I’m assuming they’re bringing stuff that’s valuable to them like their religion and traditions and their way of life. This is what everyone does. You think because they’ve left there countries they’ve turned their backs on their whole culture? Why? That’s so dumb.
Everybody brings every single bit of their culture with them? The things that are valuable to them are not the things that they are leaving behind, those are the things that you are irrationally afraid of them bringing.
No, that would be a very stupid and asinine assumption for you to make.
That’s where you are right for once, your assumption is in fact, “so dumb.”
That’s just what you need to tell yourself to keep up your rose tinted (and racist, frankly) view of immigrants as pieces in a jigsaw puzzle rather than complicated real people with good sides and bad sides and good beliefs and bad beliefs. Fact is, some people will hold fiercely to their traditions when they immigrate, even if they’re homophobic or sexist because they genuinely believe that there morally right to hold them. If Europe is anything to go by, quite a lot of people will do that. It’s rational to worry about how many of those kinds of people you have in your country especially if your gay or a woman.
Am I talking in the right thread here? You call me a racist because I am not afraid that immigrants are going to be brinig the problems that they left behind. That’s fucked up.
My underlining there, that is the sort of statement that actual racists make.
Too bad you showed you hand there, racist. You almost had me thinking you weren’t a racist troll, but just a fucked up piece of shit dumbass. But, you went too far, and let your true feelings show.
It’s a real stretch, pretzel logic that doesn’t follow the evidence but proceeds from conclusions and just tries to jam everything into place from there. Not just the evidence from polling is ignored or explained away, but the attacks on women that the alt-right trumpets and which mainstream media outlets and governments try to sweep under the rug—which only magnifies the power of the alt-right.
But FTR I would oppose immigration from a hypothetical country or region whose inhabitants culturally mirrored white American evangelicals. You might too, as long as they were still white. If they were POC and anyone opposing immigration from that country or region were being publicly shamed as racists, I’m gonna go ahead and guess your stance would be different. :dubious:
Yet the claim Catholicism was incompatible with democracy and that parochial schools encouraged separatism and kept Catholics from becoming loyal Americans. – wasn’t true.
Yet the claim The Finnish were incompatible with democracy and that wouldn’t become loyal Americans. – wasn’t true.
Yet the Republican party is the most dangerous force for people who happen to be gay or a woman. (Benevolent sexism and homophobia is sexism and homophobia BTW, these groups need equality under the law and not white knights)
This is a common narrative, and is tired and counter to the ideals of the founding fathers.
The same claims were made against people we consider as “white” now before, by Americans and actually exported to the Nazi’s. Hitler called this book “his Bible”
Lumping 24% of the world population into one “evil” grouping and claiming that they are some how uniquely dangerous doesn’t match the evidence nor is it in anyway treating them like humans.
I said you have racist beliefs. That’s not the same thing as calling you a racist. And you do have a racist belief because you’re talking about immigrants in a dehumanising way like their behaviour is predictable and they all have the same motivations and that when they leave their homes they’ll keep only the beliefs that you like and jettison only the beliefs you don’t like because “that’s what they were trying to get away from”. That’s racist. It’s not racist in a “they’re inferior” way. It’s more like positive superficially complimentary racism. The way things like “blacks have rhythm” or “Asians are good at math” are racist without being outright insulting. But positive racism is still racism and you need to unlearn it.
You didn’t understand my remark. When I said those people I meant immigrants who retain their homophobic and sexist beliefs, not all immigrants. I make no apologies for wanting homophobes and sexists to not be in my country. Also I’m pretty sure you misunderstood me on purpose because my meaning was perfectly clear from context.
P.S. I don’t put much stock in ideas of white fragility but if that’s how you lash out when being called on a racist belief (which isn’t even that racist) maybe theres something to it.
Transparently vacuous, flailing nonsense. What you quoted:
The antecedent of “those kinds of people” is “some people [who] will hold fiercely to their traditions when they immigrate, even if they’re homophobic or sexist”. This is plainly obvious to anyone with a modicum of reading ability and without a deliberate agenda to distort and obfuscate. You are engaging in extremely dishonest and underhanded debating tactics. Shame on you.
No, what magnifies the power of the alt right is when people like yourself defend the alt right. Fighting against the assumptions and false accusations that are made by racists is what we are doing here. What you’re doing is feeding into irrational fears by repeating anecdotes and misrepresenting statistics.
So, about the same as the French Muslims. How is this a Muslim thing?
Well, you seem to oppose immigration from anywhere, so no surprise there.
You can go ahead and guess all you want, but you would be very wrong. You do realize that by impugning motives onto others and then excoriating them for those motives that you have impugned, you are only projecting your own motivations.
