|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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 February 03 2017 12:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 12:22 ChristianS wrote:On February 03 2017 11:53 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2017 11:33 ChristianS wrote:On February 03 2017 11:26 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 11:18 Aquanim wrote:On February 03 2017 10:58 xDaunt wrote:...
Yes, I'll be the first to say that some of y'all understand the problems that your regressive brethren pose to political discourse. But I think that y'all are in the minority, and that will continue to be the case until y'all abandon identity politics.
... Do you claim that the right side of politics does not also have an extreme subset which poses a problem to political discourse? No. There are extremist assholes on the Right, but they are so few in number and small in influence that they are basically insignificant. What makes the problem particularly unique to the Left is that its mainstream has been popularly labeling the opposition as racist, sexists, bigots, etc for decades as part of their crass identity politics playbook. There is nothing in the mainstream Right that compares to this. Again, just asserting they're few and far between. I'm unaware of any good methodology for assessing the size of extremist populations, but last I checked the alt right subreddit has ~60,000 subs and posts mostly memes about how non-white races are ruining the planet, and they've got sympathetic ears in the White House. So not that few or without influence. You're citing follower numbers of a subreddit to claim they're "not that few or without influence." Yeah, when you don't know of methodology, which you admit, the sane thing to do is not draw conclusions about relative size and influence. I mean this is Breitbart level commentary, and I would have assumed from your general manner that you hold yourself above that level. I guess I was very far off in my initial estimation of your good faith in argument. Well it didn't take much for you to get over benefit of the doubt, huh? The only conclusion I draw from that is that there are probably at least 60,000 self-described alt righters. Maybe some of those 60,000 don't subscribe to the ideology and just enjoy the spectacle of it? But from what I saw you'd have to be pretty anti-Semitic, racist, etc. to dind those memes funny, and if you were strongly opposed to them and just curious what they're up to, why would you inflate their numbers with a sub? It's pretty common in online communities to use subscribers/followers/etc. to measure influence. And even if some of those subs don't support the cause, there's also probably some alt righters that aren't subscribed. I acknowledge it's not a great methodology, which is why my conclusion is tentative, but do you have a better metric to use? Yeah I'm done. If you stand by posting this with the "conclusion is tentative" all headed by an observation of subreddit followers, I'm done. Enjoy your methodology.
If you're "done" with me because you find my evidence insufficient, but not "done" with xDaunt for asserting with no evidence whatsoever that left-wing extremists are numerous and influential where right-wing ones are few and insignificant, I don't know what to tell you. I'm guessing you came into it with similar assumptions to xDaunt and consider my admittedly limited evidence insufficient to override your assumption. Without knowing the basis of that assumption it's hard to really discuss. Too bad I lost your goodwill, I guess, but I'm not really sure what I did to either earn it or lose it, so whatever I guess.
|
On February 03 2017 12:33 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 12:29 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 12:25 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 12:18 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 12:13 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 12:03 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 11:57 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 10:01 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 09:23 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 08:13 biology]major wrote:
[quote]
I don't understand what you read from my post. Both white nationalism and islamic extremism are bad. One is more easily preventable than the other so that is why it predominates the discourse, atleast I hope it is. It's like being infected with a virus, once you have it you are pretty much gonna have it for life (or in this case across multiple generations in the bible belt/southern states, or anywhere). There is a another virus out there, radical islamism and it gets a lot of focus from the right atleast, because we don't have a cure but we do have ability to prevent it from fully infiltrating.
So when a white male shoots up a black church because he is a white nationalist, what else can you do besides call it out and say it's bad? If a muslim guy shoots up a club yelling alahu akhbar, then you want to understand where it is coming from (outside propaganda) and stop it dead in it's tracks. It's not pretty but it has to be done. These ideologies fester easily within the borders of the US because the constitution gives some powerful rights. Outside the border however, none of it really applies so we have to take advantage of that before it gets worse. Mentally ill white males already live among us, why shouldn't we devote resources to monitoring and dealing with them? They are a clear and present danger, and they live in Europe and Canada too. What's their body count? How? Even if you propose a comprehensive solution, fixing that problem is a lot harder than simply preventing immigration from terror prone regions/ increase screening security. How are you going to monitor them without violating their rights? If these types of shootings are to be an accepted part of society because of the rights we have as individuals given to us by the constitution, then it only makes sense to take preventitive measures and be proactive. Well you voted for someone who called for a registry of Muslims already in the US, as well as active monitoring of them. How are we going to do that without violating their rights? I am not for any sort of discrimination of muslims inside the US. That's good but your chosen president disagrees strongly. And I don't know why you don't care about immigration of mentally ill white males from Europe and Canada. They are pretty clearly a security risk. Do you know something I don't about mentally ill white males immigrating from canada and europe and killing people in the states? I think our current background checks should be sufficient for those, because most countries in europe and Canada have sufficient documentation and tracking. What's the body count of Muslim terrorists who immigrated to the US? Probably around 3000? So you're going back to 9/11 which is not entirely valid as our existing measures have prevented another 9/11, and in any case, the 7 countries chosen by Trump provided either 0 or 1 of the 9/11 hijackers.
The 7 countries were chosen by obama because information gathering and documentation is not strong in those areas, and they are not particularly stable. So a 90 day ban while improving screening makes sense to me. The usa is a widely popular place to immigrate to, so we can pick and choose whoever.
