It should be different when you have multiculturalism to accept migrants and it’s another thing entirely when you conquer foreign people. And yet, for both cases, they will be content.
- 8
- 1
Multiculturalism is way too OP with no drawbacks
- Thread starter intelstyle
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
part of this is maybe the simplicity of integrating territory. minorities in core territories are different from minorities on the periphery, but you can make the periphery core territory in a fairly irrelevant period of time in this game
The issue is that it’s too good with little downside and it creates a situation where it really isn’t a choice. If opening up a country’s borders to people of all faiths and cultures around the world was the best thing to do, then why didn’t more countries in this time period do it?
The reasons “why” countries didn’t do it should be better represented in the game such that it feels like an actual choice with meaningful benefits and downsides. Currently, it’s not much of a choice.
There will always be an “optimal” way to play but the closer the difference is, the more fun and interesting it is for the player.
Oh and about some countries not needing Multiculturalism because they have enough pops already - do you only play Qing? Even Russia has significant ethnic minorities of which multiculturalism solves the issue easily.
- 9
- 4
- 1
For the same reason we dogmatically tear down the landowners. Those rulers WERE landowners (and industrialists).
Basically our interests are incredibly ahistorical being "the good of the nation" rather than "the good of our class and our pocketbook".
We don't benefit from racism against the Irish, which like the English gentry did. Because if the working class becomes powerful we shrug and transition to a consumer economy instead of lose all our power.
As long as we are playing AS a nation we can't really represent the reasons their ruling classes didn't want power to transfer, we even encourage it.
- 13
- 5
- 1
Okay, except the problem is the negative effects that a primary culture would likely feel for being in a multicultural society with no migration controls is not adequately modeled. Which goes into what the name of the thread is .. “Multiculturalism is too OP”. There’s no downside - it’s too good.
- 4
- 4
- 1
And your suggestion is to conquer, giving the same benefits as multiculturalism, or even as an addition to multiculturalism?
- 2
- 1
What positive effects am I supposed to be feeling for living in a non-multicultural society again?
Or what negative effects am I supposed to be feeling if you think my society is multicultural again?
Do I think the reasons these laws exist are enacted? No. I do not. But those "benefits" rely on having an existing population to oppress, and are more about weakening the trade union/ruralist group by focusing the poor as identifying as "the primary culture" rather than poor (or urban, or rural.).
But that doesn't change that we the player do not really benefit from them the way ruling classes do. Oppressing the Irish benefited the english ruling class, it didn't benefit Great Britain. And we the player play Great Britain, not it's ruling class.
- 11
- 3
My point is that the pop growth from migration isn't much of an upside in a game where the world iron reserves are tapped out by the time you've employed all your Peasants in high-productivity buildings. Multiculturalism migration is then irrelevant because the resource is what you need and migrants don't carry iron with them.
Except later in the game more pops is actually a downside once you start needing to downgrade PMs just to not have massive unemployment. At that point it's better to discriminate against as many as possible to make sure the people unemployed and starving don't have any significant political power.
- 2
Multiculturalism is the idea that all cultures are seen as & to be equal to that of the primary Culture within. Therefore the reality is the pops do not Assimilate to the primary culture ( they are all seen as equally valid, as there is no push to Assimilate to the primary culture.)
Therefore creating enclaves, internal collective power conflicts & eventual Seperatist movements within each Area that a cultural enclave is in power, that is not of the original Nations Main Culture.
This is dependent on two factors 1) whom is the Majority in a given location.
2) Who has the Power, generally the majority culture holds the most power due to over representation, exceptions do apply to the Elite structure ie. like Rome's Imperial Cult or Nepotism & Ethnic based structures like Indias Caste system.
Its obviously why no Country on earth has or will ever have "Multiculturalism" by its definition, as opposed to the assumed meaning Multiple + Cultures.
It's a great example of Politics and Business usages of Marketing aka Lying out the teeth.
Buy my WaterBrick today only 4,99.. pw.
Therefore creating enclaves, internal collective power conflicts & eventual Seperatist movements within each Area that a cultural enclave is in power, that is not of the original Nations Main Culture.
This is dependent on two factors 1) whom is the Majority in a given location.
2) Who has the Power, generally the majority culture holds the most power due to over representation, exceptions do apply to the Elite structure ie. like Rome's Imperial Cult or Nepotism & Ethnic based structures like Indias Caste system.
Its obviously why no Country on earth has or will ever have "Multiculturalism" by its definition, as opposed to the assumed meaning Multiple + Cultures.
It's a great example of Politics and Business usages of Marketing aka Lying out the teeth.
Buy my WaterBrick today only 4,99.. pw.
Last edited:
- 4
- 2
- 1
If I had a Capitalism Run, say as Britain & the India Trade Company & I don't care about the well being & entire collapse of the locals I would add..
1A) Multiculturalism - with none stop influx of Immigration from all over world adds population the fastest. instead of local pop growth by baby making which takes time, is cohesion focused... but money.
