In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On August 26 2016 07:56 Danglars wrote: Western civ and American nationalism, in their view, is threatened by the current high rates of immigration. Current racial law and SJW sentiment works to the detriment of whites in society (ala diversity is code for white genocide).
So in other words, as a second generation minority immigrant, I shouldn't care for them because they clearly don't care for me?
Or, I got mine, so fuck those people.
It's more like an observation of what is happening in Germany and preventing it from spreading to the US. If it weren't for Trump no one would even be voicing publicly their concerns about patriarchal value systems infiltrating the USA. If the US is right in barring communists and nazis from immigrating, then it should also prevent people from these patriarchal countries with high levels of sexism/bigotry and terrorism as well.
It takes Trumps brash and brutish speech to make headlines and open discourse about these issues, because everyone else is afraid of saying words which hurt peoples feelings.
No, racists would still be voicing their concerns about racist things.
Exactly why I despise the left, just throw some labels on people to stop conversation and come from a place of moral superiority.
People who want to ban people from country simply of their religion/country of origin are bigots. Its really that simple. The excuses are endless, the results on the same.
it's called risk assessment. Smoking might not give you lung cancer, but it definitely increases the chances. So any rational person who cares about their health would stop smoking. Immigrating from countries in the middle east with highly patriarchal values and strong religious presence is a risk factor for terrorism, and at the very least a risk factor for intolerance.
Where does "demonizing an entire region and hundreds of millions of people" calculate out in your risk assessment?
When you are concerned with security of your nation, you can easily disregard the feels of an entire region and hundreds of millions of people. Especially the feelings of sensitive muslims who can't take any criticism of their faith without launching death threats.
On August 26 2016 06:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: So I've spent about an hour reading and researching what the "alt-right" political affiliation is, and this is how I've come to understand it:
About 10% of alt-righters (I guess that's what they're called?) are intelligent people who are legitimately tired of walking on eggshells and not being able to have constructive conversations because every time they say something they're shut down for not being politically correct. They're frustrated with the establishment and the rules that we're supposed to play by, both politically and linguistically.
The other 90% are like Milo Yiannopoulos- legitimately bigoted, Trump-supporting, loud assholes who want to masquerade their prejudices as simply being rebellious. I'm not really sure what their other political motivators are besides ending political correctness and being anti-establishment (what else makes them socially/ fiscally conservative?), but I've read/ heard a lot of them say that white people are being discriminated against and don't believe that whites and men have privilege.
Can someone provide more clarity or correct me on these alt-right issues? Are these guys like Tea Partiers? Are they like a racist, conservative version of Bernie or Bust? I'm always looking to be better informed. Thanks
You might be too opposed to everything they stand for to see the movement straight. Milo is a bigoted Trump loving loud asshole? Okay, Obama is a socialist freedom-hating pedant. Their word for the Tea Party and conservative movement is cuckservative.
I'll try to be charitable because their ranks involve both the vicious and the thoughtful. Western civ and American nationalism, in their view, is threatened by the current high rates of immigration. Current racial law and SJW sentiment works to the detriment of whites in society (ala diversity is code for white genocide). The feminist movement is societally backwards and hate-filled to the core. Gamer gate overlaps broadly. Trade views range from Trumpian protectionist to free traders, I think the trade protectionists have it but I'm not sure. Somewhere along the line, foreign countries are wrecking the economy with the movement of money and people. Most of them are military isolationists, but maybe it's closer to the truth to call it Rand-Paul style foreign policy.
In my view, frequently the attempt to understand it is overshadowed by the gut-instinct need to challenge and defeat it on the part of moderates and leftists. Horrified reaction and armchair psychoanalysis does not lead to dispassionate analysis. See: dozens of pages in this thread of intentional mislabeling of conservatives and conservative ideas.
Well if you have a gut instinct against people who think that diversity means white genocide then I think your gut is working perfectly well. We're talking about twenty-something guys living in their parents basement being angry at society here, we don't need to discuss this like it's Burkean conservatism or something. I don't even know what this has to do with conservatism, everyone on the left or liberal side can see that the weird alt-right movement isn't conservative in any sense.
