|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On September 26 2024 18:33 r00ty wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2024 18:23 BlackJack wrote:On September 26 2024 18:08 Slydie wrote:On September 26 2024 04:53 Broetchenholer wrote:On September 26 2024 03:22 oBlade wrote:On September 26 2024 02:19 Billyboy wrote:On September 25 2024 23:44 oBlade wrote:On September 25 2024 23:30 Billyboy wrote:
It is hard to give Trump the benefit of the doubt when he uses terms like "reimigration", which only exist in white nationalist and other racists groups vernacular. No one who is not full of hate uses it, most wouldn't even know what it means without looking it up. Anyone familiar with English immediately knows and understands the concepts and distinctions covered by the words migration, emigration, immigration, and remigration. Same with expatriation and repatriation. The interesting part is when you google all the words you have listed except remigration you get definitions. With remigration you get either white nationalists tweets or articles explaining why white nationalists use the word. That shows nothing more than despicable ideological capture of media in the Anglosphere. It's imperative for them to head off at the pass any development that suggests leftist policy about immigration is wrong, and simply lambast any opposition to it by whatever pejorative means available. The reason you can find more white nationalists using it in Europe is European countries are also ethnicities, so first of all they have more of those movements (Europe is more racist than the US, although I don't want to get into the race realist details of whether those from Hispania count as white supremacists or whatever else is important in modern leftist discourse), but also it's more plausible to label any old sap who still believes in the idea of their country's border as a whatever-supremacist when they use the completely innocuous term "remigration." Which even the Swedish government has adopted, by offering money for people to return home. It's that special kind of white supremacist, you know, the one that pays money to "minorities" (I use scare quotes because immigrants always are, and always should be, a minority, in every single country ever, because that's what differentiates countries). However, when for example Koreans have been, and are, repatriated to the DPRK from China, it's not because China is white supremacist. It's not even because China is Chinese supremacist, which it is. It's because it's a country and that's a policy that exists. Could anyone update me whether the word "deport" is inherently racist or not. I want to know whether kicking someone out of a country by force is less racist than Sweden paying them to leave voluntarily. On September 26 2024 02:19 Billyboy wrote:
I did find a Webster's definition but it talked about how it was used about the Irish and Jews, which given the time period also tells you something about it even when it was common. What something does that tell us? "Re" has two meanings, roughly "again" and "back." In the case of Jews, they had been analogous to gypsies, essentially wandering without a home for many years, so my guess is "remigration" in that context referred to repeated migration a la nomadism. As prior to 20th century Zionism there wasn't really a "home" to be sent back to? But please reveal your tacit conclusions, inquiring minds want to know. + Show Spoiler +I'll be honest, I don't think you were really told anything by the use of Irish and Jews in whatever definition you read, you just briefly glanced the mention of what can be categorized as groups that were persecuted at some point or other and thought that was an insight - although Irish are nearly uncontroversially white. But the other half of me is legitimately curious. Please edify us. On September 26 2024 02:19 Billyboy wrote:
And then Kwark's post really takes all the guess work out, if you are reposting from nazis there is no mystery left. The 9 year old retweet of a made-up infographic about black crime looks to me like a red herring for Drumpf saying to return illegal immigrants to their homes. On September 26 2024 02:19 Billyboy wrote:
I think people mistakenly think that this somehow means all Trump supporters are white nationalists, which it does not. What it means is that Trump is actively courting white nationalists. You can decide if that is OK with you or not but it simply fact.
