re: Is Vivek Ramaswamy right?

quote:

---

Trump doesn’t give a frick about any of us. Voting? For 2 parties that despise you? What a stupid thing to do

---

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

Loading Twitter/X Embed...
If tweet fails to load, click here.

quote:

---

The “diversity vs cohesion” debate is an artifact of a deeper structural failure most people cannot name, only feel. Let’s strip it down.

1. Societies run on trust, not ideals Every complex society depends on a baseline assumption: strangers will behave predictably enough to cooperate.

That assumption is built from:

: •shared norms
•enforced rules
•cultural legibility
•expectations of reciprocity
•confidence that violations carry consequences


When trust density is high, systems feel light. When trust density falls, everything becomes expensive, slow, and political. Diversity increases the number of assumptions that must be coordinated. That raises the burden on institutions. If institutions are strong, this works. If institutions weaken, it breaks fast.


2. Western institutions weakened at the exact wrong moment Over the last few decades, Western states simultaneously:

•expanded demographic complexity
•reduced enforcement credibility
•moralized disagreement
•fragmented shared narratives
•replaced authority with process
•substituted signaling for outcomes


This created a mismatch. The system became more complex while its capacity to manage complexity declined. That is the failure mode. People sense rules are uneven. They sense norms are contested. They sense consequences are selective. They sense no one is actually in charge. Trust responds accordingly.

3. What Putnam observed was a stress response, not a moral verdict When coordination becomes costly, humans withdraw. They:

•volunteer less
•participate less
•vote less
•trust neighbors less
•retreat into smaller identity units

This happens in any overstressed system. It is not unique to race. It is not unique to culture. It is not ideological. It is adaptive behavior under uncertainty. In low coherence environments, people conserve social energy.


4. The real variable is coherence, not composition Homogeneity can mask weak institutions. Heterogeneity exposes them. A coherent society can absorb difference. An incoherent society fractures under it. Modern Western societies lack agreement on:

•what citizenship implies
•what norms are mandatory
•what laws are enforced
•what obligations are mutual
•what the future promises

Without shared direction, difference becomes load instead of strength. That is why the debate feels endless. There is no shared frame to resolve it.

5. Moral framing replaced system design Instead of asking: “What structures can support complexity?”

The discourse shifted to: “Who is morally allowed to question outcomes?” That move froze adaptation. You cannot shame a system into coherence. You cannot signal your way to trust.

You cannot narrative-manage away enforcement gaps.

You cannot import difference faster than you build shared meaning.

Trust is earned through predictability, fairness, and consequence.

Not through rhetoric.

---

quote:

---

They have one. It's called Hungary. You should consider moving there. The United States was not set up to be one.

---

quote:

---

America is culturally diverse and the people of the same cultures congregate with each other because they have common interest. For the most part all these different cultures can get along on a daily basis without much conflict. When one culture encroaches upon another we generally know what to expect and all cultures generally don't want to subjugate and or kill the other cultures except one, Islamic culture. That's the one culture that is most concerning IMO. Once they have a small majority, Shirai law ensues. Not good.

---