It is the one time where discrimination is actually important, will the people respect our constitution and our values? will they provide economic benefit? If not, no big deal, we can choose some other immigrant who is desirable. Also Refugees have shown to not provide an economic benefit and have also significantly raised crime in Europe. The common defense of refugees I see from the left is "but it's the morally right thing to do", and I'd argue that is a valid opinion if the USA was the only place a refugee could go.
|
On February 03 2017 12:28 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 12:22 ChristianS wrote:On February 03 2017 11:53 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2017 11:33 ChristianS wrote:On February 03 2017 11:26 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 11:18 Aquanim wrote:On February 03 2017 10:58 xDaunt wrote:...
Yes, I'll be the first to say that some of y'all understand the problems that your regressive brethren pose to political discourse. But I think that y'all are in the minority, and that will continue to be the case until y'all abandon identity politics.
... Do you claim that the right side of politics does not also have an extreme subset which poses a problem to political discourse? No. There are extremist assholes on the Right, but they are so few in number and small in influence that they are basically insignificant. What makes the problem particularly unique to the Left is that its mainstream has been popularly labeling the opposition as racist, sexists, bigots, etc for decades as part of their crass identity politics playbook. There is nothing in the mainstream Right that compares to this. Again, just asserting they're few and far between. I'm unaware of any good methodology for assessing the size of extremist populations, but last I checked the alt right subreddit has ~60,000 subs and posts mostly memes about how non-white races are ruining the planet, and they've got sympathetic ears in the White House. So not that few or without influence. You're citing follower numbers of a subreddit to claim they're "not that few or without influence." Yeah, when you don't know of methodology, which you admit, the sane thing to do is not draw conclusions about relative size and influence. I mean this is Breitbart level commentary, and I would have assumed from your general manner that you hold yourself above that level. I guess I was very far off in my initial estimation of your good faith in argument. Well it didn't take much for you to get over benefit of the doubt, huh? The only conclusion I draw from that is that there are probably at least 60,000 self-described alt righters. Maybe some of those 60,000 don't subscribe to the ideology and just enjoy the spectacle of it? But from what I saw you'd have to be pretty anti-Semitic, racist, etc. to dind those memes funny, and if you were strongly opposed to them and just curious what they're up to, why would you inflate their numbers with a sub? It's pretty common in online communities to use subscribers/followers/etc. to measure influence. And even if some of those subs don't support the cause, there's also probably some alt righters that aren't subscribed. I acknowledge it's not a great methodology, which is why my conclusion is tentative, but do you have a better metric to use? Yeah I'm done. If you stand by posting this with the "conclusion is tentative" all headed by an observation of subreddit followers, I'm done. Enjoy your methodology.
if you have a better methodology, provide it.
also, it's simply dumb to complain about his statement that his conclusion is tentative, because he's entirely correct that it's tentative.
|
On February 03 2017 12:32 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 12:22 ChristianS wrote:On February 03 2017 11:53 Danglars wrote:On February 03 2017 11:33 ChristianS wrote:On February 03 2017 11:26 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 11:18 Aquanim wrote:On February 03 2017 10:58 xDaunt wrote:...
Yes, I'll be the first to say that some of y'all understand the problems that your regressive brethren pose to political discourse. But I think that y'all are in the minority, and that will continue to be the case until y'all abandon identity politics.
... Do you claim that the right side of politics does not also have an extreme subset which poses a problem to political discourse? No. There are extremist assholes on the Right, but they are so few in number and small in influence that they are basically insignificant. What makes the problem particularly unique to the Left is that its mainstream has been popularly labeling the opposition as racist, sexists, bigots, etc for decades as part of their crass identity politics playbook. There is nothing in the mainstream Right that compares to this. Again, just asserting they're few and far between. I'm unaware of any good methodology for assessing the size of extremist populations, but last I checked the alt right subreddit has ~60,000 subs and posts mostly memes about how non-white races are ruining the planet, and they've got sympathetic ears in the White House. So not that few or without influence. You're citing follower numbers of a subreddit to claim they're "not that few or without influence." Yeah, when you don't know of methodology, which you admit, the sane thing to do is not draw conclusions about relative size and influence. I mean this is Breitbart level commentary, and I would have assumed from your general manner that you hold yourself above that level. I guess I was very far off in my initial estimation of your good faith in argument. Well it didn't take much for you to get over benefit of the doubt, huh? The only conclusion I draw from that is that there are probably at least 60,000 self-described alt righters. Maybe some of those 60,000 don't subscribe to the ideology and just enjoy the spectacle of it? But from what I saw you'd have to be pretty anti-Semitic, racist, etc. to dind those memes funny, and if you were strongly opposed to them and just curious what they're up to, why would you inflate their numbers with a sub? It's pretty common in online communities to use subscribers/followers/etc. to measure influence. And even if some of those subs don't support the cause, there's also probably some alt righters that aren't subscribed. I acknowledge it's not a great methodology, which is why my conclusion is tentative, but do you have a better metric to use? Edit: and what about this commentary is Breitbartian or indicative of not arguing in good faith? 60k is kinda a small number though lol. Like some of the most obscure gaming sub forums on reddit already have 6k subscribers. That's 60k people who subscribed,probably from all over the western world. Double accounts for vote wars,trolls,inactive accounts (reddit is such crap) . I don't know but it is not a particulary high number I think. It actually is a bit disappointing since places like reddit are where you would find lots of potential followers.
I don't reddit much so I don't have much of a frame of reference. I suppose there could be a lot of double accounts/bots in that number, I wouldn't put it past the alt-right to subscribe a bunch of bots just to seem more numerous and influential.