Maybe it actually means that Drumpf is courting people who believe in borders, and it's embarrassing that even white nationalists manage to be smart enough to be in this group - which by opinion polling now reads as a majority of Americans, thanks to years of Drumpf using immigration as one of his flagship issues - while so many of our comrades regrettably fall outside of this seemingly obvious group. First of all, how do you measure Europe being more racist then the US? Is that your personal feeling from all the connections you have with people using remigration in normal conversation from Europe? Or are you just imposing 'Murica!' on the topic? You know, your argument suxx. The Swastika is a very normal symbol for luck and holyness, both in europe (roman) and asian societies . As words and symbols are just words and symbols, why don't you just decide that the politics associated to it by the people using it, are not relevant to you and just use the old meaning. Let's see how you do  Remigration is the new idea of the alt-right (mostly in Austria and moving from there to every other right-wing movement in the continent) to magically get rid of people why are legally in the country but don't pass their definition of a good citizen. If you use that term now without providing context how your definition of the word differs from the other people using it, then maybe you just refer to what those other people use. In general, I think it is very fair to say the US is more racist/race obsessed than Europe. I don't blame them, though, we did not have a significant part of our economy run by imported African slaves for a long time, and even a major civil war rooted in slavery. Even the left is pretty race obsessed, with things like "white privilige" being brought up all the time. Even polls tend to be presented in by race, which I think is sad to see. Age, gender, education, income... fair enough, but is race really that important? There is obviously racism in Europe too, but it is just not the same. A black person in Europe never had any slaves among their ancestors, and a lot of them were born in Africa. I know of very few black Americans in Europe, but I think they would be pleasently surprised about our attitudes towards them. Skin color is just less important here, and major conflicts have been more centered around religion, Catholic vs. Protestant and Christian vs. Islam. I agree America is more race obsessed but I think the lion’s share of that happened recently with the rise of wokeness. Racism in general, I think not so much. I’ve brought up examples of racist insults being hurled at black footballers in Europe which is something that would be unheard of happening here, although perhaps we don’t have comparable levels of hooliganism. What? That's a really shitty example. Racism in European football fanship/hooliganism was way WAY worse 1-2 decades ago. Source: I've been there.
I was comparing continents, not decades
|
On September 26 2024 13:15 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2024 09:35 Acrofales wrote:On September 26 2024 03:36 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 20:44 Acrofales wrote:On September 25 2024 18:11 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 18:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 25 2024 16:44 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 16:09 Acrofales wrote:On September 25 2024 15:43 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 15:38 EnDeR_ wrote:
[quote]
Isn't Trump promising to deport millions of people to clean up the blood of the nation? I know he didn't literally say it like that, before you nit pick me, but he did say that immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our nation" and that he will deport tens of millions.
That sounds a bit hitlery to me.
I mean, how is that going to go? They are going to have to forcefully remove people from their homes, right? Considering how trigger-happy police are, how many are just going to get flat out killed for resisting? If ICE finds a lot of resistance, and Trump gets a bill authorizing them to shoot to kill any immigrant that resists, do you think he would not sign it? No matter how you dress it up, it's still systematic ethnic cleansing. Implying that if Trump gets reelected ICE might go around shooting immigrants only adds to my point. Is your point that Trump actually doing all the things he has said he'll do would be very very bad, but we have to trust him not to do all the things he says he'll do because he's just saying them to get elected? Because that's a pretty bad point to be making... Has Trump said he would sign a bill authorizing ICE to shoot immigrants that resist deportation? Are ICE police? Do police shoot people that resist arrest? Like conservatives like to say, I'm just asking questions. No, police don’t shoot people that resist arrest Trump is going to start world war 3. Who said that? This looks like a right-wing talking point that you are confusing. It's not that Trump will start world war 3. It's that he claims he's the one who will stop it (in other words: Biden/Harris will cause it): https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-issues-world-war-iii-warning-isnt-president-1931064https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-warns-us-approaching-world-war-iii-territory-under-biden-harris-admin-clownsThe actual criticism regarding war and Trump is that he will let Russia walk all over Ukraine, which seems to be his policy proposal, from his own words. https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/trump-praises-russias-military-record-argument-stop-funding-114048372 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/9/17/whats-donald-trumps-plan-to-end-russias-war-on-ukraineThe most I see regarding Trump causing WW3 is Zelenskyy's take on it. While I personally sympathize with that latter more than with Trump's own take, I wouldn't call Zelenskyy representative of "the left", let alone the people in this thread. https://www.foxnews.com/world/zelenskyy-warns-vances-plan-ukrainian-lands-seized-russia-result-global-showdown Here’s a quote from yourself you said in September 2016 pondering that a stupid Trump may lead us to WW3 Trump advocates actively bullying other countries to "get what he wants". Which tends not to be taken very well on the world stage. I not only think it won't achieve its goals, but will actually backfire quite badly. As long as Trump isn't completely stupid, that only means a tariff war. If he is, it means ww3. You’re right that it’s been dropped this go around after it turned out that Trump wasn’t as much of a chicken hawk as people thought he would be but it was definitely something that was said in the run up to the 2016 elections Ooooh, you sure got me! Quote mining a post of mine from 8 years ago really did an excellent job of proving the messaging on the left is disproportionate hyperbole in 2024. You should keep going. I'm sure you'll find some balance whining about WoL from 2011 proving conclusively that hyperbole is just my go-to strategy in internet debates. Infestor/Brood Lord wasn't as bad as people claimed. Fight me.