Well you weren't the one wanting the summary, so you're entirely consistent assailing them for male basement dwellers. Also, he brought up Tea Partiers and fiscal conservative position. He'll he's very close with the counterpart to Bernie or bust on the right.
On August 26 2016 07:56 Danglars wrote: Trade views range from Trumpian protectionist to free traders, I think the trade protectionists have it but I'm not sure. Somewhere along the line, foreign countries are wrecking the economy with the movement of money and people. Most of them are military isolationists, but maybe it's closer to the truth to call it Rand-Paul style foreign policy.
So they run the gamut on anything meaningfully related to policy, but are unified only by white nationalist ideology?
Regardless of how thoughtful someone is, it's very difficult for me to enter into a meaningful dialogue with them if they're coming in with the basic assertion that I'm a threat to their society or their position therein.
EDIT: Realized my second statement was unclear that I'm not addressing you personally but using an ambiguous "you".
There's really no leaders, just many blogs/vblogs. Compare to gamergate social movement. Conservatives have waged an ineffective campaign against ascendant liberal social changes so alt-right is taking over. Trade policy has resulted in America getting screwed, so free trade has to be renegotiated.
If you have trouble talking to people who think you're a threat to society, try getting called racist a billion times for your immigration policy (omg but you're obviously racist its an objective observation!!) and sexist or anti-woman every day for your social policy. I'm not going into who started it, but we've arrived at a very caustic situation from both sides. Full understanding? It would take a year on campus vocally advocating conservative Republican views with campus repubs for you, and a year out Midwest in capitols and city halls campaigning for tight gun control for me.
On August 26 2016 07:56 Danglars wrote: Western civ and American nationalism, in their view, is threatened by the current high rates of immigration. Current racial law and SJW sentiment works to the detriment of whites in society (ala diversity is code for white genocide).
So in other words, as a second generation minority immigrant, I shouldn't care for them because they clearly don't care for me?
Or, I got mine, so fuck those people.
It's more like an observation of what is happening in Germany and preventing it from spreading to the US. If it weren't for Trump no one would even be voicing publicly their concerns about patriarchal value systems infiltrating the USA. If the US is right in barring communists and nazis from immigrating, then it should also prevent people from these patriarchal countries with high levels of sexism/bigotry and terrorism as well.
It takes Trumps brash and brutish speech to make headlines and open discourse about these issues, because everyone else is afraid of saying words which hurt peoples feelings.
You understand that there is a pretty stringent selection process before any immigrant is let into the US right? The US isn't getting the fodder of the refugees. Your taking your pickings from the best of the crop so to speak.
Europe is getting flooded because they simply show up at our doorstep and we either leave them out in the cold to starve or we take care of them.
Thanks to the miracle knows as the Atlantic Ocean the US is not getting hoards of refugees knocking on your door. Your going out by plane to pick up the ones you want.
Your fighting against a problem that does not even exist for you.
Donald Trump on Thursday implied that immigrants could eventually be allowed to return to the country just days after his campaign chief said there would be “no touch back” for undocumented immigrants currently living in America.
“No is not a path - there is no path to legalization unless people leave the country,” the Republican nominee said to CNN’s Anderson Cooper.
“When they come back in if they come back in then they can start paying taxes but there is no path to legalization unless they leave the country and come back.”
Kellyanne Conway, Trump’s recently appointed campaign manager, told CNN on Tuesday that Trump would not have a “touch back” policy.
Trump’s recent statement on immigration have caused his allies to squirm, leaving them unsure on how to defend his shifting policy.
As a thought experiment: imagine this article and all others never mention the victim's, the cop's and indeed no other person's race. How many more people would be on the streets or upset in general?
Not related: did I use my " 's " correctly?
Leaving it blank probably wouldn't change much, as people would just make presumptions based on their prejudices (you can usually tell from the language describing folks too). Can't remember ever hearing about a white guy who calls the cops for help only to be shot by them though. My point is that we should all be outraged that the cops would try to protect incompetent and/or criminal cops.