That said even 10,000 domestic alt righters would be kinda high considering how we usually talk about extremists. In the past we usually assumed full on anti-miscegenation-type racists are vanishingly few.
|
On February 03 2017 12:44 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 12:33 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 12:29 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 12:25 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 12:18 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 12:13 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 12:03 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 11:57 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 10:01 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 09:23 Doodsmack wrote:
[quote]
Mentally ill white males already live among us, why shouldn't we devote resources to monitoring and dealing with them? They are a clear and present danger, and they live in Europe and Canada too. What's their body count? How? Even if you propose a comprehensive solution, fixing that problem is a lot harder than simply preventing immigration from terror prone regions/ increase screening security. How are you going to monitor them without violating their rights? If these types of shootings are to be an accepted part of society because of the rights we have as individuals given to us by the constitution, then it only makes sense to take preventitive measures and be proactive. Well you voted for someone who called for a registry of Muslims already in the US, as well as active monitoring of them. How are we going to do that without violating their rights? I am not for any sort of discrimination of muslims inside the US. That's good but your chosen president disagrees strongly. And I don't know why you don't care about immigration of mentally ill white males from Europe and Canada. They are pretty clearly a security risk. Do you know something I don't about mentally ill white males immigrating from canada and europe and killing people in the states? I think our current background checks should be sufficient for those, because most countries in europe and Canada have sufficient documentation and tracking. What's the body count of Muslim terrorists who immigrated to the US? Probably around 3000? So you're going back to 9/11 which is not entirely valid as our existing measures have prevented another 9/11, and in any case, the 7 countries chosen by Trump provided either 0 or 1 of the 9/11 hijackers. The 7 countries were chosen by obama because information gathering and documentation is not strong in those areas, and they are not particularly stable. So a 90 day ban while improving screening makes sense to me. The usa is a widely popular place to immigrate to, so we can pick and choose whoever. It is the one time where discrimination is actually important, will the people respect our constitution and our values? will they provide economic benefit? If not, no big deal, we can choose some other immigrant who is desirable. Also Refugees have shown to not provide an economic benefit and have also significantly raised crime in Europe. The common defense of refugees I see from the left is "but it's the morally right thing to do", and I'd argue that is a valid opinion if the USA was the only place a refugee could go.
do you have any evidence that the existing screening systems were actually inadequate to the task?
and that they would actually let anyone through they hadn't very carefully looked at?
or that trump understands them well enough to make actual improvements to them?
|
On February 03 2017 12:44 biology]major wrote: The common defense of refugees I see from the left is "but it's the morally right thing to do", and I'd argue that is a valid opinion if the USA was the only place a refugee could go.
If the USA is not willing to take in refugees, what right does the USA have to ask other countries to do so?
(With the follow-on statement that by not taking in refugees, the USA is by default asking and indeed obligating other countries to take them in.
If everybody followed your rationale, somewhere would end up being the last place a refugee could go, and they'd end up taking every last one - which seems like an unreasonable conclusion.)
|
On February 03 2017 12:44 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 12:33 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 12:29 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 12:25 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 12:18 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 12:13 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 12:03 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 11:57 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 10:01 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 09:23 Doodsmack wrote:
[quote]
Mentally ill white males already live among us, why shouldn't we devote resources to monitoring and dealing with them? They are a clear and present danger, and they live in Europe and Canada too. What's their body count? How? Even if you propose a comprehensive solution, fixing that problem is a lot harder than simply preventing immigration from terror prone regions/ increase screening security. How are you going to monitor them without violating their rights? If these types of shootings are to be an accepted part of society because of the rights we have as individuals given to us by the constitution, then it only makes sense to take preventitive measures and be proactive. Well you voted for someone who called for a registry of Muslims already in the US, as well as active monitoring of them. How are we going to do that without violating their rights? I am not for any sort of discrimination of muslims inside the US. That's good but your chosen president disagrees strongly. And I don't know why you don't care about immigration of mentally ill white males from Europe and Canada. They are pretty clearly a security risk. Do you know something I don't about mentally ill white males immigrating from canada and europe and killing people in the states? I think our current background checks should be sufficient for those, because most countries in europe and Canada have sufficient documentation and tracking. What's the body count of Muslim terrorists who immigrated to the US? Probably around 3000? So you're going back to 9/11 which is not entirely valid as our existing measures have prevented another 9/11, and in any case, the 7 countries chosen by Trump provided either 0 or 1 of the 9/11 hijackers. The 7 countries were chosen by obama because information gathering and documentation is not strong in those areas, and they are not particularly stable. So a 90 day ban while improving screening makes sense to me. The usa is a widely popular place to immigrate to, so we can pick and choose whoever. It is the one time where discrimination is actually important, will the people respect our constitution and our values? will they provide economic benefit? If not, no big deal, we can choose some other immigrant who is desirable. Also Refugees have shown to not provide an economic benefit and have also significantly raised crime in Europe. The common defense of refugees I see from the left is "but it's the morally right thing to do", and I'd argue that is a valid opinion if the USA was the only place a refugee could go.
its the morally right thing to do because the usa is at least partially responsible for creating the flow of refuges in the first place with their military interventions without follow up.
|
On February 03 2017 12:48 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 12:44 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 12:33 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 12:29 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 12:25 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 12:18 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 12:13 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 12:03 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 11:57 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 10:01 biology]major wrote:
[quote]
How? Even if you propose a comprehensive solution, fixing that problem is a lot harder than simply preventing immigration from terror prone regions/ increase screening security. How are you going to monitor them without violating their rights? If these types of shootings are to be an accepted part of society because of the rights we have as individuals given to us by the constitution, then it only makes sense to take preventitive measures and be proactive.