I've never had a single reason to argue against you NewSunshine...
UNTIL NOW
|
On September 26 2024 19:47 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2024 13:15 NewSunshine wrote:On September 26 2024 09:35 Acrofales wrote:On September 26 2024 03:36 BlackJack wrote:Here’s a quote from yourself you said in September 2016 pondering that a stupid Trump may lead us to WW3 Trump advocates actively bullying other countries to "get what he wants". Which tends not to be taken very well on the world stage. I not only think it won't achieve its goals, but will actually backfire quite badly. As long as Trump isn't completely stupid, that only means a tariff war. If he is, it means ww3. You’re right that it’s been dropped this go around after it turned out that Trump wasn’t as much of a chicken hawk as people thought he would be but it was definitely something that was said in the run up to the 2016 elections Ooooh, you sure got me! Quote mining a post of mine from 8 years ago really did an excellent job of proving the messaging on the left is disproportionate hyperbole in 2024. You should keep going. I'm sure you'll find some balance whining about WoL from 2011 proving conclusively that hyperbole is just my go-to strategy in internet debates. Infestor/Brood Lord wasn't as bad as people claimed. Fight me. I've never had a single reason to argue against you NewSunshine... UNTIL NOW
What is Donald Trump, if not an Infested Terran?
Edit: Never mind, he's totally Mengsk.
|
Northern Ireland23821 Posts
On September 26 2024 13:15 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2024 09:35 Acrofales wrote:On September 26 2024 03:36 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 20:44 Acrofales wrote:On September 25 2024 18:11 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 18:05 EnDeR_ wrote:On September 25 2024 16:44 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 16:09 Acrofales wrote:On September 25 2024 15:43 BlackJack wrote:On September 25 2024 15:38 EnDeR_ wrote:
[quote]
Isn't Trump promising to deport millions of people to clean up the blood of the nation? I know he didn't literally say it like that, before you nit pick me, but he did say that immigrants are "poisoning the blood of our nation" and that he will deport tens of millions.
That sounds a bit hitlery to me.
I mean, how is that going to go? They are going to have to forcefully remove people from their homes, right? Considering how trigger-happy police are, how many are just going to get flat out killed for resisting? If ICE finds a lot of resistance, and Trump gets a bill authorizing them to shoot to kill any immigrant that resists, do you think he would not sign it? No matter how you dress it up, it's still systematic ethnic cleansing. Implying that if Trump gets reelected ICE might go around shooting immigrants only adds to my point. Is your point that Trump actually doing all the things he has said he'll do would be very very bad, but we have to trust him not to do all the things he says he'll do because he's just saying them to get elected? Because that's a pretty bad point to be making... Has Trump said he would sign a bill authorizing ICE to shoot immigrants that resist deportation? Are ICE police? Do police shoot people that resist arrest? Like conservatives like to say, I'm just asking questions. No, police don’t shoot people that resist arrest Trump is going to start world war 3. Who said that? This looks like a right-wing talking point that you are confusing. It's not that Trump will start world war 3. It's that he claims he's the one who will stop it (in other words: Biden/Harris will cause it): https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-issues-world-war-iii-warning-isnt-president-1931064https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-warns-us-approaching-world-war-iii-territory-under-biden-harris-admin-clownsThe actual criticism regarding war and Trump is that he will let Russia walk all over Ukraine, which seems to be his policy proposal, from his own words. https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/trump-praises-russias-military-record-argument-stop-funding-114048372 https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/9/17/whats-donald-trumps-plan-to-end-russias-war-on-ukraineThe most I see regarding Trump causing WW3 is Zelenskyy's take on it. While I personally sympathize with that latter more than with Trump's own take, I wouldn't call Zelenskyy representative of "the left", let alone the people in this thread. https://www.foxnews.com/world/zelenskyy-warns-vances-plan-ukrainian-lands-seized-russia-result-global-showdown Here’s a quote from yourself you said in September 2016 pondering that a stupid Trump may lead us to WW3 Trump advocates actively bullying other countries to "get what he wants". Which tends not to be taken very well on the world stage. I not only think it won't achieve its goals, but will actually backfire quite badly. As long as Trump isn't completely stupid, that only means a tariff war. If he is, it means ww3. You’re right that it’s been dropped this go around after it turned out that Trump wasn’t as much of a chicken hawk as people thought he would be but it was definitely something that was said in the run up to the 2016 elections Ooooh, you sure got me! Quote mining a post of mine from 8 years ago really did an excellent job of proving the messaging on the left is disproportionate hyperbole in 2024. You should keep going. I'm sure you'll find some balance whining about WoL from 2011 proving conclusively that hyperbole is just my go-to strategy in internet debates. Infestor/Brood Lord wasn't as bad as people claimed. Fight me.
