I will structure my answers accordingly to the spaces. If I missed something you can point it out, I'd like to not reduct the discussion to one specific issue , thus making the argument kinda pointless. Also my level of english is kinda bad, so I might make no sense sometimes or repeat some statements.

First off, persistent culture and language are both illusions. Culture of a region changes dramatically due to circumstances and progress even without the influence of immigration. Language not only changes across time but across regions. The American vernacular spoken in Atlanta is distinct from Chicago or Los Angeles, or Seattle. Secondly, intrinsic non-mainstream and counter-culture groups are going to be marginalized, and as Dr. King observed there's a pipeline from not worthy to be my neighbor to genocide. And history continuously bears this out. Culture includes the chattelization of women. It includes the criminalization of LGBT+. It includes the persecution of other religions, of other ministries of the same religion. It includes preserving commercial monopolies. Culture includes the preservation of sociopolitical hierarchies and dynastic power.

What I meant is rather that some societies mainly are separated by language, interests and culture. And I did not mean ethnic nationalism, it is absurd thing. And I was not saying local culture should have a legal privilege. Also there is no such thing as presistent culture and language, new languages appear, older disappear. Cultures merge and emerge, but when we are talking about having state without any kinda local dominant culture and societal rules that everyone just grew with, it is unsustainable and unrealistic to happen, because people really often just don't want to live in foreign countries, people really like living among people they some common things like history, language or relatives. I did not mean that immigration being big factor yet you cant ignore it as well, because eventually it does influence the culture a lot. My message was critique of the liberal idea of multi-cultural state, where there is dominance of local culture(s). Why im against of this idea is because it destroys the pluralism of different cultures meaning destroys diversity of mindsets, that is actually a important thing for humanity in terms of progress. Also what you pointed out is the consequence of religious influence on the cultures. Christianity and any other abrahamic religions actually caused lots of censorship, and added useless complexities into many european and southern cultures, including contributing a lot to the gender inequality. Not to say that that's the only reason, the patriarchy started much sooner than the rise of monoteism and abrahamic religions , but lots of thing we see as chattelization, misoginy etc. originates from religious doctrines. Im not against transformation of societies into more tolerant, genderly equal, hierarchless societies(India reference?). It is just that multi-cultural heaven is not happening (if the multi-culture means state without any majority culture(s))

In the US today, the culture war is over the genocide of immigrants and LGBT+ and the ultimately exclusion of everyone who is not MAGA and white Christian nationalist. It is about the genocide of everyone not part of the movement in the name of white supremacy. And ultimately MAGA will start cutting into its own. The fascists always do.

I have no idea about US. Im from eastern Europe. I dont even exactly know what culture war is :/ .

Give me diversity, equity and inclusion. Give me pluralistic liberal democracy that values human rights over property rights, that values rule of law. In that environment, the cultures will sort themselves out, and blend into regional variations unique to the area. We don't need moral guardians trying to tell society what it should be.

I actually agree with it. but also *direct democracy, and *socialism . But also I think nation can decide itself whether they want to integrate the migrants or give autonomy. For example in Estonia we have lots of russians from USSR , who migrated because there were much better living conditions than in RSFSR, and i used to live in russian neighborhoods and even ghettos. And integrating russian schools into estonian was actually one of the best things in terms of integrating them, and making children learn estonian on a near-native level. This helped decline the segregation and isolation of russians from estonian society. . But at the same time we have a great minority called Võro and Seto, who are endangered languages-cultures. They need absolutely opposite approach, they need more autonomy and deserve state-funding for võro-seto education, translation of books, programs etc. This is kinda thing I mean when I say "a nation can impose rules on how their culture relates to others."

And, then we can have Chicago-style pizza and New-York-style pizza. We can have Methodism, Catholicism, Sunni Islam, Hindi, and Atheism in the same city. (And hundreds of other faiths, spiritual dispositions and identity communities.) We can allow people to explore sexual and gender identity on their own terms, and find there's even a letter for them in the alphabet. We can have an economy that isn't run by only a dozen conglomerate corporations selling us shoddy goods for fixed prices. Rather we can regulate the economy to serve the people, with robust competition and state-sponsored science. We can have a society that is shaped by the will of the people, rather than the personal preferences of a handful of oligarchs.

Based? Except im against building new religious building or helping preserve religions, because they harmed humanity a lot. Im not against theistic views though, the theory that there might be some creature that made everything we see, can totally exist. It is not scientifically provable, but it doesn't force people to hate themselves for being humans in a doctrine manner

No, culture has lost the plot, and no culture should be privileged in a society over any other. Whenever we allow it, xenophobia dominates, and genocide follows. I generally agree with this. You probably just have different US-centered perspective

"We can have a society shaped by the will of the people rather than a handful of oligarchs"

We can(?), but we don't and won't. It's like you and I live in a different world, I don't have any idea where what you describe exists or when it existed.

Youre describing an American ideal that I've never seen. We've been xenophobic from 1776 onward. It's like you have the generic G-rated version of America down, but not anything resembling the real America that I've lived in.

MLK for example; he is held to high esteem in USA today, but he accomplished little compared to, say, The Black Panthers, who armed themselves with shotguns and followed police on patrol. THAT is why the civil rights movement progressed. This is the will of the people in action. Every right we've gained has been in spite of our political system since at least the 1950s.

Any counter examples would be appreciated. But this is the America that I am from, this is what works

https://www.pushblack.us/news/60s-panthers-policed-police-legacy-continues-today

I assume that in your theoretical city of multiple religions, LGBT people have already been eliminated, right? Otherwise it's not compatible with Islam, Christianity or Judaism at the very least and while the majority of Christians have had their beliefs washed down, Muslims are NOT going to take such bullshit and they WILL demand LGBT people to receive corporeal punishment at the very least, but ideally death penalty.

And why should they not be allowed? That's part of their faith, their culture. We consider murder and stealing illegal and immoral - they feel about the same way about LGBT, alcohol and pork (in addition to murder and stealing, but of course murder of infidels is usually okay in most religions). Are we not supposed to respect their culture if they live with us?