Well you voted for someone who called for a registry of Muslims already in the US, as well as active monitoring of them. How are we going to do that without violating their rights? I am not for any sort of discrimination of muslims inside the US. That's good but your chosen president disagrees strongly. And I don't know why you don't care about immigration of mentally ill white males from Europe and Canada. They are pretty clearly a security risk. Do you know something I don't about mentally ill white males immigrating from canada and europe and killing people in the states? I think our current background checks should be sufficient for those, because most countries in europe and Canada have sufficient documentation and tracking. What's the body count of Muslim terrorists who immigrated to the US? Probably around 3000? So you're going back to 9/11 which is not entirely valid as our existing measures have prevented another 9/11, and in any case, the 7 countries chosen by Trump provided either 0 or 1 of the 9/11 hijackers. The 7 countries were chosen by obama because information gathering and documentation is not strong in those areas, and they are not particularly stable. So a 90 day ban while improving screening makes sense to me. The usa is a widely popular place to immigrate to, so we can pick and choose whoever. It is the one time where discrimination is actually important, will the people respect our constitution and our values? will they provide economic benefit? If not, no big deal, we can choose some other immigrant who is desirable. Also Refugees have shown to not provide an economic benefit and have also significantly raised crime in Europe. The common defense of refugees I see from the left is "but it's the morally right thing to do", and I'd argue that is a valid opinion if the USA was the only place a refugee could go. do you have any evidence that the existing screening systems were actually inadequate to the task? and that they would actually let anyone through they hadn't very carefully looked at? or that trump understands them well enough to make actual improvements to them?
I don't have direct evidence, just what the administration conveyed was their reason. Again, I have said this mulitple times, the USA is under no obligation to accept immigration from every country on the planet. If there is a risk, and it wants to shut its borders for 90 days, that is not a big deal in the grand scheme of things.
|
On February 03 2017 12:51 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 12:44 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 12:33 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 12:29 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 12:25 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 12:18 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 12:13 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 12:03 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 11:57 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 10:01 biology]major wrote:
[quote]
How? Even if you propose a comprehensive solution, fixing that problem is a lot harder than simply preventing immigration from terror prone regions/ increase screening security. How are you going to monitor them without violating their rights? If these types of shootings are to be an accepted part of society because of the rights we have as individuals given to us by the constitution, then it only makes sense to take preventitive measures and be proactive.
Well you voted for someone who called for a registry of Muslims already in the US, as well as active monitoring of them. How are we going to do that without violating their rights? I am not for any sort of discrimination of muslims inside the US. That's good but your chosen president disagrees strongly. And I don't know why you don't care about immigration of mentally ill white males from Europe and Canada. They are pretty clearly a security risk. Do you know something I don't about mentally ill white males immigrating from canada and europe and killing people in the states? I think our current background checks should be sufficient for those, because most countries in europe and Canada have sufficient documentation and tracking. What's the body count of Muslim terrorists who immigrated to the US? Probably around 3000? So you're going back to 9/11 which is not entirely valid as our existing measures have prevented another 9/11, and in any case, the 7 countries chosen by Trump provided either 0 or 1 of the 9/11 hijackers. The 7 countries were chosen by obama because information gathering and documentation is not strong in those areas, and they are not particularly stable. So a 90 day ban while improving screening makes sense to me. The usa is a widely popular place to immigrate to, so we can pick and choose whoever. It is the one time where discrimination is actually important, will the people respect our constitution and our values? will they provide economic benefit? If not, no big deal, we can choose some other immigrant who is desirable. Also Refugees have shown to not provide an economic benefit and have also significantly raised crime in Europe. The common defense of refugees I see from the left is "but it's the morally right thing to do", and I'd argue that is a valid opinion if the USA was the only place a refugee could go. its the morally right thing to do because the usa is at least partially responsible for creating the flow of refuges in the first place with their military interventions without follow up.
I can agree with that line of thinking, because I always wish the USA actually took direct military intervention to take out ISIS, before it even got the chance to spread. I guess then we have turned down our moral obligation out of self interest, and that's where we are at the moment. As a soveriegn nation, that's within our right.
|
On February 03 2017 12:44 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 12:33 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 12:29 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 12:25 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 12:18 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 12:13 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 12:03 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 11:57 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 10:01 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 09:23 Doodsmack wrote:
[quote]
Mentally ill white males already live among us, why shouldn't we devote resources to monitoring and dealing with them? They are a clear and present danger, and they live in Europe and Canada too. What's their body count? How? Even if you propose a comprehensive solution, fixing that problem is a lot harder than simply preventing immigration from terror prone regions/ increase screening security. How are you going to monitor them without violating their rights? If these types of shootings are to be an accepted part of society because of the rights we have as individuals given to us by the constitution, then it only makes sense to take preventitive measures and be proactive. Well you voted for someone who called for a registry of Muslims already in the US, as well as active monitoring of them. How are we going to do that without violating their rights? I am not for any sort of discrimination of muslims inside the US. That's good but your chosen president disagrees strongly. And I don't know why you don't care about immigration of mentally ill white males from Europe and Canada. They are pretty clearly a security risk. Do you know something I don't about mentally ill white males immigrating from canada and europe and killing people in the states? I think our current background checks should be sufficient for those, because most countries in europe and Canada have sufficient documentation and tracking. What's the body count of Muslim terrorists who immigrated to the US? Probably around 3000? So you're going back to 9/11 which is not entirely valid as our existing measures have prevented another 9/11, and in any case, the 7 countries chosen by Trump provided either 0 or 1 of the 9/11 hijackers. The 7 countries were chosen by obama because information gathering and documentation is not strong in those areas, and they are not particularly stable. So a 90 day ban while improving screening makes sense to me. The usa is a widely popular place to immigrate to, so we can pick and choose whoever. It is the one time where discrimination is actually important, will the people respect our constitution and our values? will they provide economic benefit? If not, no big deal, we can choose some other immigrant who is desirable. Also Refugees have shown to not provide an economic benefit and have also significantly raised crime in Europe. The common defense of refugees I see from the left is "but it's the morally right thing to do", and I'd argue that is a valid opinion if the USA was the only place a refugee could go.
