic tensions that we have today can be traced back to the 1965 Hart-Cellar Immigration Act, which allowed people from third-world nations to immigrate to the country. Unlike the immigrants before, who were of European stock and readily assimilated with the European-descended natives, many, and dare I say most, of these new migrants did not do so readily, and have never really ever assimilated at all. Simply put, these groups and Europeans build fundamentally different societies, which leads to a lot of this ethnic tension as their ways of life collide with each other.

The way I see it, there are three ways that the US could prevent heading towards the sort of catastrophe that befell Yugoslavia in the future:

1. Close off all immigration. or go back to only letting in Europeans.
2. Allow the country to be ruled by a secular strongman dictator like Tito, Saddam, or Assad who can keep the peace between all the different ethnic groups.
3. Divide the country into ethnostates based on population densities of the various ethnic groups (i.e., whites get the regions that are already most white, blacks the ones that are most black, etc.), including a multiracial one for people not comfortable with segregation.

Of these options, the first and third are the most preferable for me, but I'll admit, both are unlikely at this point in time, although if things keep going the way that they do, it'll be too late for the former and we'll have to go with the latter just to prevent any sort of ethnic cleansing from occurring.

I would say that you are wrong. You might have had a case while Civil Rights was in full swing (which had way worse ethnic tensions than what we have now) but dividing the United States into ethnostates based on the majority population living there wouldn't work and is currently impossible for multiple reasons.

1. Who would accept it? Imagine living in your town with your own house for decades just for some jackboot to tell you "yeah I need you to move across the entire country. Why? Oh because some people don't like their black neighbors, and so we assume you don't too." If someone wouldn't let the government take their guns why the hell would they let them take their home?
The government needs to provide me with TRIPLE of what my house is worth and assure me that I could find a similar paying job to even consider moving on their behalf. You can take my home from my cold dead hands. I am sure many people feel the same way too.

2.Blacks are only the majority in a handful of US cities and counties. Yet shoving all of them across the country into those same cities or into the "multicultural" nation would not be a very good idea.
Not only would you be displacing people hundreds of miles, they would also have to restart their entire lives in a place that may not even be able to support them. The same goes for any other non-white race, or even white people that do live as a minority in certain areas.

3.A dictatorship is not what even half of the American people want. The government needs power, but to put it all into the hands of one man that will eventually die will not fix anything longer than the next 20-80 years depending on how long he lives. It is also extremely anti-American.
The American people are used to a myriad of freedoms that have been apart of this nation since it's foundation, and it would be really unpleasant for the person that strips them away

4. The multicultural nation would be the largest and most powerful one. Contrary to what people on the internet think most human beings do not actively dislike their fellow man regardless of race. Sure some people might not tolerate other races as well as their own, but that doesn't mean they can't STAND to be near them.

We will solve the ethnic tensions by talking about them in a calm and civil manner. We do not fix it by reeeeeeeeee'ing at white men. We do not fix it by re-segregating society or by building ethnostates. We do not fix it by treating some races with kids gloves and not talking about the elephants in the room. If we can get through a Civil War and Civil Rights without tearing the country apart then we can get through much more.

If someone wants to be around people of only their race they can move to a area where their race makes up 98-99% of the population, not force everyone else around them to do it too.