The segregation is not all systemic. I remember reading an article discussing research discussing how neighborhoods change as a result of very slight preferences of "I'd rather be by somebody of my race than a different race." This applied to black and white neighborhoods.
Taken over time and populations, these very slight differences in preference (and, realistically, in the USA, it is unlikely to be "slight") lead to segregated neighborhoods.
If anybody has the original, I'd love to see it again and find out what I've mis-remembered. I couldn't find it.
I compare it to boxing matches. If I'm watching a match between someone who is identified as German, and someone who is identified as Italian, without other influences, I am going to tend towards cheering for the Italian, because I identify more with Italians. Never mind the fact that I'm 3/4th German and only 1/4th Italian, and certainly don't have anything against Germans. It's purely a unconscious tribal reflex, rarely even noticed unless given a chance to magnify (time and numbers provides this magnifying factor in communities.)
As I read it, he may be arguing against this sort of "tribal reflex", but he's certainly not arguing against it's existence. My point is that I am agreeing with the parent of my original post, segregation can arise from phenomenon not necessarily codified into law or even recognized consciously by the participants. Whether this "tribal reflex" is "right or wrong" is irrelevant, the important and seemingly undisputed point is that it exists.
Self segregate means less communication between people.
Thus communication problem directly impact the frustration of each party about others. Then more violence will occurs.
To be more precise. Yes, everybody want to live with people which share the same values. But this local optimization have a bad effect on the society viewed in its totality.
Taking my own example, I believe that not being segregated in school had made me lose some hours of good Math. But I believe this experience made me more tolerant. And it is also certainly true for the others.
There is no perfect society model, but my inclination is to believe that more communication is never a waste and that any lack of communication is potentially dangerous.
How do we define "segregate"? Is it just across 'skin color' / 'irrelevant heritage' lines? What if I identify with and want to live around entrepreneurs? atheists? 'survivalists'? Homosexuals?
I think I can make a fairly strong argument for homosexuals preferring to live among themselves as being ultimately detrimental to society (reduced exposure to homosexuals allows intolerance and misunderstanding to fester), however I would never dream of calling the desire to isolate themselves from hatred "wrong".
Edit: I take it from the downvotes that we're just talking about segregation across "'skin color' / 'irrelevant heritage'" lines for some reason...
I'm not arguing preference here. All of your examples still apply. And I would simply say that right and wrong are poor constructs to let us formulate ideas about how we should live.
There's a good chance that atheists who choose to live only among atheists are going to suffer worse outcomes. Living in a diverse society leads to more perspective and better ideas, and an eventually better society.
Only living with other gay people or other Hacidic Jews or other white supremacists may feel comfortable, and it might lead to a functioning society. But is it ideal? Does it leave the people better off? Society at large?
I don't actually know the answer tho these questions, but I suspect you're better off meeting all sorts of people, living in all sorts of places, and absorbing all sorts of ideas.
I fully agree that these sorts of segregation are ultimately bad things. I merely disagree that we should label them "wrong", since I think that doing so expects too much of the individuals. Society will certainly become better off if Athiests spend more time with theists, however I cannot in good conscious really fault them (say that it is 'wrong') for their decision.
No, "freedom of association" means exactly that, in both the positive and negative forms. You are free to associate with someone, and free to not associate with someone.
It depends. Is it because they don't want to be in an unfamiliar environment, or because they don't want an unfamiliar environment to be around them?
If they're hostile to other groups in some way, that's not a good thing (I don't want white/black/pink/red/... people around my house). But there's nothing wrong with staying in some area because you want to be close to your family (which leads to "natural" race concentration within that area).