Someone who utters such blasphemy isn’t even worth fighting!
|
On September 26 2024 18:13 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2024 06:07 NewSunshine wrote:
It's great for you if you have the privilege to not take Trump seriously. It's just a fact that most Americans don't have that luxury. The Supreme Court is not a joke to most people. Trump getting to nominate more SCOTUS justices is a good point, even if it’s unrelated to what was being discussed. Which is my point by the way. Why not attack him on eroding women’s rights instead of whether he will give ICE authority to carry out extrajudicial killings.
I think the reason is that the threat coming from Trump is nowhere near over. Roe v Wade is only the beginning, he can do much more harm than that. A person who's willing to ruin women's lives is someone who's willing to turn back the clock much further. Especially when his rhetoric strongly indicates that. That's not an unreasonable fear.
|
Northern Ireland23821 Posts
On September 26 2024 18:13 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2024 06:07 NewSunshine wrote:
It's great for you if you have the privilege to not take Trump seriously. It's just a fact that most Americans don't have that luxury. The Supreme Court is not a joke to most people. Trump getting to nominate more SCOTUS justices is a good point, even if it’s unrelated to what was being discussed. Which is my point by the way. Why not attack him on eroding women’s rights instead of whether he will give ICE authority to carry out extrajudicial killings.
People are overwhelmingly doing that in here at the very least, it’s you who keeps trying to drag it to ‘literally Hitler’ or ICE death squads tangents
|
On September 26 2024 20:42 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2024 18:13 BlackJack wrote:On September 26 2024 06:07 NewSunshine wrote:
It's great for you if you have the privilege to not take Trump seriously. It's just a fact that most Americans don't have that luxury. The Supreme Court is not a joke to most people. Trump getting to nominate more SCOTUS justices is a good point, even if it’s unrelated to what was being discussed. Which is my point by the way. Why not attack him on eroding women’s rights instead of whether he will give ICE authority to carry out extrajudicial killings. People are overwhelmingly doing that in here at the very least, it’s you who keeps trying to drag it to ‘literally Hitler’ or ICE death squads tangents
And the core problem with Trump is that he is bad in basically all ways a person can be bad. His gimmick is that there are so absurdly many angles of attack on him that people get overwhelmed and can't commit and focus on one of them.
|
On September 26 2024 19:47 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2024 13:15 NewSunshine wrote:
Infestor/Brood Lord wasn't as bad as people claimed. Fight me. I've never had a single reason to argue against you NewSunshine... UNTIL NOW
Oh yeah? Well I also preferred the 6-worker start, how about THAT?
On September 26 2024 20:06 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2024 13:15 NewSunshine wrote:
Infestor/Brood Lord wasn't as bad as people claimed. Fight me. Someone who utters such blasphemy isn’t even worth fighting!
So I win, then! Undisputed. Take that!
|
On September 26 2024 22:28 NewSunshine wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2024 19:47 Jockmcplop wrote:On September 26 2024 13:15 NewSunshine wrote:
Infestor/Brood Lord wasn't as bad as people claimed. Fight me. I've never had a single reason to argue against you NewSunshine... UNTIL NOW Oh yeah? Well I also preferred the 6-worker start, how about THAT?
I agree with that one actually!
|
I never thought i'd write something like that but comparing Trump to Hitler is actually an insult to Adolf. He destroyed my country, but say what you want about the man, at least he had an ideology apart from his narcissism, could form a coherrent sentence and read a book or two in his life. He even wrote one himself but that thing is pretty rediculous tbf.
I'm actually glad that Trump is the poster boy of all the right-wing lunatics. Someone competent would be a lot worse. Trump's just an idiot with some charisma that's in it for himself. Enjoy the grift.
|
On September 27 2024 00:09 r00ty wrote:
I never thought i'd write something like that but comparing Trump to Hitler is actually an insult to Adolf. He destroyed my country, but say what you want about the man, at least he had an ideology apart from his narcissism, could form a coherrent sentence and read a book or two in his life. He even wrote one himself but that thing is pretty rediculous tbf.
I'm actually glad that Trump is the poster boy of all the right-wing lunatics. Someone competent would be a lot worse. Trump's just an idiot with some charisma that's in it for himself. Enjoy the grift.