People keep getting lost in thinking about the way people present their argument, just stop and think for a moment how seemingly average people react to the wrongful notion that their 1st amendment is being threatened on a forum, then imagine that not only are the protesters living under crushing poverty (the kind people who complain on forums rarely know) they are also ACTUALLY having their constitutional rights denied
Instead of everyone flipping out about millions of Americans being abused and living under the kind of oppression that comes from having your 4th amendment (among others) rights crapped on, people are busy pondering about better approaches to getting white people to care and not hurt their feelings.
I know most people here don't appreciate just how twisted and appalling that is, but I'm hoping one day it sinks in.
Just wondering, but you are aware that more white people are killed by cops than black people are, and that more black people are killed by other black (non police) people, than they are by cops, right? Why aren't those being protested?
I'm all for cops not shooting innocent people, or being able to abuse their power to act like dicks. But in this case, the guy came out with a gun. Yes, he (most likely) legally owned it, and yes it was his own house. But given how many cops have been killed recently, and mostly by black people too, do you not think they would have reason to be alarmed at a black person with a gun coming at them? Especially given that not long ago a black person made a call claiming his car was being robbed, only to ambush and shoot the responding officer?
Do you not think that perhaps all of the blacklives matter people calling for police blood and the killing of cops, would make it more likely that a black person with a gun is seen as a threat by the police?
Your numbers have been debunked a million times before. Raw numbers ("more whites killed than blacks") don't mean anything because, proportionally, black people are arrested, shot, pulled over, convicted, and sentenced to jail time far, far, far more often than they should be. "black on black crime" is also a lazy argument because anyone of any race is overwhelmingly likely to be killed by a person of their own race; "white on white" crime numbers are the same as "black on black" crime numbers.
And no, there is no justification for the cops shooting a man that is legally armed in his own home. If you have the legal authority to execute someone in certain situations, your actions should be held to incredibly high standards. You need to be better at your job under pressure.
If he was in his own home, how did the cops that were outside shoot him?
He was standing in his garage and opened the garage door. This 1) in his home and 2) even if you want to argue useless semantics, still on his property.
It speaks volumes that instead of addressing the numerous points that I debunked, you have to ask a totally irrelevant question.
I also think it's sad that, predictably, the NRA won't say shit about defending this man's right to own and handle a gun on his property against tyrannical government when they will routinely do that for any white man that gets accidentally shot by a cop while using a gun.
Meh.
Normally I would be outraged by this, because cops really need to not be so trigger happy, and need to be held accountable when they are. But with all of the BLM spouting about killing white people and killing cops, and the actual cases of blacks calling the cops and reporting a false crime just to ambush and shoot the cops, I think this guy was just collateral damage caused by the BLM's racist rhetoric which is putting cops in danger, and will make them much more defensive around black people.
Cops are in danger from the general public because they keep shooting people they shouldn't
If cops want to respect their profession deserves they have to earn it.
Look at the requirements of being a cop. It's not a special bunch. The requirements should be higher and they should be paid much more. Until that happens, nothing will change. The people going on to be doctors and engineers are generally not the same group that go on to be cops. Sure, you hear some hero stories about people with law degrees being cops, but that's not the average. When you give middle of the curve people the authority to kill, it's gonna mess with them. Put them in a uniform which distinguishes them from everyone else, have safety be considered their duty, and things are gonna get weird. Middle of the curve is not the right group for that kinda stuff.
I very much agree with this. The requirements to become a cop aren't very high, and they don't get paid enough to attract the kind of people that you would want as cops.
On August 26 2016 07:56 Danglars wrote: Western civ and American nationalism, in their view, is threatened by the current high rates of immigration. Current racial law and SJW sentiment works to the detriment of whites in society (ala diversity is code for white genocide).
So in other words, as a second generation minority immigrant, I shouldn't care for them because they clearly don't care for me?
Or, I got mine, so fuck those people.