Considering Trump called for a Muslim ban, I think it's reasonable to assume this is going to go beyond just these 7 countries for 90 days. These countries aren't going to increase their documentation in 90 days. There's already substantial screening in place, and this is just an initial attempt by some lawyers to get as close to Trump's call for a Muslim ban as legally feasible. Rest assured that Trump's team is going to continue to push as close to a Muslim ban as is legally feasible - after all, that's what Trump wants.
I see no reason to believe that the average immigrant from these countries (since this ban includes women and children) is a greater risk than the average mentally ill white male from another country.
|
On February 03 2017 12:49 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 12:44 biology]major wrote: The common defense of refugees I see from the left is "but it's the morally right thing to do", and I'd argue that is a valid opinion if the USA was the only place a refugee could go.
If the USA is not willing to take in refugees, what right does the USA have to ask other countries to do so? (With the follow-on statement that by not taking in refugees, the USA is by default asking and indeed obligating other countries to take them in. If everybody followed your rationale, somewhere would end up being the last place a refugee could go, and they'd end up taking every last one - which seems like an unreasonable conclusion.)
The USA isn't asking anyone to take in refugees. They were welcomed with an open door policy by Europe.
|
On February 03 2017 12:51 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 12:48 zlefin wrote:On February 03 2017 12:44 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 12:33 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 12:29 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 12:25 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 12:18 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 12:13 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 12:03 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 11:57 Doodsmack wrote:
[quote]
Well you voted for someone who called for a registry of Muslims already in the US, as well as active monitoring of them. How are we going to do that without violating their rights? I am not for any sort of discrimination of muslims inside the US. That's good but your chosen president disagrees strongly. And I don't know why you don't care about immigration of mentally ill white males from Europe and Canada. They are pretty clearly a security risk. Do you know something I don't about mentally ill white males immigrating from canada and europe and killing people in the states? I think our current background checks should be sufficient for those, because most countries in europe and Canada have sufficient documentation and tracking. What's the body count of Muslim terrorists who immigrated to the US? Probably around 3000? So you're going back to 9/11 which is not entirely valid as our existing measures have prevented another 9/11, and in any case, the 7 countries chosen by Trump provided either 0 or 1 of the 9/11 hijackers. The 7 countries were chosen by obama because information gathering and documentation is not strong in those areas, and they are not particularly stable. So a 90 day ban while improving screening makes sense to me. The usa is a widely popular place to immigrate to, so we can pick and choose whoever. It is the one time where discrimination is actually important, will the people respect our constitution and our values? will they provide economic benefit? If not, no big deal, we can choose some other immigrant who is desirable. Also Refugees have shown to not provide an economic benefit and have also significantly raised crime in Europe. The common defense of refugees I see from the left is "but it's the morally right thing to do", and I'd argue that is a valid opinion if the USA was the only place a refugee could go. do you have any evidence that the existing screening systems were actually inadequate to the task? and that they would actually let anyone through they hadn't very carefully looked at? or that trump understands them well enough to make actual improvements to them? I don't have direct evidence, just what the administration conveyed was their reason. Again, I have said this mulitple times, the USA is under no obligation to accept immigration from every country on the planet. If there is a risk, and it wants to shut its borders for 90 days, that is not a big deal in the grand scheme of things.
given its history, the administrations' claim does not give much credence. the administration has also not established much basis to believe in their policy competence.
and the testimony and information of people involved in the process, as well as an assessment of actual terror threats, indicates that actual immigrants already go through extreme vetting procedures; and that terrorists mostly enter on tourist visas, rather than as actual immigrants.
so the balance of evidence indicates it's a flimsy excuse.
noone disagrees that the US can shut down if there is an actual risk. but if there is no actual risk and its just a political stunt? that's another story.
especially if the stunt actually makes it easier for the jihadis to recruit and do future attacks.
|
On February 03 2017 11:44 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 10:44 Nyxisto wrote:
regressive left is about as useful as a term is sjw, libtard, paulbot or virtue signalling. If anything it indicates that people have watched too many Stefan Molyneux videos on youtube and should probably be ignored.
At this point I don't even have any clue what it's supposed to mean, that left-wingers care about minority rights and international solutions instead of following the popular nationalist fad? How is this new and why is it supposed to be bad?
I think as a term it's usually misused and thus I understand the animosity of it. But as I understand it it's not really supposed to have any direct nationalist vs globalist connotations, (although there's an almost perfect overlap in people using regressive left leaning nationalist), it's a way of denigrating the (I would say fringe) elements of the left engaged in negative branding (if you're a trump supporter you're racist) which makes people afraid to speak their minds freely, which thus is perceived to contribute towards the eroding of freedom of thought and expression, cornerstones of western civilization. I think while Trump is certainly guilty of further dividing the nation through his actions and lack of human decency, his strategy could not have won him the presidency if the country wasn't so divided in the first place. To me, it seems unrealistic that the republicans share the entire blame for this problem. I don't mind acknowledging that there are voices on the left that argue in an overly antagonistic manner, and I don't really mind the term regressive left to describe this group. Where I disagree with probably everyone who uses it is how many leftists belong to this group - but then I also subscribe to the idea that a small minority within a given group is very capable of tarnishing the reputation of the entire group. 