They traded the competence of someone who knows how to be an adult and a statesperson for someone who is a babbling moron, but manages to rally the troops, so to speak. It's scary to imagine if someone had both. Probably why the right wing is so happy about capturing the supreme court, it happened by sheer dumb luck (and I do mean dumb), but now the 6-3 majority on the court can be the party apparatus, inflicting right-wing ideology on the entire nation despite both its unpopularity and the fact that both Congress and the White House were Democratic. They don't need Trump to be smart when the supreme court can be smart for him.
|
Bot edit.
User was banned for this post.
|
NYC Mayor Eric Adams (D) has been indicted for bribery, fraud, and soliciting illegal foreign campaign donations:
Mayor Eric Adams has been indicted on five federal charges of bribery, fraud and soliciting illegal foreign campaign donations that prosecutors said began when he was a top elected official in Brooklyn and continued after he became mayor.
The indictment, which was unsealed on Thursday morning, follows an investigation that started in 2021 and has focused at least in part on whether he conspired with the Turkish government to receive illegal foreign campaign contributions and whether he took official actions on its behalf.
This guy think he's a Supreme Court Justice or something?
Federal prosecutors said that Mr. Adams “sought and accepted improper valuable benefits” since at least 2014, when he was then the Brooklyn borough president, according to the indictment.
The benefits included luxury international travel — free and discounted Turkish Airlines tickets to Turkey and free meals and hotel rooms while there — from wealthy foreigners and at least one Turkish government official, prosecutors said. He traveled on the airline even when it was inconvenient, they said, including a 2017 flight to France from New York that first stopped in Istanbul.
www.nytimes.com
A fine example of NYPD's finest.
It's remarkable to me just how cheap it is to bribe US politicians. Also there has to be smarter ways to do this that countless politicians are getting away with and/or they just aren't being looked into.
|
It's scary to imagine if someone had both.
Beware the beginnings. There will be another one, but Trump is not it.
|
On September 26 2024 04:53 Broetchenholer wrote:
First of all, how do you measure Europe being more racist then the US? Is that your personal feeling
Yes, from having been in 49 states and had a civic education.
On September 26 2024 04:53 Broetchenholer wrote:
from all the connections you have with people using remigration in normal conversation from Europe?
What?
On September 26 2024 04:53 Broetchenholer wrote:
Or are you just imposing 'Murica!' on the topic?
Yes, I am imposing America on the topic of a comparison between Europe and America. As long as you conceive of "more" as some kind of rate or percentage, rather than a total, in which case a huge country would be more racist simply by amount in most comparisons. They're either equally racist or one is more. Would you happen to think it's the US - then why?
On September 26 2024 04:53 Broetchenholer wrote:You know, your argument suxx. The Swastika is a very normal symbol for luck and holyness, both in europe (roman) and asian societies . As words and symbols are just words and symbols, why don't you just decide that the politics associated to it by the people using it, are not relevant to you and just use the old meaning. Let's see how you do
I agree with you 100%, people are not Nazis just because they use a swastika, despite the ignorance of more than zero westerners who have ventured East and been confronted by one at a temple or elsewhere, only to quickly descend into a fit of tiktok rage, even before tiktok was invented.
On September 26 2024 04:53 Broetchenholer wrote:
Remigration is the new idea of the alt-right (mostly in Austria and moving from there to every other right-wing movement in the continent) to magically get rid of people
Already we've reached an impasse of charitability. Do you think the policy goal you're criticizing literally involves people advocating the teleportation of human souls, or do you just personally believe against all evidence that it's physically impossible to remove a human from somewhere?
On September 26 2024 04:53 Broetchenholer wrote:
why are legally in the country but don't pass their definition of a good citizen.
This is equivocating. Having status to legally be in a country doesn't encompass citizenship. At all. Nor is it irrevocable. People with legal status can lose it. It's not a guarantee of its own perpetuation. Countries can change and even reverse their own policies. (Depending on the country, even people born with citizenship can lose that in extraordinary circumstances.) This reflects the ultimate truth that being born, whether you like it or not, is accompanied by not only rights, but also responsibilities. That may sound unfair, but that's due to our comfort allowing us to naively conflate want with fairness. And your beautifully framed sentence seems utterly nonracial by the way, which is great.
On September 26 2024 04:53 Broetchenholer wrote:
If you use that term now without providing context how your definition of the word differs from the other people using it, then maybe you just refer to what those other people use.
