|
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 27 2024 03:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 02:16 WombaT wrote: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.
How often do you spend thinking about the people that didn’t make it across the border and are still living in shitty conditions? Is there a reason we should have more compassion for someone that makes it across and gets deported than someone that doesn’t make it across at all?
|
On September 27 2024 03:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 02:16 WombaT wrote: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.
What percent of illegal immigrants in the US are Australians and Swedes...?
On September 27 2024 03:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:
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.
Hopefully they would thrive in the country they were born in and maintain citizenship of, which makes it conceptually 100 times more compassionate than mere "deportation," if compassion for outlanders were foremost on your mind.
|
On September 27 2024 03:41 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 03:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2024 02:16 WombaT wrote: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. How often do you spend thinking about the people that didn’t make it across the border and are still living in shitty conditions? Is there a reason we should have more compassion for someone that makes it across and gets deported than someone that doesn’t make it across at all?
I mean every now and then of course thats what having empathy means. Its also why we have foreign aid to help prop up countries to make it less shitty and less desirable for them to come. Being america first means you want that aid to be cut and for it to be more shitty and for more reason to try and come illegally to the us.
You don't need more compassion for one group or the other having empathy doesn't mean that you have to care more for one group or another. Having empathy means understanding someone else and why they're doing what they're doing. Compassion is wanting to do whats morally best for everyone to make the world a better place. You know that rounding them up and sending them back with nothing will leave their life worse than if they never went. Cruelty as a deterrent will only make people more desperate and understand what will happen if they're ever caught alive. Cruelty tends to require more cruelty to justify itself.
|
On September 27 2024 03:41 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 03:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2024 02:16 WombaT wrote: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. How often do you spend thinking about the people that didn’t make it across the border and are still living in shitty conditions? Is there a reason we should have more compassion for someone that makes it across and gets deported than someone that doesn’t make it across at all?
What kind of an argument is that. It’s like, say, i tell you you lack compassion because you don’t care about the homeless guy down the street and you answer, what about your compassion for the people living in equal mysery in the favelas in Brazil?
That’s not an argument.
To answer you, i think foreign aid should be ten times what it is, and the borders should be more open, both things you certainly oppose.
|
On September 27 2024 04:05 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 03:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2024 02:16 WombaT wrote: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. What percent of illegal immigrants in the US are Australians and Swedes...? Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 03:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:
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. Hopefully they would thrive in the country they were born in and maintain citizenship of, which makes it conceptually 100 times more compassionate than mere "deportation," if compassion for outlanders were foremost on your mind.
Tell me, why do you think the brown people are there illegally and the white ones legally?
|
On September 27 2024 05:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 04:05 oBlade wrote:On September 27 2024 03:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2024 02:16 WombaT wrote: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. What percent of illegal immigrants in the US are Australians and Swedes...? On September 27 2024 03:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:
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. Hopefully they would thrive in the country they were born in and maintain citizenship of, which makes it conceptually 100 times more compassionate than mere "deportation," if compassion for outlanders were foremost on your mind. Tell me, why do you think the brown people are there illegally and the white ones legally?
I did not say that.
You have asked me why nobody cares about illegal Australians and Swedes. I have asked you to show me the illegal Australians and Swedes.
You have then assumed that Australians and Swedes are all white, apparently given up on finding evidence of a problem 5 minutes ago you were complaining that people don't complain about, overlooking the possibility that the problem is either miniscule, doesn't exist, or if it does is already fucking included in the solution.
Imagine you enter a room and there's red wine spilled everywhere, and one person says "we should clean this up" and you whine "how come you don't care about cleaning up all the spilled white wine" and they say "this is red wine though" and you whine "racist." This is the level of reasoning.
You are race baiting pathetically. Find me a single quote of a US politician supporting the deportation of all illegl immigrants except the white ones can stay. Or even find me an X post of a random person saying that. It's a totally asinine position nobody holds except in the fantasyland of boogey-strawmen. Even the white nationalists aren't stupid enough to hold that view.