I oppose the idea altogether to 'blame' anybody for Trump instead of the people who casted their votes for Trump. I think firstly because having a hard time, which many people certainly had over the last few decades, does not justify people to take out the demolition hammer and tear the house down. Everybody gets sad from time to time, Trump supporters don't have a monopoly on having a bad time.
Secondly nobody can take this "you leftists made me vote for this" stuff seriously. They're adults, they have agency and decide who they vote for. The liberal society needs to stop being so naive and think that you can win everybody over if you just treat them nicely and that all Trump supporters are kind and fluffy on the inside. A good deal of the supporters are probably as disgusting as Trump is.
There's an arrogance in this where liberal people believe that they just need to preach from the mountains and then all the lost sheep will come back. That's not really going to happen and that's why 'Trumpism' continues to have so much momentum in some countries. People aren't actually used to fight it at all, people seriously need to revisit Popper.
|
On February 03 2017 12:57 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 12:44 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 12:33 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 12:29 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 12:25 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 12:18 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 12:13 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 12:03 biology]major wrote:On February 03 2017 11:57 Doodsmack wrote:On February 03 2017 10:01 biology]major wrote:
[quote]
How? Even if you propose a comprehensive solution, fixing that problem is a lot harder than simply preventing immigration from terror prone regions/ increase screening security. How are you going to monitor them without violating their rights? If these types of shootings are to be an accepted part of society because of the rights we have as individuals given to us by the constitution, then it only makes sense to take preventitive measures and be proactive.
Well you voted for someone who called for a registry of Muslims already in the US, as well as active monitoring of them. How are we going to do that without violating their rights? I am not for any sort of discrimination of muslims inside the US. That's good but your chosen president disagrees strongly. And I don't know why you don't care about immigration of mentally ill white males from Europe and Canada. They are pretty clearly a security risk. Do you know something I don't about mentally ill white males immigrating from canada and europe and killing people in the states? I think our current background checks should be sufficient for those, because most countries in europe and Canada have sufficient documentation and tracking. What's the body count of Muslim terrorists who immigrated to the US? Probably around 3000? So you're going back to 9/11 which is not entirely valid as our existing measures have prevented another 9/11, and in any case, the 7 countries chosen by Trump provided either 0 or 1 of the 9/11 hijackers. The 7 countries were chosen by obama because information gathering and documentation is not strong in those areas, and they are not particularly stable. So a 90 day ban while improving screening makes sense to me. The usa is a widely popular place to immigrate to, so we can pick and choose whoever. It is the one time where discrimination is actually important, will the people respect our constitution and our values? will they provide economic benefit? If not, no big deal, we can choose some other immigrant who is desirable. Also Refugees have shown to not provide an economic benefit and have also significantly raised crime in Europe. The common defense of refugees I see from the left is "but it's the morally right thing to do", and I'd argue that is a valid opinion if the USA was the only place a refugee could go. Considering Trump called for a Muslim ban, I think it's reasonable to assume this is going to go beyond just these 7 countries for 90 days. These countries aren't going to increase their documentation in 90 days. There's already substantial screening in place, and this is just an initial attempt by some lawyers to get as close to Trump's call for a Muslim ban as legally feasible. Rest assured that Trump's team is going to continue to push as close to a Muslim ban as is legally feasible - after all, that's what Trump wants. I see no reason to believe that the average immigrant from these countries (since this ban includes women and children) is a greater risk than the average mentally ill white male from another country.
refugees being women and children is not a valid defense, for one women and children have participated in acts of terror. WIth sufficient brainwashing and propaganda anything is possible. The children can also develop anti-western sentiments and become radicalized with online propaganda.
I agree with you that Trump's intention was a muslim ban. Trump goes by his instincts above all else and he distrusts islam, which is not a ridiculous idea, but it isn't PC or legal to discriminate in such a way. So he went around it and started a immigration ban with the 7.
|
On February 03 2017 12:58 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 12:49 Aquanim wrote:On February 03 2017 12:44 biology]major wrote: The common defense of refugees I see from the left is "but it's the morally right thing to do", and I'd argue that is a valid opinion if the USA was the only place a refugee could go.
If the USA is not willing to take in refugees, what right does the USA have to ask other countries to do so? (With the follow-on statement that by not taking in refugees, the USA is by default asking and indeed obligating other countries to take them in. If everybody followed your rationale, somewhere would end up being the last place a refugee could go, and they'd end up taking every last one - which seems like an unreasonable conclusion.) The USA isn't asking anyone to take in refugees. They were welcomed with an open door policy by Europe.
Europe is welcoming the refugees, despite the problems which it's causing them, because most everywhere else in the world (including the USA and my own country) closed their doors, and so Europe felt it had a moral obligation - which, as you pointed out, has had some negative consequences for them.
Those negative consequences to Europe could have been ameliorated if other parts of the world had also welcomed refugees.
If you're arguing that the USA has the ability to choose not to take in refugees, and nobody else has reasonable cause to try to coerce them to do so, then I have some common ground with that position.
However, I don't see a reasonable argument that the USA is morally justified in doing that.
|
On February 03 2017 10:50 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 10:32 Scarecrow wrote:On February 03 2017 04:34 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 03:29 RuiBarbO wrote:On February 03 2017 02:22 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 03 2017 02:14 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 03 2017 02:03 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 01:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Why on earth would a university invite Milo? To give a lecture about online harassment, misoginy and hatred?