It's more like an observation of what is happening in Germany and preventing it from spreading to the US. If it weren't for Trump no one would even be voicing publicly their concerns about patriarchal value systems infiltrating the USA. If the US is right in barring communists and nazis from immigrating, then it should also prevent people from these patriarchal countries with high levels of sexism/bigotry and terrorism as well.
It takes Trumps brash and brutish speech to make headlines and open discourse about these issues, because everyone else is afraid of saying words which hurt peoples feelings.
No, racists would still be voicing their concerns about racist things.
Exactly why I despise the left, just throw some labels on people to stop conversation and come from a place of moral superiority.
People who want to ban people from country simply of their religion/country of origin are bigots. Its really that simple. The excuses are endless, the results on the same.
it's called risk assessment. Smoking might not give you lung cancer, but it definitely increases the chances. So any rational person who cares about their health would stop smoking. Immigrating from countries in the middle east with highly patriarchal values and strong religious presence is a risk factor for terrorism, and at the very least a risk factor for intolerance.
Where does "demonizing an entire region and hundreds of millions of people" calculate out in your risk assessment?
When you are concerned with security of your nation, you can easily disregard the feels of an entire region and hundreds of millions of people. Especially the feelings of sensitive muslims who can't take any criticism of their faith without launching death threats.
I didn't say anything about feels.
We're talking risk.
The supposed risk the US spends billions of dollars and thousands of airport strip searches protecting itself from.
On August 26 2016 06:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: So I've spent about an hour reading and researching what the "alt-right" political affiliation is, and this is how I've come to understand it:
About 10% of alt-righters (I guess that's what they're called?) are intelligent people who are legitimately tired of walking on eggshells and not being able to have constructive conversations because every time they say something they're shut down for not being politically correct. They're frustrated with the establishment and the rules that we're supposed to play by, both politically and linguistically.
The other 90% are like Milo Yiannopoulos- legitimately bigoted, Trump-supporting, loud assholes who want to masquerade their prejudices as simply being rebellious. I'm not really sure what their other political motivators are besides ending political correctness and being anti-establishment (what else makes them socially/ fiscally conservative?), but I've read/ heard a lot of them say that white people are being discriminated against and don't believe that whites and men have privilege.
Can someone provide more clarity or correct me on these alt-right issues? Are these guys like Tea Partiers? Are they like a racist, conservative version of Bernie or Bust? I'm always looking to be better informed. Thanks
Thank you for your cited percentages of 10% and 90%. I would add a .5% Pepe somewhere in there to make your statement more factual.
Overall, it is Globalism vs Individual Sovereign -- similar to brexit.
I obviously just made up the 10% and 90%, but it seems like a very small percentage of them are actually *not* bigots and assholes. I guess it's like if we anthropomorphised Breitbart. If you could provide more clarity, that would be helpful
I don't understand how alt-right is similar to globalism vs. individual sovereign.
I've taken a good, long look to see whether I fit into the alt-right, and my conclusion has been that I can't really determine whether the label fits me. The alt-right isn't really definable. The only real common threads are 1) people on the alt-right right are anti-establishment, and 2) they aren't republicans and don't like the current state of the republicans party. Otherwise, you're talking about a real mixed bag of identities and agendas that seems to be coalescing around nationalism and populism.
As for the charge of racism, there are certainly some real racists in the alt-right, but the charge is greatly overstated. These are people who refuse to adhere to the present tyranny of political correctness rather than adhere to truly racist agendas. For example, Milo is an asshole provocateur extraordinaire, but I've seen enough of his work such that it's pretty obvious to me that he's not a racist (and like he says, how many white supremacists in history have liked to chug black cock?). On one of his podcast episodes, he even came pretty close to openly supporting reparations for black people in America. Milo isn't really too dissimilar from me. He's just a bigger dick than I am because he makes his living getting a rise out of people. And there is certainly this troll element to the alt-right that just does super offensive shit for laughs or to co-opt the conversation. While I'm not sure that I'd label what they do "racist," they take things further than I think is appropriate in many cases (and that's saying something).
Milo is human garbage who lives to watch others suffer. He lives to provoke and then abuse those who respond. A bully in the highest form who begs to have people fight back.