For instance maybe I am slightly naive, but I do believe that most people are mostly good. That is because I am mostly good, and I assume that others are similar to myself. When you have such fantasies about the hatred and hypocrisies of those you oppose, you are only showing what it is that you try to conceal in your own heart, not uncovering any sort of inconsistency or hypocrisy in others.
First time I hear that it is racist to think that people not willing to fight for any side in a civil war are not fleeing also to avoid losing their life or their families.
I also do know that the few that are allowed to tome to the USA come because they accepted coming to a place were many do dislike extremists and people that impose radicalism on others. Seems to me that they are indeed not looking, in general, to make their lives miserable again.
Prejudice plus power is the typical definition of racism used by informed people who aren’t trying to justify bigotry based on race.
It is not that other Prejudice is more acceptable, but that precise terminology is important for communication when you intend to solve a problem.
Conformation bias and looking for victimization to justify beliefs is why this keeps being ignored by you.
The problem we have with racism and sexism is due to Prejudice plus power and the thought police BS is directly related to that.
Prejudice plus power is strictly used as a so-called prerequisite solely to avoid dealing with rightful claims of intellectual dishonesty, inconsistency, and hypocrisy.
So, saying that someone escaping from a house fire isn’t necessarily going to be an arsonist is racist now? Okay then.
I said nothing about race at all, just about people in general, and that people in general, when they are leaving a place because they don’t like what is going on, do not take what they do not like with them. You are the one that keeps bringing race into this, not me.
I am saying that they are just like any other people that are in a difficult situation and trying to find a better life. You are the one that keeps bringing up their race, as if it were relevant.
I did understand your remark. You said that you are afraid that “those sort of people” will be bringing with them these homophobic and sexist beliefs. That is a racist statement. You can try to backpedal all you want, and if you feel that you phrased it poorly, and wish to rephrase your position, then I am willing to listen to how you meant it to be.
I was just describing what I see in your posts, if you think that is lashing out, then you are extremely overly sensitive, and probably shouldn’t be trying to have discussions where you defend racism and advance white supremacist ideals. At least Richard Spencer could take a sucker punch without crying about it.
How about the massive wave of Scots-Irish immigration that reverberates to this day in the GOP base across Appalachia and beyond? Or the smaller but significant concentration of Dutch “reform” Calvinists in northwestern Iowa (giving us Steve King, the worst POS in Congress) and southwestern Michigan, delivering both states to Trump? Both groups’ religiously founded ideology was bad news when they immigrated, and their descendants’ ideology is bad news today. This country would be immensely better off if we had barred entry to both groups.
Thank you for the preview of your post. It’s what I was expecting, but that you admit it, that’s great too.
Right, so why is it that you and he are against all muslims, if it is only this limited set of people that you are worried about holding onto their biases?
Either you are saying that all muslims hold these beliefs and will not give them up if the immigrate somewhere that does not hold those beliefs to a high regard, or you are saying that you are afraid of the ones that will, and so are willing to keep out the ones that won’t.
Either one is irrational and racist, but go ahead, define what exactly he was talking about and you are defending here.
Ah, I see, at least you admit that freedom and democracy are not your goal.
At least you are finely being honest and admitting that an ethnostate is you end goal.
It is also used because it really does make a difference if it is the people in power who are racist against a minority, or a minority that is racist against those who oppress it.
That you see the oppressed and the oppressors as equally at fault for their relationship is why you are unable to understand such a simple, simple concept, and instead think that this simple concept is some sort of gotcha. You just look stupider every time you try to play that card, and it is explained to you, yet again, that it is not the trump card that you think it is, and it isn’t even a card that we are playing with, and it isn’t even a card at all, it is in fact, a dead fish that you are waving about, and it is stinking up the place.
The Federalist Papers : No. 10
The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed10.asp
I certainly do not! I have said many times that I welcome immigrants from Latin America. I have perhaps not said, but will say now FTR, that I also welcome immigrants from virtually any other part of the world, as long as they are not Muslim.
You do realize that we can all see your reply to savoy, just 19 minutes before this post?? I mean, holy shit. :smack:
ETA: Please look up the difference between “impugning” and “imputing”. Both often take “motives” as direct objects, but they have quite different meanings. HTH
Please explain how a policy barring those with retrograde religious beliefs (including the white Calvinist Dutch and Presbyterian Scots-Irish people I referenced above) but welcoming nonwhite people from Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, India, and East Asia amounts to an end goal of an ethnostate. While doing so, please imagine a meme image right here of Willy Wonka in rapt attention. 