It's not my word, it was Drumpf's word, read the quote of his I posted, find another quote of his if you have additional context. The word means people going whence they came. In the context of American politics, that's about deporting tens of millions of illegal immigrants who have entered and even live in the country, and people who would otherwise have no legal basis to be in the US and would be illegal except for the fact that the current administration overstepped their executive authority in not only granting parole, but actively facilitating the influx of almost a million people by skirting US law. In the context of European politics, it may be about reversing a recent trend of legal immigration, refugees, and illegal immigrants. In both cases, it's about people leaving a country and going back. The word has always meant that (or it has meant entering and leaving countries many times, but that's a descriptive case, not something to be debated as policy). That's why while in Austria it might mean returning people who have mostly come from the Middle East and North Africa I assume, and it doesn't mean that in the US because the nature of immigration and assimilation to each place in recent history is different. Olive branch: the word "immigration" is not inherently treasonous.
|
Northern Ireland23821 Posts
On September 27 2024 01:57 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 26 2024 04:53 Broetchenholer wrote:
First of all, how do you measure Europe being more racist then the US? Is that your personal feeling Yes, from having been in 49 states and had a civic education. Show nested quote +On September 26 2024 04:53 Broetchenholer wrote:
from all the connections you have with people using remigration in normal conversation from Europe? What? Show nested quote +On September 26 2024 04:53 Broetchenholer wrote:
Or are you just imposing 'Murica!' on the topic? Yes, I am imposing America on the topic of a comparison between Europe and America. As long as you conceive of "more" as some kind of rate or percentage, rather than a total, in which case a huge country would be more racist simply by amount in most comparisons. They're either equally racist or one is more. Would you happen to think it's the US - then why? Show nested quote +On September 26 2024 04:53 Broetchenholer wrote:You know, your argument suxx. The Swastika is a very normal symbol for luck and holyness, both in europe (roman) and asian societies . As words and symbols are just words and symbols, why don't you just decide that the politics associated to it by the people using it, are not relevant to you and just use the old meaning. Let's see how you do I agree with you 100%, people are not Nazis just because they use a swastika, despite the ignorance of more than zero westerners who have ventured East and been confronted by one at a temple or elsewhere, only to quickly descend into a fit of tiktok rage, even before tiktok was invented. Show nested quote +On September 26 2024 04:53 Broetchenholer wrote:
Remigration is the new idea of the alt-right (mostly in Austria and moving from there to every other right-wing movement in the continent) to magically get rid of people Already we've reached an impasse of charitability. Do you think the policy goal you're criticizing literally involves people advocating the teleportation of human souls, or do you just personally believe against all evidence that it's physically impossible to remove a human from somewhere? Show nested quote +On September 26 2024 04:53 Broetchenholer wrote:
why are legally in the country but don't pass their definition of a good citizen. This is equivocating. Having status to legally be in a country doesn't encompass citizenship. At all. Nor is it irrevocable. People with legal status can lose it. It's not a guarantee of its own perpetuation. Countries can change and even reverse their own policies. (Depending on the country, even people born with citizenship can lose that in extraordinary circumstances.) This reflects the ultimate truth that being born, whether you like it or not, is accompanied by not only rights, but also responsibilities. That may sound unfair, but that's due to our comfort allowing us to naively conflate want with fairness. And your beautifully framed sentence seems utterly nonracial by the way, which is great. Show nested quote +On September 26 2024 04:53 Broetchenholer wrote:
If you use that term now without providing context how your definition of the word differs from the other people using it, then maybe you just refer to what those other people use.
It's not my word, it was Drumpf's word, read the quote of his I posted, find another quote of his if you have additional context. The word means people going whence they came. In the context of American politics, that's about deporting tens of millions of illegal immigrants who have entered and even live in the country, and people who would otherwise have no legal basis to be in the US and would be illegal except for the fact that the current administration overstepped their executive authority in not only granting parole, but actively facilitating the influx of almost a million people by skirting US law. In the context of European politics, it may be about reversing a recent trend of legal immigration, refugees, and illegal immigrants. In both cases, it's about people leaving a country and going back. The word has always meant that (or it has meant entering and leaving countries many times, but that's a descriptive case, not something to be debated as policy). That's why while in Austria it might mean returning people who have mostly come from the Middle East and North Africa I assume, and it doesn't mean that in the US because the nature of immigration and assimilation to each place in recent history is different. Olive branch: the word "immigration" is not inherently treasonous.
I think I may be the forth person in this thread chain to have never have encountered the ‘demigration’ term before this particular tangent.