On August 26 2016 07:56 Danglars wrote: Western civ and American nationalism, in their view, is threatened by the current high rates of immigration. Current racial law and SJW sentiment works to the detriment of whites in society (ala diversity is code for white genocide).
So in other words, as a second generation minority immigrant, I shouldn't care for them because they clearly don't care for me?
Or, I got mine, so fuck those people.
It's more like an observation of what is happening in Germany and preventing it from spreading to the US. If it weren't for Trump no one would even be voicing publicly their concerns about patriarchal value systems infiltrating the USA. If the US is right in barring communists and nazis from immigrating, then it should also prevent people from these patriarchal countries with high levels of sexism/bigotry and terrorism as well.
It takes Trumps brash and brutish speech to make headlines and open discourse about these issues, because everyone else is afraid of saying words which hurt peoples feelings.
No, racists would still be voicing their concerns about racist things.
Exactly why I despise the left, just throw some labels on people to stop conversation and come from a place of moral superiority.
People who want to ban people from country simply of their religion/country of origin are bigots. Its really that simple. The excuses are endless, the results on the same.
it's called risk assessment. Smoking might not give you lung cancer, but it definitely increases the chances. So any rational person who cares about their health would stop smoking. Immigrating from countries in the middle east with highly patriarchal values and strong religious presence is a risk factor for terrorism, and at the very least a risk factor for intolerance.
On August 26 2016 07:56 Danglars wrote: Western civ and American nationalism, in their view, is threatened by the current high rates of immigration. Current racial law and SJW sentiment works to the detriment of whites in society (ala diversity is code for white genocide).
So in other words, as a second generation minority immigrant, I shouldn't care for them because they clearly don't care for me?
Or, I got mine, so fuck those people.
It's more like an observation of what is happening in Germany and preventing it from spreading to the US. If it weren't for Trump no one would even be voicing publicly their concerns about patriarchal value systems infiltrating the USA. If the US is right in barring communists and nazis from immigrating, then it should also prevent people from these patriarchal countries with high levels of sexism/bigotry and terrorism as well.
It takes Trumps brash and brutish speech to make headlines and open discourse about these issues, because everyone else is afraid of saying words which hurt peoples feelings.
No, racists would still be voicing their concerns about racist things.
Exactly why I despise the left, just throw some labels on people to stop conversation and come from a place of moral superiority.
People who want to ban people from country simply of their religion/country of origin are bigots. Its really that simple. The excuses are endless, the results on the same.
it's called risk assessment. Smoking might not give you lung cancer, but it definitely increases the chances. So any rational person who cares about their health would stop smoking. Immigrating from countries in the middle east with highly patriarchal values and strong religious presence is a risk factor for terrorism, and at the very least a risk factor for intolerance.
That is pretty rich my friend.
I don't see anything wrong with being intolerant of intolerance.
On August 26 2016 07:56 Danglars wrote: Western civ and American nationalism, in their view, is threatened by the current high rates of immigration. Current racial law and SJW sentiment works to the detriment of whites in society (ala diversity is code for white genocide).
So in other words, as a second generation minority immigrant, I shouldn't care for them because they clearly don't care for me?
Or, I got mine, so fuck those people.
It's more like an observation of what is happening in Germany and preventing it from spreading to the US. If it weren't for Trump no one would even be voicing publicly their concerns about patriarchal value systems infiltrating the USA. If the US is right in barring communists and nazis from immigrating, then it should also prevent people from these patriarchal countries with high levels of sexism/bigotry and terrorism as well.
It takes Trumps brash and brutish speech to make headlines and open discourse about these issues, because everyone else is afraid of saying words which hurt peoples feelings.
No, racists would still be voicing their concerns about racist things.
Exactly why I despise the left, just throw some labels on people to stop conversation and come from a place of moral superiority.
People who want to ban people from country simply of their religion/country of origin are bigots. Its really that simple. The excuses are endless, the results on the same.
it's called risk assessment. Smoking might not give you lung cancer, but it definitely increases the chances. So any rational person who cares about their health would stop smoking. Immigrating from countries in the middle east with highly patriarchal values and strong religious presence is a risk factor for terrorism, and at the very least a risk factor for intolerance.