It's not like the guy ever did anything else.. Because Milo is a legitimate emerging media star and one of the most important counter-cultural figures of his generation. Whether you agree with him or hate his message is irrelevant. It's not that i disagree with him. It's that he has absolutely nothing to offer but hate and meanness. If people are into that, it's fine and i have no problem in him trolling at Breitbart and making biggoted alt right kids happy, but what was he supposed to talk about in a university? How to launch harassment campaigns on twitter? I mean, since when being a popular fascist is enough to give lectures in one of the most respected universities in america? With those criterias, they could invite david duke too, stormfront is doing great. Have you considered the possibility that you really don't understand Milo's message and that distilling it down to "hate and meanness" is incorrect? I have and the answer is no, although i am quite sure that some people struggle to distinguish deep thought and the mysogynic and racist bullshit speech from a sexually insecure young male talking to other secually insecure young males. Because let's be clear, that's all there is to Milo. I love this answer because it perfectly illustrates how ill-equipped that the Left presently is to deal with the ongoing assault from the Alt Right and its sympathizers like Milo. When I talk about the Regressive Left doubling down on its tactics in response to Trump, et al., Biff's statement above is precisely the kind of sentiment that I'm referring to. It doesn't even occur to these people that there's an underlying point to the "hate and meanness" of the Right. I feel like I see this a lot in this thread, where people respond to posts by placing the poster into the camp of either the Left or the Right (the implication being, it seems to me, that the poster is part of a monolithic group, and thus just parroting ideas inherited from the masses). Here xDaunt submits Biff's post as "precisely the kind of sentiment that I'm referring to" in his critique of the "Regressive Left." From where I'm standing, all that does is dismiss whatever legitimate point he may Biff trying (effectively or not) to make by drawing him into a group someone else came up with which he does not identify with. + Show Spoiler +not to imply that Biff is exempt from doing this same thing So when xDaunt says "It doesn't even occur to these people that there's an underlying point" - I suppose you're inviting people who DO realize that there's an underlying point and STILL don't like him to respond, but why would they when you've already caricatured them, regardless of their actual political affiliation, as part of the "Regressive Left." Even if they produced something more substantive, that doesn't do much to stop you from maintaining this same line. I find it funny how so many of you get caught up in semantics. I invited Biff to give me his critique of Milo (ie I didn't presume what his critique was), and he gave me the exact cookie-cutter response that I would have expected from just about anyone on the Left. So how is it unfair for me to lump him in with them or to otherwise point out the obvious (and this is from years of watching him post around here) that Biff is on the Left politically? And more to the point, why does the label matter when my real point is about the idea held by the group whom I'm labeling? And as to your point about my being dismissive of Biff's criticism of Milo, my response is: of course I was. Garbage in, garbage out, right?On February 03 2017 04:07 buhhy wrote:
You're not the only one to have noticed this. This xDaunt character is the most egregious of the bunch. Most of his responses implicitly lump the original poster into some nebulous 'Left' group. He then proceeds to insert some snide remark about the this 'Left' group as if they are all part of a group of clueless people that haven't caught on to some sort of grand message. It's almost as if he is committing the same crime he accuses the so-called 'Left' of doing - not trying to understand the other side and tarring them all with the same brush.
But rest assured, your post will go unnoticed. People will continue responding to his posts, and he continues to impose judgements on his own self-made categorisations, no real discussion occurs, and the cycle continues. And I'll say the same thing to you. Why are you so caught up in the semantics? My categorization of people is really besides the point. It's the ideas that matter. As for the bolded/underlined comment of yours above, there's a critical difference between my categorization of people and what the Left does: I'm generally not imparting any judgment upon the other side with my categorization (I will admit that "Regressive Left" is a loaded term). Saying that someone is part of "the Left" is a fairly neutral label in the way that calling someone a "racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe" is not. You're such a hypocrite. You said he gave the same 'cookie cutter' response you'd expect from most of the left and then that it was garbage. Sure the label is neutral but then you slam the group. It's like me talking about how the Right are a bunch of assholes. The Right is just a label too, then I judged them, just as you do. You basically said the left just spews cookie-cutter garbage and then you tried to claim the moral high ground because you're deluded into thinking you don't categorize the opposition negatively. Only people who waiver in their beliefs would be so offended by my statements.
Man you post some ridiculous shit. Your source-less bullshit and extreme bias are what offends me. I guess plenty of us seem like the 'regressive left' when you're this far right.
|
Note that because of its geographic remoteness from the areas of conflict the U.S. also has a markedly easier time vetting and securing Middle Eastern refugees than European countries (which is part of why the refugee resettlement program has been successful as far as I'm aware with none of the strife plaguing Europe). Plus unless I'm greatly mistaken nobody is smuggling people out of Syria and into the U.S. through unofficial channels, it's just not worth it fiscally or temporally.
From a quick read the EU-wide refugee policies also make it difficult for any of the member states to do anything major behind metaphorically doing such a crap job refugees can't be sent back to them-while in the U.S. I'm pretty sure it's illegal for e.g. Kentucky to say they'll take refugees on their own but the feds can make a concerted effort faster than the EU could and have one vetting system.
|
I think discussing the refugee part of the executive order, while important, misses the most damaging part of the order: Refusal to allow legal immigrants in the country. People with Green Cards and Visas were denied, some with highly educated backgrounds. They were already checked, screened, and admitted. They're productive people in our society, and they've been deemed valuable. Denying them the ability to come back damages the US economy and its future ability to find talent. I don't really know how anybody can justify this.