1B) Promote Individualism to slow down the friction between the Cultures so they don't get too angry too fast while I sack them.
2A) Feminism - Now that means Women are free from raising offspring so ill add them to Work force 50%+ more workforce.
2B) Contraception like 'conds & abort services' freely available for this purpose.
3A) NOW i can increase the Cost of living & products to the sht house.
3B) NOW i can sell more goods like Sell 2 Fridges, 2 cars, 2 apartments, 2 beds etc. Works best when promoting Divorce incentives & individualism.
3C) With the large increase within the Workforce Market, Job Competition is higher & demand for workers is lower, therefore wages are lowered.
4) Finance - TAX the people to the HIGHEST.
5) Finance - Laissez - Faire & tax exemption so free trade & tax free for me & companies.
6) Slavery - Slavery abolished inside Britain for a consumer based system.
7) Slavery - Slavery enabled in Trade Company for cheap labour, building Factories, Manufacturing, industry, high pollution buildings, bad living standards dont matter you don't live there etc.
8) Now the Con of this is that Britain loses its industry if The Trade Company ever declares independence but if I'm a Capitalist ill just retire.
1A) Multiculturalism - with none stop influx of Immigration from all over world adds population the fastest. instead of local pop growth by baby making which takes time, is cohesion focused... but money.
1B) Promote Individualism to slow down the friction between the Cultures so they don't get too angry too fast while I sack them.
2A) Feminism - Now that means Women are free from raising offspring so ill add them to Work force 50%+ more workforce.
2B) Contraception like 'conds & abort services' freely available for this purpose.
3A) NOW i can increase the Cost of living & products to the sht house.
3B) NOW i can sell more goods like Sell 2 Fridges, 2 cars, 2 apartments, 2 beds etc. Works best when promoting Divorce incentives & individualism.
3C) With the large increase within the Workforce Market, Job Competition is higher & demand for workers is lower, therefore wages are lowered.
4) Finance - TAX the people to the HIGHEST.
5) Finance - Laissez - Faire & tax exemption so free trade & tax free for me & companies.
6) Slavery - Slavery abolished inside Britain for a consumer based system.
7) Slavery - Slavery enabled in Trade Company for cheap labour, building Factories, Manufacturing, industry, high pollution buildings, bad living standards dont matter you don't live there etc.
8) Now the Con of this is that Britain loses its industry if The Trade Company ever declares independence but if I'm a Capitalist ill just retire.
Last edited:
- 3
Except that the game doesn't really model the resistance those groups had to enacting multiculturalism.
For example, if more interest groups opposed multiculturalism, then it would be harder to enact (as was the case historically) and it would come with the trade off of upsetting those interest groups.
At the moment, the discriminated pops want multiculturalism, but the people who benefit from the oppression of those groups, don't tend to oppose it.
That makes enacting it far too easy, and with none of the political costs that would have come from trying to enact such a law.
The current system for modeling multiculturalism, is like having Industrialists not oppose workers rights, or landowners fine with the abolition of serfdom. It would make it far too easy to enact those laws, and not model any of the political costs of doing so.
- 7
- 3
Yes, exactly. It is clear who benefits from a multicultural society and who does not. But realistically, all that you’re leaving on the table is the lost authority/primary culture + loyalist - radical bonus. It’s not negligible, but it’s pretty minor especially considering you were probably at racial segregation or cultural exclusion (which give lower levels of the aforementioned bonuses) anyhow.
It feels way too easy to pass for how good it is and it feels too good on top of that.
Oh no, see if this thread was "there isn't enough resistance to passing multiculturalism"
I'd agree 100%.
But it's "there are too many benefits", which from the players perspective as the nation state, we don't need to enforce national conciousness in the same way the ruling classes of real nations do to prevent the formation of class consciousness.
- 4
- 3
200 Authority is not meaningless, as with enough authority consumption based taxation become a viable form of taxation much earlier, which is best for the poorest of your population, as it is the only one without any form of pool or income taxes.
- 2
The thing is that non-discriminatory borders and regulated-but-easy immigration generally tends to be a boon for an economy. It provides cheap exploitable labor for factories, and professionals from diverse backgrounds tend to be more innovative and efficient.
The problem the game has is that racism is virtually non-existent. Multiculturalism and human rights are anachronistic to this game because both (as we understand them today) are a result of WWII with the Holocaust and Nazi/Japanese imperialism. Before then, racial dominance and xenophobia were the theme of global politics, and racial equality was only really a hot-topic concern in the United States, as everywhere else the primary concern was for racial minorities was to have a nation of their own. WWII needs to happen for the global ethos to shift from "nationalism and national sovereignty" to "global human rights and international cooperation". As it is right now, multiculturalism is not "bizarre" enough to scare pops and IG's into refusing to cooperate with the government without some form of racial or national supremacy.