That is pretty rich my friend.
I don't see anything wrong with being intolerant of intolerance.
You must have missed the memo. Being intolerant is only okay if you're intolerant of conservatives. We can't judge minorities -- particularly Muslims.
On August 26 2016 08:08 TheYango wrote: [quote] So in other words, as a second generation minority immigrant, I shouldn't care for them because they clearly don't care for me?
Or, I got mine, so fuck those people.
It's more like an observation of what is happening in Germany and preventing it from spreading to the US. If it weren't for Trump no one would even be voicing publicly their concerns about patriarchal value systems infiltrating the USA. If the US is right in barring communists and nazis from immigrating, then it should also prevent people from these patriarchal countries with high levels of sexism/bigotry and terrorism as well.
It takes Trumps brash and brutish speech to make headlines and open discourse about these issues, because everyone else is afraid of saying words which hurt peoples feelings.
No, racists would still be voicing their concerns about racist things.
Exactly why I despise the left, just throw some labels on people to stop conversation and come from a place of moral superiority.
People who want to ban people from country simply of their religion/country of origin are bigots. Its really that simple. The excuses are endless, the results on the same.
it's called risk assessment. Smoking might not give you lung cancer, but it definitely increases the chances. So any rational person who cares about their health would stop smoking. Immigrating from countries in the middle east with highly patriarchal values and strong religious presence is a risk factor for terrorism, and at the very least a risk factor for intolerance.
That is pretty rich my friend.
I don't see anything wrong with being intolerant of intolerance.
You must have missed the memo. Being intolerant is only okay if you're intolerant of conservatives. We can't judge minorities -- particularly Muslims.
1.5 Billion people. You don't get to judge all of them and be taken seriously.
The EpiPen, an injectable drug that reverses severe allergic reactions, just got a little cheaper for some consumers.
The device's manufacturer, Mylan NV, announced Thursday that it will offer coupons worth as much as $300 off a two-pack.
The move is a reaction to harsh criticism from consumers and several lawmakers over repeated price increases that have boosted the cost of the medication to more than $600 from less than $100 just a few years ago.
The company says it will offer the discounts to patients whose insurance doesn't cover the costs because of high deductibles or limited pharmacy benefits.
But coupons may not be enough to tamp down anger over the price hikes.
"This step is much more a PR fix more than a real remedy," Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., said in an interview Thursday. "What's needed is robust, real action to lower the price for everyone, not just a select few."
He says the EpiPen has such enormous market share that the company may be violating antitrust laws by exploiting that. A report by the health care website Stat says some of Mylan's contracts to give schools free or discounted EpiPens may have done just that, because they bar the schools from buying competitors' products.
Mylan told Stat that the provision restricting school purchasing has since been discontinued, but did not say when it was halted.
Blumenthal is just one of several lawmakers who have called for investigations into Mylan's business practices and have asked for justifications of its price increases in recent days. He and a few others say the discounts aren't enough.
Blumenthal sent a letter to the company earlier this week demanding that it lower the price.
On August 26 2016 07:56 Danglars wrote: Western civ and American nationalism, in their view, is threatened by the current high rates of immigration. Current racial law and SJW sentiment works to the detriment of whites in society (ala diversity is code for white genocide).
So in other words, as a second generation minority immigrant, I shouldn't care for them because they clearly don't care for me?
Or, I got mine, so fuck those people.
It's more like an observation of what is happening in Germany and preventing it from spreading to the US. If it weren't for Trump no one would even be voicing publicly their concerns about patriarchal value systems infiltrating the USA. If the US is right in barring communists and nazis from immigrating, then it should also prevent people from these patriarchal countries with high levels of sexism/bigotry and terrorism as well.
It takes Trumps brash and brutish speech to make headlines and open discourse about these issues, because everyone else is afraid of saying words which hurt peoples feelings.
No, racists would still be voicing their concerns about racist things.