Who uses a term, and why are also of some import.
I don’t see why you exhaust such intellectual capital arguing on the contrary.
|
Europe is quite racist. Not only do we quietly hate each other, we also hate all the outsiders and all the first and second and third generation immigrants.
We pretend not to be like that and a significant chunk of the population is quite okay with all of the above, but many can't cope. There's a reason so many hard right movements got so much momentum in the last ten year, they needed that spark to be legitimized again. It's sad because all you can do is think systemic problems will solve themselves once the "borders are closed", but that's the thinking of a 3 year old. Throw nuance out of the window and you get polarization. We need that back in the discourse.
|
On September 27 2024 02:16 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 01:57 oBlade wrote:On September 26 2024 04:53 Broetchenholer wrote:
First of all, how do you measure Europe being more racist then the US? Is that your personal feeling Yes, from having been in 49 states and had a civic education. On September 26 2024 04:53 Broetchenholer wrote:
from all the connections you have with people using remigration in normal conversation from Europe? What? On September 26 2024 04:53 Broetchenholer wrote:
Or are you just imposing 'Murica!' on the topic? Yes, I am imposing America on the topic of a comparison between Europe and America. As long as you conceive of "more" as some kind of rate or percentage, rather than a total, in which case a huge country would be more racist simply by amount in most comparisons. They're either equally racist or one is more. Would you happen to think it's the US - then why? On September 26 2024 04:53 Broetchenholer wrote:You know, your argument suxx. The Swastika is a very normal symbol for luck and holyness, both in europe (roman) and asian societies . As words and symbols are just words and symbols, why don't you just decide that the politics associated to it by the people using it, are not relevant to you and just use the old meaning. Let's see how you do I agree with you 100%, people are not Nazis just because they use a swastika, despite the ignorance of more than zero westerners who have ventured East and been confronted by one at a temple or elsewhere, only to quickly descend into a fit of tiktok rage, even before tiktok was invented. On September 26 2024 04:53 Broetchenholer wrote:
Remigration is the new idea of the alt-right (mostly in Austria and moving from there to every other right-wing movement in the continent) to magically get rid of people Already we've reached an impasse of charitability. Do you think the policy goal you're criticizing literally involves people advocating the teleportation of human souls, or do you just personally believe against all evidence that it's physically impossible to remove a human from somewhere? On September 26 2024 04:53 Broetchenholer wrote:
why are legally in the country but don't pass their definition of a good citizen. This is equivocating. Having status to legally be in a country doesn't encompass citizenship. At all. Nor is it irrevocable. People with legal status can lose it. It's not a guarantee of its own perpetuation. Countries can change and even reverse their own policies. (Depending on the country, even people born with citizenship can lose that in extraordinary circumstances.) This reflects the ultimate truth that being born, whether you like it or not, is accompanied by not only rights, but also responsibilities. That may sound unfair, but that's due to our comfort allowing us to naively conflate want with fairness. And your beautifully framed sentence seems utterly nonracial by the way, which is great. On September 26 2024 04:53 Broetchenholer wrote:
If you use that term now without providing context how your definition of the word differs from the other people using it, then maybe you just refer to what those other people use.
It's not my word, it was Drumpf's word, read the quote of his I posted, find another quote of his if you have additional context. The word means people going whence they came. In the context of American politics, that's about deporting tens of millions of illegal immigrants who have entered and even live in the country, and people who would otherwise have no legal basis to be in the US and would be illegal except for the fact that the current administration overstepped their executive authority in not only granting parole, but actively facilitating the influx of almost a million people by skirting US law. In the context of European politics, it may be about reversing a recent trend of legal immigration, refugees, and illegal immigrants. In both cases, it's about people leaving a country and going back. The word has always meant that (or it has meant entering and leaving countries many times, but that's a descriptive case, not something to be debated as policy). That's why while in Austria it might mean returning people who have mostly come from the Middle East and North Africa I assume, and it doesn't mean that in the US because the nature of immigration and assimilation to each place in recent history is different. Olive branch: the word "immigration" is not inherently treasonous. I think I may be the forth person in this thread chain to have never have encountered the ‘demigration’ term before this particular tangent. Who uses a term, and why are also of some import. I don’t see why you exhaust such intellectual capital arguing on the contrary.