That being said, it shouldn't be hard-locked either. Just because our modern understanding of WWII birthed global human rights does not mean there could not have been an alternate history where it naturally grew from colonialism, the American Civil War, or World War 1 instead. Modern multiculturalism or second-wave feminism should not be impossible, but it needs a dramatic shift in culture so far removed from what was globally normal in the 19th century, and something that would only realistically be caused by a major cataclysmic event like a world war or a pandemic (hey, China gave republicanism a try, nobody expected that).
The problem the game has is that racism is virtually non-existent. Multiculturalism and human rights are anachronistic to this game because both (as we understand them today) are a result of WWII with the Holocaust and Nazi/Japanese imperialism. Before then, racial dominance and xenophobia were the theme of global politics, and racial equality was only really a hot-topic concern in the United States, as everywhere else the primary concern was for racial minorities was to have a nation of their own. WWII needs to happen for the global ethos to shift from "nationalism and national sovereignty" to "global human rights and international cooperation". As it is right now, multiculturalism is not "bizarre" enough to scare pops and IG's into refusing to cooperate with the government without some form of racial or national supremacy.
That being said, it shouldn't be hard-locked either. Just because our modern understanding of WWII birthed global human rights does not mean there could not have been an alternate history where it naturally grew from colonialism, the American Civil War, or World War 1 instead. Modern multiculturalism or second-wave feminism should not be impossible, but it needs a dramatic shift in culture so far removed from what was globally normal in the 19th century, and something that would only realistically be caused by a major cataclysmic event like a world war or a pandemic (hey, China gave republicanism a try, nobody expected that).
- 6
- 2
- 1
Yes, I think unbridled growth should have cons based on reality, I would say when Multiculturalism is enacted, the pops can not be Assimilated & it shouldn't be as easy to revert back to a different policy.
From the official Britannica Website as per example:
"Rather than embracing the traditional liberal image of the melting pot into which people of different cultures are assimilated into a unified national culture, multiculturalism generally holds the image of a tossed salad to be more appropriate. Although being an integral and recognizable part of the whole, diverse members of society can maintain their particular identities while residing in the collective.
Some multicultural theorists have claimed that some cultural groups need more than recognition to ensure the integrity and maintenance of their distinct identities and contributions. In addition to individual equal rights, some have advocated for special group rights and autonomous governance for certain cultural groups. Because the continued existence of protected minority cultures ultimately contributes to the good of all and the enrichment of the dominant culture, those theorists have argued that the preserving of cultures that cannot withstand the pressures to assimilate into a dominant culture can be given preference over the usual norm of equal rights for all."
The other thing that I hasn't been mentioned is that people discriminated against (by the government) receive lower wages than those that do not. That means that each step closer to a multicultural society will reduce the profitability of your 'buildings'. This has a knock on effect on the SOL of those that were not discriminated against.
Discrimination affects qualifications which will mean your non-discriminated pops will be skewed higher in the higher classes.
Discriminated pops have less voting power.
In a way the problem is that there are just so many problems. Few I can come up with is
- Multiculturalism is very easy to get. Somehow becoming an ethno state is really difficult and specifically needs an IG leader with right trait. Multiculturalism you can just get without any real opposition.
- Discrimination is way too binary. Pops can't be less or more discriminated and that's really harming the design of everything related, including assimilation.
- Cultural Exclusion sometimes doesn't do anything, it's just a strictly worse Racial Segregation, as it only affects pops of same trait with different heritage, which happens and is pretty relevant in quite a few countries (like France, UK, Columbia, USA, Egypt, etc.) but in others it doesn't do anything like Germany or Russia.
- On the other hand Multiculturalism is a massive massive change, where suddenly you accept everyone. In some cases with some heritages it becomes so weird, as you can't accept pops of neighbouring country, until you pass this law and then you have Brazilians, Bedouins and Han all being totally equally treated.
- Pops and IGs just don't care about culture. They blindly want less or more discrimination regardless of the state of your country. There's no movements for relaxing laws if you have a large discriminated percentage of population.
- 11
Honestly, it needs some kind of memory to what happened to your country AND your IGs actually care about more stuff besides laws enacted.
IGs should care about foreign policy.
Say, the Military and the Inteligentsia might join together so Prussia/Austria can form a Greater Germany where the Germans are all unified under a single nation.
Or, say, the Union Workers of Cuba might want to become independent of Spain, or at least more self government, whereas the Cuban landowners might just like the status quo.
Or, say, after being humiliated against other European countries, the Military and Industrialists of Germany join in a revanchist streak to take back their lost land and punish their enemies in a future war by putting a fascist in power...
IGs should care about foreign policy.
Say, the Military and the Inteligentsia might join together so Prussia/Austria can form a Greater Germany where the Germans are all unified under a single nation.
Or, say, the Union Workers of Cuba might want to become independent of Spain, or at least more self government, whereas the Cuban landowners might just like the status quo.
Or, say, after being humiliated against other European countries, the Military and Industrialists of Germany join in a revanchist streak to take back their lost land and punish their enemies in a future war by putting a fascist in power...
This is a nice idea - a sort of "generational memory" or something that affects opinion. It would be a neat way of making different starts distinct as well, but not "hard-baked" into culture.
- 2