People care about the problems that exist more than made up ones. That's it. It is not the fault of citizens of a country what color the illegal immigrants there are or aren't and how politically correct or incorrect that makes you for being opposed to breaking the law.
Do you know why Haitians and Venezuelans are topical? It's not because they are this or that color. It's because Biden launched a parole program called CHNV. Do you know what that stands for? Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela. That's why you find stronger opposition to those migrants than to ones from Malta and Singapore because Biden didn't bring in a million of them without asking and without a plan and with questionable consequences. Not because illegals from Singapore are white so they're okay illegals, of course. But you didn't ask me about Singapore. You asked me about Sweden. Because who is the one making this about race.
|
On September 27 2024 06:06 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 05:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2024 04:05 oBlade wrote:On September 27 2024 03:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2024 02:16 WombaT wrote: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. What percent of illegal immigrants in the US are Australians and Swedes...? On September 27 2024 03:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:
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. Hopefully they would thrive in the country they were born in and maintain citizenship of, which makes it conceptually 100 times more compassionate than mere "deportation," if compassion for outlanders were foremost on your mind. Tell me, why do you think the brown people are there illegally and the white ones legally? I did not say that. You have asked me why nobody cares about illegal Australians and Swedes. I have asked you to show me the illegal Australians and Swedes.
He neither specified illegal Australians and Swedes, nor did he ask you anything about them.
On September 27 2024 06:06 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 05:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2024 04:05 oBlade wrote:On September 27 2024 03:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2024 02:16 WombaT wrote: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. What percent of illegal immigrants in the US are Australians and Swedes...? On September 27 2024 03:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:
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. Hopefully they would thrive in the country they were born in and maintain citizenship of, which makes it conceptually 100 times more compassionate than mere "deportation," if compassion for outlanders were foremost on your mind. Tell me, why do you think the brown people are there illegally and the white ones legally? Do you know why Haitians and Venezuelans are topical? It's not because they are this or that color. It's because Biden launched a parole program called CHNV. Do you know what that stands for? Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela. That's why you find stronger opposition to those migrants than to ones from Malta and Singapore because Biden didn't bring in a million of them without asking and without a plan and with questionable consequences. Not because illegals from Singapore are white so they're okay illegals, of course. But you didn't ask me about Singapore. You asked me about Sweden. Because who is the one making this about race.
Cool, so despite using 'illegal' in every other sentence to give this an air of righteousness, it turns out the illegal qualifier isn't even necessary as long as you feel like someone legal shouldn't have been let in.
|
On September 27 2024 06:06 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 05:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2024 04:05 oBlade wrote:On September 27 2024 03:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2024 02:16 WombaT wrote: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. What percent of illegal immigrants in the US are Australians and Swedes...? On September 27 2024 03:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:
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. Hopefully they would thrive in the country they were born in and maintain citizenship of, which makes it conceptually 100 times more compassionate than mere "deportation," if compassion for outlanders were foremost on your mind. Tell me, why do you think the brown people are there illegally and the white ones legally? I did not say that. You have asked me why nobody cares about illegal Australians and Swedes. I have asked you to show me the illegal Australians and Swedes. You have then assumed that Australians and Swedes are all white, apparently given up on finding evidence of a problem 5 minutes ago you were complaining that people don't complain about, overlooking the possibility that the problem is either miniscule, doesn't exist, or if it does is already fucking included in the solution. Imagine you enter a room and there's red wine spilled everywhere, and one person says "we should clean this up" and you whine "how come you don't care about cleaning up all the spilled white wine" and they say "this is red wine though" and you whine "racist." This is the level of reasoning. You are race baiting pathetically. Find me a single quote of a US politician supporting the deportation of all illegl immigrants except the white ones can stay. Or even find me an X post of a random person saying that. It's a totally asinine position nobody holds except in the fantasyland of boogey-strawmen. Even the white nationalists aren't stupid enough to hold that view. People care about the problems that exist more than made up ones. That's it. It is not the fault of citizens of a country what color the illegal immigrants there are or aren't and how politically correct or incorrect that makes you for being opposed to breaking the law. Do you know why Haitians and Venezuelans are topical? It's not because they are this or that color. It's because Biden launched a parole program called CHNV. Do you know what that stands for? Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela. That's why you find stronger opposition to those migrants than to ones from Malta and Singapore because Biden didn't bring in a million of them without asking and without a plan and with questionable consequences. Not because illegals from Singapore are white so they're okay illegals, of course. But you didn't ask me about Singapore. You asked me about Sweden. Because who is the one making this about race.