I'm 5th, but I don't think this vocabulary lesson is particularly important. The fact that Trump is fascist and promotes white nationalism - much to the pleasure of many of his followers - isn't contingent upon whether or not he uses a specific word or symbol.
|
The abnormal part to me is Trump himself could easily clear this up. People misspeak or unaware all the time and they just need to go "oops I didn't realize this was a term that has been used by groups believing in the great replacement theory and wanting to forcefully remove all non whites from the US. What I meant was....."
Instead he just keeps making more and more "mistakes" that happen to speak to people that hold supremist views.
|
On September 27 2024 02:16 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 01:57 oBlade wrote:On September 26 2024 04:53 Broetchenholer wrote:
First of all, how do you measure Europe being more racist then the US? Is that your personal feeling Yes, from having been in 49 states and had a civic education. On September 26 2024 04:53 Broetchenholer wrote:
from all the connections you have with people using remigration in normal conversation from Europe? What? On September 26 2024 04:53 Broetchenholer wrote:
Or are you just imposing 'Murica!' on the topic? Yes, I am imposing America on the topic of a comparison between Europe and America. As long as you conceive of "more" as some kind of rate or percentage, rather than a total, in which case a huge country would be more racist simply by amount in most comparisons. They're either equally racist or one is more. Would you happen to think it's the US - then why? On September 26 2024 04:53 Broetchenholer wrote:You know, your argument suxx. The Swastika is a very normal symbol for luck and holyness, both in europe (roman) and asian societies . As words and symbols are just words and symbols, why don't you just decide that the politics associated to it by the people using it, are not relevant to you and just use the old meaning. Let's see how you do I agree with you 100%, people are not Nazis just because they use a swastika, despite the ignorance of more than zero westerners who have ventured East and been confronted by one at a temple or elsewhere, only to quickly descend into a fit of tiktok rage, even before tiktok was invented. On September 26 2024 04:53 Broetchenholer wrote:
Remigration is the new idea of the alt-right (mostly in Austria and moving from there to every other right-wing movement in the continent) to magically get rid of people Already we've reached an impasse of charitability. Do you think the policy goal you're criticizing literally involves people advocating the teleportation of human souls, or do you just personally believe against all evidence that it's physically impossible to remove a human from somewhere? On September 26 2024 04:53 Broetchenholer wrote:
why are legally in the country but don't pass their definition of a good citizen. This is equivocating. Having status to legally be in a country doesn't encompass citizenship. At all. Nor is it irrevocable. People with legal status can lose it. It's not a guarantee of its own perpetuation. Countries can change and even reverse their own policies. (Depending on the country, even people born with citizenship can lose that in extraordinary circumstances.) This reflects the ultimate truth that being born, whether you like it or not, is accompanied by not only rights, but also responsibilities. That may sound unfair, but that's due to our comfort allowing us to naively conflate want with fairness. And your beautifully framed sentence seems utterly nonracial by the way, which is great. On September 26 2024 04:53 Broetchenholer wrote:
If you use that term now without providing context how your definition of the word differs from the other people using it, then maybe you just refer to what those other people use.
It's not my word, it was Drumpf's word, read the quote of his I posted, find another quote of his if you have additional context. The word means people going whence they came. In the context of American politics, that's about deporting tens of millions of illegal immigrants who have entered and even live in the country, and people who would otherwise have no legal basis to be in the US and would be illegal except for the fact that the current administration overstepped their executive authority in not only granting parole, but actively facilitating the influx of almost a million people by skirting US law. In the context of European politics, it may be about reversing a recent trend of legal immigration, refugees, and illegal immigrants. In both cases, it's about people leaving a country and going back. The word has always meant that (or it has meant entering and leaving countries many times, but that's a descriptive case, not something to be debated as policy). That's why while in Austria it might mean returning people who have mostly come from the Middle East and North Africa I assume, and it doesn't mean that in the US because the nature of immigration and assimilation to each place in recent history is different. Olive branch: the word "immigration" is not inherently treasonous. I think I may be the forth person in this thread chain to have never have encountered the ‘demigration’ term before this particular tangent. Who uses a term, and why are also of some import. I don’t see why you exhaust such intellectual capital arguing on the contrary.
Never heard the word. I assume it means mass deportation of brown people and very, very little else? Unless it’s also about sending australians and swedes that have moved in your country packing, which never seems to be on the agenda.
I always marvel at the conceptual creativity of the far right but let’s call things by their names.
What strikes me, always with those discussion in the complete lack of compassion and empathy that goes with certain arguments. What happens to the people that are “remigrated”, right wing people seem to just not even think about.
I read several times articles about how we could see difference in the way our brain is wired based on political orientation, and the more i age, the more i believe it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