Exactly why I despise the left, just throw some labels on people to stop conversation and come from a place of moral superiority.
People who want to ban people from country simply of their religion/country of origin are bigots. Its really that simple. The excuses are endless, the results on the same.
it's called risk assessment. Smoking might not give you lung cancer, but it definitely increases the chances. So any rational person who cares about their health would stop smoking. Immigrating from countries in the middle east with highly patriarchal values and strong religious presence is a risk factor for terrorism, and at the very least a risk factor for intolerance.
To draw an analogy... If I cross the road at a place without traffic lights or a pedestrian crossing, I am increasing the risk of getting myself hit by a car. Nevertheless, I frequently choose not to walk minutes out of my way to cross at a set of lights, despite the cost of doing so being small, because the increased risk of being hit by a car is exceedingly small (provided I demonstrate appropriate levels of care).
While I agree with you that people and immigrants from Middle Eastern and Islamic backgrounds have a higher risk of being associated with terrorism (which I don't believe makes me a bigot in the eyes of anybody here), I disagree with you as to the degree of that increased risk, and as to what measures are appropriate to counteract that risk.
On August 26 2016 08:11 Plansix wrote: [quote] Or, I got mine, so fuck those people.
It's more like an observation of what is happening in Germany and preventing it from spreading to the US. If it weren't for Trump no one would even be voicing publicly their concerns about patriarchal value systems infiltrating the USA. If the US is right in barring communists and nazis from immigrating, then it should also prevent people from these patriarchal countries with high levels of sexism/bigotry and terrorism as well.
It takes Trumps brash and brutish speech to make headlines and open discourse about these issues, because everyone else is afraid of saying words which hurt peoples feelings.
No, racists would still be voicing their concerns about racist things.
Exactly why I despise the left, just throw some labels on people to stop conversation and come from a place of moral superiority.
People who want to ban people from country simply of their religion/country of origin are bigots. Its really that simple. The excuses are endless, the results on the same.
it's called risk assessment. Smoking might not give you lung cancer, but it definitely increases the chances. So any rational person who cares about their health would stop smoking. Immigrating from countries in the middle east with highly patriarchal values and strong religious presence is a risk factor for terrorism, and at the very least a risk factor for intolerance.
That is pretty rich my friend.
I don't see anything wrong with being intolerant of intolerance.
You must have missed the memo. Being intolerant is only okay if you're intolerant of conservatives. We can't judge minorities -- particularly Muslims.
1.5 Billion people. You don't get to judge all of them and be taken seriously.
Agreed, but it is very easy to risk stratify based on specific countries in the ME. The ones that have high percentage of support for ISIS, and strong anti-women views, sharia law etc. It is also easier to screen people out on a basis of location than faith.
On August 26 2016 09:32 Aquanim wrote: To draw an analogy... If I cross the road at a place without traffic lights or a pedestrian crossing, I am increasing the risk of getting myself hit by a car. Nevertheless, I frequently choose not to walk minutes out of my way to cross at a set of lights, despite the cost of doing so being small, because the increased risk of being hit by a car is exceedingly small (provided I demonstrate appropriate levels of care).
While I agree with you that people and immigrants from Middle Eastern and Islamic backgrounds have a higher risk of being associated with terrorism (which I don't believe makes me a bigot in the eyes of anybody here), I disagree with you as to the degree of that increased risk, and as to what measures are appropriate to counteract that risk.
Personally, I just feel like the risk of terrorist attack is actually just a lot lower than it is perceived to be, and is often played-up by various media sources for the sake of generating views. It's definitely a real danger, but probably not so high as to demand the extreme measures being proposed.
It's also kind of odd to me that a lot of people who believe highly in the risk of terrorist attacks are also those who would be least exposed to danger in such situations. If you live in your mom's basement in Podunk, USA, there's basically 0% chance that you or anyone you know is actually going to be the victim of a terrorist attack, even if one occurs. The people at highest risk are young professionals that travel a lot or people that live in major cities, but these tend to represent comparatively liberal populations who are actually against such extreme anti-immigration measures in the average case.
EPT