It’s not race baiting. People are totally fine with immigration as long as it’s people like them, that have no problems in life, and are also priviledged, wealthy, from a western culture.
The moment it’s someone with a different religion, a different skin colour and most importantly, an economically difficult background, there is only rejection, fear mongering and hatred.
That’s where I wonder why you guys have so little empathy, and where that lack comes from.
You have a candidate villfying, demonizing, openly defaming with lies and racist tropes people who come from one of the poorest and most difficult country on earth. And instead of thinking about their lives, their hopes, their misfortunes, you applaud with both hands.
And i don’t get that lack if humanity and i hope i never will.
|
On September 27 2024 07:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 06:06 oBlade wrote:On September 27 2024 05:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2024 04:05 oBlade wrote:On September 27 2024 03:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2024 02:16 WombaT wrote: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. What percent of illegal immigrants in the US are Australians and Swedes...? On September 27 2024 03:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:
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. Hopefully they would thrive in the country they were born in and maintain citizenship of, which makes it conceptually 100 times more compassionate than mere "deportation," if compassion for outlanders were foremost on your mind. Tell me, why do you think the brown people are there illegally and the white ones legally? I did not say that. You have asked me why nobody cares about illegal Australians and Swedes. I have asked you to show me the illegal Australians and Swedes. You have then assumed that Australians and Swedes are all white, apparently given up on finding evidence of a problem 5 minutes ago you were complaining that people don't complain about, overlooking the possibility that the problem is either miniscule, doesn't exist, or if it does is already fucking included in the solution. Imagine you enter a room and there's red wine spilled everywhere, and one person says "we should clean this up" and you whine "how come you don't care about cleaning up all the spilled white wine" and they say "this is red wine though" and you whine "racist." This is the level of reasoning. You are race baiting pathetically. Find me a single quote of a US politician supporting the deportation of all illegl immigrants except the white ones can stay. Or even find me an X post of a random person saying that. It's a totally asinine position nobody holds except in the fantasyland of boogey-strawmen. Even the white nationalists aren't stupid enough to hold that view. People care about the problems that exist more than made up ones. That's it. It is not the fault of citizens of a country what color the illegal immigrants there are or aren't and how politically correct or incorrect that makes you for being opposed to breaking the law. Do you know why Haitians and Venezuelans are topical? It's not because they are this or that color. It's because Biden launched a parole program called CHNV. Do you know what that stands for? Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela. That's why you find stronger opposition to those migrants than to ones from Malta and Singapore because Biden didn't bring in a million of them without asking and without a plan and with questionable consequences. Not because illegals from Singapore are white so they're okay illegals, of course. But you didn't ask me about Singapore. You asked me about Sweden. Because who is the one making this about race. It’s not race baiting. People are totally fine with immigration as long as it’s people like them, that have no problems in life, and are also priviledged, wealthy, from a western culture. The moment it’s someone with a different religion, a different skin colour and most importantly, an economically difficult background, there is only rejection, fear mongering and hatred. That’s where I wonder why you guys have so little empathy, and where that lack comes from. You have a candidate villfying, demonizing, openly defaming with lies and racist tropes people who come from one of the poorest and most difficult country on earth. And instead of thinking about their lives, their hopes, their misfortunes, you applaud with both hands. And i don’t get that lack if humanity and i hope i never will.
