yes, it isn't twitter, and it can't become twitter. It is essentially different on a technical level.

I trust a lot of "how we do things around here" arises from this material level, and not some superior seed culture.

I agree, it's more a consequence of an open discussion format which requires some research to use.

That filters out a lot of the entertainment/smartphone audience.

the pinned post on your profile says you want to relocate all ethnic groups to restore western civilisation

That seems pretty Bad to me.

Diversity is bad. Ending it is good. Doesn't matter what the groups are, more than one per society is a path to failure. I dislike failure; it does lots of bad.

right. I am pretty sure I'm too diverse from your point of view to have any enjoyable or even constructive discourse.

Non sequitur, really. People can have useful conversations across any lines.

If what you are saying is that you are too afraid to consider this as a possibility, I understand. The burden of diversity is great.

Nice bait. Just don't want to waste my limited time on this earth.

Please know I'm dedicated to pluralism and find the idea ethnostates nightmarish.

It is not designed as bait. Some find their personal situations make it difficult to accept parts of reality.

If you want pluralism, you probably want ethnostates, because only that way do you preserve the differences between groups.

No, there is plenty of self-separation in most cities.

The end result however is that there is no culture of substance. Everyone lives in their own bubble, trying to practice their own culture, but being forced into non-culture through interactions with others.

You've got some deep essentialism going on there.

There is always culture, wherever there are people.

Every move, every day, leads to smaller or bigger changes in those cultures.

No monoliths.

"Culture" comes in differing degrees. I do not see television and politics as "culture," and that seems to be all that is left once diversity arrives.

Replacing something good with something bad is change, and saying that change is inevitable is simply a compensatory projection there.

it's unfortunate, but he's attracted to satan's culture - mankind randomly finds himself on a planet of wonders, observes that things change, which is scary, decides to support global humanist religion and thereby commits to global homogeneity (but still allowing "cultural differences" so long as they are trivial and don't offend anybody else.)

Humanism, in other words, as opposed to noticing structures larger than individuals and their desires, feelings, and judgments.

I did not get the "Satan's culture" reference, but most of my knowledge of Satan comes from Milton.

yes, Milton's satan is best satan.

Milton's Satan makes sense: a rugged individualist who is not concerned with The Plan and therefore sets up his own kingdom in the wasteland, then finds that without a plan, he falls into dissolute behavior.

Satan is mostly a scapegoat for people blaming "evil" instead of accepting that their illusory thinking caused bad results when it collided with reality.

that is a reasonable left-hemisphere analysis. The most striking thing about Milton's satan is his stupidity. He commits endless logical fallacies, because he is cut off from the true font of wisdom.

The big point that is interesting to me is not that Satan is stupid, but that he has no direction. He is an archetypal libertarian or liberal, casting aside The Plan (culture, goodness) in favor of absolute personal authority.

yes. It's always funny when a libertine lambasts the idea of state orthodoxy, but then insists that we accept their convenient list of "human rights" as self-evident.

It tells us what "human rights" really are: "my right" to do what I want, have society subsidize it, and dodge the consequences while hiding behind an aegis of promiscuous altruism.

it's a shame that some good critical points towards contemporary, popular philosophy lead you to the neo-reactionism conclusion of authoritarian ethnostatism.

The legal basis of 'human rights' is indeed shaky, with only patchy legal support. But I would say the basis of "the plan" is much shakier still.

Anyway, I'm a Quaker, so I'll just go diving on my own ✌️

I am pre-neoreaction, as you probably knew.

Monarchism works, where as #LateStageDemocracy shows us, democracy implodes.

The point of nationalism is one ethnicity per nation for the sake of stability, which benefits all people and peoples.

I'm going to politely decline further discussion on this point.

Despite sharing some of your concerns (stability, benefits for all) I find your conclusions unimaginative and cruel. This discussion distracts me from things I want to dedicate my attention to.

You may share a link to something that summarises your beliefs if you wish.