|
On February 03 2017 13:26 Scarecrow wrote:Show nested quote +On February 03 2017 10:50 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 10:32 Scarecrow wrote:On February 03 2017 04:34 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 03:29 RuiBarbO wrote:On February 03 2017 02:22 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 03 2017 02:14 xDaunt wrote:On February 03 2017 02:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On February 03 2017 02:03 xDaunt wrote:
[quote]
Because Milo is a legitimate emerging media star and one of the most important counter-cultural figures of his generation. Whether you agree with him or hate his message is irrelevant. It's not that i disagree with him. It's that he has absolutely nothing to offer but hate and meanness. If people are into that, it's fine and i have no problem in him trolling at Breitbart and making biggoted alt right kids happy, but what was he supposed to talk about in a university? How to launch harassment campaigns on twitter? I mean, since when being a popular fascist is enough to give lectures in one of the most respected universities in america? With those criterias, they could invite david duke too, stormfront is doing great. Have you considered the possibility that you really don't understand Milo's message and that distilling it down to "hate and meanness" is incorrect? I have and the answer is no, although i am quite sure that some people struggle to distinguish deep thought and the mysogynic and racist bullshit speech from a sexually insecure young male talking to other secually insecure young males. Because let's be clear, that's all there is to Milo. I love this answer because it perfectly illustrates how ill-equipped that the Left presently is to deal with the ongoing assault from the Alt Right and its sympathizers like Milo. When I talk about the Regressive Left doubling down on its tactics in response to Trump, et al., Biff's statement above is precisely the kind of sentiment that I'm referring to. It doesn't even occur to these people that there's an underlying point to the "hate and meanness" of the Right. I feel like I see this a lot in this thread, where people respond to posts by placing the poster into the camp of either the Left or the Right (the implication being, it seems to me, that the poster is part of a monolithic group, and thus just parroting ideas inherited from the masses). Here xDaunt submits Biff's post as "precisely the kind of sentiment that I'm referring to" in his critique of the "Regressive Left." From where I'm standing, all that does is dismiss whatever legitimate point he may Biff trying (effectively or not) to make by drawing him into a group someone else came up with which he does not identify with. + Show Spoiler +not to imply that Biff is exempt from doing this same thing So when xDaunt says "It doesn't even occur to these people that there's an underlying point" - I suppose you're inviting people who DO realize that there's an underlying point and STILL don't like him to respond, but why would they when you've already caricatured them, regardless of their actual political affiliation, as part of the "Regressive Left." Even if they produced something more substantive, that doesn't do much to stop you from maintaining this same line. I find it funny how so many of you get caught up in semantics. I invited Biff to give me his critique of Milo (ie I didn't presume what his critique was), and he gave me the exact cookie-cutter response that I would have expected from just about anyone on the Left. So how is it unfair for me to lump him in with them or to otherwise point out the obvious (and this is from years of watching him post around here) that Biff is on the Left politically? And more to the point, why does the label matter when my real point is about the idea held by the group whom I'm labeling? And as to your point about my being dismissive of Biff's criticism of Milo, my response is: of course I was. Garbage in, garbage out, right?On February 03 2017 04:07 buhhy wrote:
You're not the only one to have noticed this. This xDaunt character is the most egregious of the bunch. Most of his responses implicitly lump the original poster into some nebulous 'Left' group. He then proceeds to insert some snide remark about the this 'Left' group as if they are all part of a group of clueless people that haven't caught on to some sort of grand message. It's almost as if he is committing the same crime he accuses the so-called 'Left' of doing - not trying to understand the other side and tarring them all with the same brush.
But rest assured, your post will go unnoticed. People will continue responding to his posts, and he continues to impose judgements on his own self-made categorisations, no real discussion occurs, and the cycle continues. And I'll say the same thing to you. Why are you so caught up in the semantics? My categorization of people is really besides the point. It's the ideas that matter. As for the bolded/underlined comment of yours above, there's a critical difference between my categorization of people and what the Left does: I'm generally not imparting any judgment upon the other side with my categorization (I will admit that "Regressive Left" is a loaded term). Saying that someone is part of "the Left" is a fairly neutral label in the way that calling someone a "racist, sexist, bigot, homophobe" is not. You're such a hypocrite. You said he gave the same 'cookie cutter' response you'd expect from most of the left and then that it was garbage. Sure the label is neutral but then you slam the group. It's like me talking about how the Right are a bunch of assholes. The Right is just a label too, then I judged them, just as you do. You basically said the left just spews cookie-cutter garbage and then you tried to claim the moral high ground because you're deluded into thinking you don't categorize the opposition negatively. Only people who waiver in their beliefs would be so offended by my statements. Man you post some ridiculous shit. Your source-less bullshit and extreme bias are what offends me. I guess plenty of us seem like the 'regressive left' when you're this far right.
So what do you disagree with? Do you deny that the Left routinely uses the terms racist, sexist, bigot, etc when attacking the Right? Do you think that the use of those terms at their current frequency is warranted? I don't think anyone can reasonably debate that the Democrat Party's political playbook is largely based upon these tactics and the use of identity politics.
|
On February 03 2017 13:31 ghrur wrote:
I think discussing the refugee part of the executive order, while important, misses the most damaging part of the order: Refusal to allow legal immigrants in the country. People with Green Cards and Visas were denied, some with highly educated backgrounds. They were already checked, screened, and admitted. They're productive people in our society, and they've been deemed valuable. Denying them the ability to come back damages the US economy and its future ability to find talent. I don't really know how anybody can justify this.
That's what most of the people here condemned. I can see the virtues of pausing refugee admittance for 90days or 120days based on a distrust of govt to screen, but preventing lawful permanent residents re-entry was a dumb play and should never have happened.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