People are fine with immigration of people not like them. There’s tons of foreign students in our universities, foreigners working in tech, Filipinos working in healthcare, etc. it’s almost like people take issue with millions of people flooding through a porous border and the skin color doesn’t matter so much.
|
On September 27 2024 08:40 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 07:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2024 06:06 oBlade wrote:On September 27 2024 05:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2024 04:05 oBlade wrote:On September 27 2024 03:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2024 02:16 WombaT wrote: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. What percent of illegal immigrants in the US are Australians and Swedes...? On September 27 2024 03:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:
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. Hopefully they would thrive in the country they were born in and maintain citizenship of, which makes it conceptually 100 times more compassionate than mere "deportation," if compassion for outlanders were foremost on your mind. Tell me, why do you think the brown people are there illegally and the white ones legally? I did not say that. You have asked me why nobody cares about illegal Australians and Swedes. I have asked you to show me the illegal Australians and Swedes. You have then assumed that Australians and Swedes are all white, apparently given up on finding evidence of a problem 5 minutes ago you were complaining that people don't complain about, overlooking the possibility that the problem is either miniscule, doesn't exist, or if it does is already fucking included in the solution. Imagine you enter a room and there's red wine spilled everywhere, and one person says "we should clean this up" and you whine "how come you don't care about cleaning up all the spilled white wine" and they say "this is red wine though" and you whine "racist." This is the level of reasoning. You are race baiting pathetically. Find me a single quote of a US politician supporting the deportation of all illegl immigrants except the white ones can stay. Or even find me an X post of a random person saying that. It's a totally asinine position nobody holds except in the fantasyland of boogey-strawmen. Even the white nationalists aren't stupid enough to hold that view. People care about the problems that exist more than made up ones. That's it. It is not the fault of citizens of a country what color the illegal immigrants there are or aren't and how politically correct or incorrect that makes you for being opposed to breaking the law. Do you know why Haitians and Venezuelans are topical? It's not because they are this or that color. It's because Biden launched a parole program called CHNV. Do you know what that stands for? Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela. That's why you find stronger opposition to those migrants than to ones from Malta and Singapore because Biden didn't bring in a million of them without asking and without a plan and with questionable consequences. Not because illegals from Singapore are white so they're okay illegals, of course. But you didn't ask me about Singapore. You asked me about Sweden. Because who is the one making this about race. It’s not race baiting. People are totally fine with immigration as long as it’s people like them, that have no problems in life, and are also priviledged, wealthy, from a western culture. The moment it’s someone with a different religion, a different skin colour and most importantly, an economically difficult background, there is only rejection, fear mongering and hatred. That’s where I wonder why you guys have so little empathy, and where that lack comes from. You have a candidate villfying, demonizing, openly defaming with lies and racist tropes people who come from one of the poorest and most difficult country on earth. And instead of thinking about their lives, their hopes, their misfortunes, you applaud with both hands. And i don’t get that lack if humanity and i hope i never will. People are fine with immigration of people not like them. There’s tons of foreign students in our universities, foreigners working in tech, Filipinos working in healthcare, etc. it’s almost like people take issue with millions of people flooding through a porous border and the skin color doesn’t matter so much.
Do you believe that if Springfield had 20k swedes we'd hear cries of "They're eating our goldfish"?
People are obviously not fine with immigration of people not like them.
|
United States24740 Posts
On September 27 2024 09:11 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 08:40 BlackJack wrote:On September 27 2024 07:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2024 06:06 oBlade wrote:On September 27 2024 05:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2024 04:05 oBlade wrote:On September 27 2024 03:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2024 02:16 WombaT wrote: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. What percent of illegal immigrants in the US are Australians and Swedes...? On September 27 2024 03:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:
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. Hopefully they would thrive in the country they were born in and maintain citizenship of, which makes it conceptually 100 times more compassionate than mere "deportation," if compassion for outlanders were foremost on your mind. Tell me, why do you think the brown people are there illegally and the white ones legally? I did not say that. You have asked me why nobody cares about illegal Australians and Swedes. I have asked you to show me the illegal Australians and Swedes. You have then assumed that Australians and Swedes are all white, apparently given up on finding evidence of a problem 5 minutes ago you were complaining that people don't complain about, overlooking the possibility that the problem is either miniscule, doesn't exist, or if it does is already fucking included in the solution. Imagine you enter a room and there's red wine spilled everywhere, and one person says "we should clean this up" and you whine "how come you don't care about cleaning up all the spilled white wine" and they say "this is red wine though" and you whine "racist." This is the level of reasoning. You are race baiting pathetically. Find me a single quote of a US politician supporting the deportation of all illegl immigrants except the white ones can stay. Or even find me an X post of a random person saying that. It's a totally asinine position nobody holds except in the fantasyland of boogey-strawmen. Even the white nationalists aren't stupid enough to hold that view. People care about the problems that exist more than made up ones. That's it. It is not the fault of citizens of a country what color the illegal immigrants there are or aren't and how politically correct or incorrect that makes you for being opposed to breaking the law. Do you know why Haitians and Venezuelans are topical? It's not because they are this or that color. It's because Biden launched a parole program called CHNV. Do you know what that stands for? Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela. That's why you find stronger opposition to those migrants than to ones from Malta and Singapore because Biden didn't bring in a million of them without asking and without a plan and with questionable consequences. Not because illegals from Singapore are white so they're okay illegals, of course. But you didn't ask me about Singapore. You asked me about Sweden. Because who is the one making this about race. It’s not race baiting. People are totally fine with immigration as long as it’s people like them, that have no problems in life, and are also priviledged, wealthy, from a western culture. The moment it’s someone with a different religion, a different skin colour and most importantly, an economically difficult background, there is only rejection, fear mongering and hatred. That’s where I wonder why you guys have so little empathy, and where that lack comes from. You have a candidate villfying, demonizing, openly defaming with lies and racist tropes people who come from one of the poorest and most difficult country on earth. And instead of thinking about their lives, their hopes, their misfortunes, you applaud with both hands. And i don’t get that lack if humanity and i hope i never will. People are fine with immigration of people not like them. There’s tons of foreign students in our universities, foreigners working in tech, Filipinos working in healthcare, etc. it’s almost like people take issue with millions of people flooding through a porous border and the skin color doesn’t matter so much. Do you believe that if Springfield had 20k swedes we'd hear cries of "They're eating our goldfish"? People are obviously not fine with immigration of people not like them.
Do these count? Because I actually could see it...
![[image loading]](https://candykitchen.com/cdn/shop/products/ck_assorted_swedish_fish-2508_2048x.jpg?v=1478030704)
|
On September 27 2024 09:11 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 08:40 BlackJack wrote:On September 27 2024 07:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2024 06:06 oBlade wrote:On September 27 2024 05:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2024 04:05 oBlade wrote:On September 27 2024 03:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2024 02:16 WombaT wrote: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. What percent of illegal immigrants in the US are Australians and Swedes...? On September 27 2024 03:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:
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. Hopefully they would thrive in the country they were born in and maintain citizenship of, which makes it conceptually 100 times more compassionate than mere "deportation," if compassion for outlanders were foremost on your mind. Tell me, why do you think the brown people are there illegally and the white ones legally? I did not say that. You have asked me why nobody cares about illegal Australians and Swedes. I have asked you to show me the illegal Australians and Swedes. You have then assumed that Australians and Swedes are all white, apparently given up on finding evidence of a problem 5 minutes ago you were complaining that people don't complain about, overlooking the possibility that the problem is either miniscule, doesn't exist, or if it does is already fucking included in the solution. Imagine you enter a room and there's red wine spilled everywhere, and one person says "we should clean this up" and you whine "how come you don't care about cleaning up all the spilled white wine" and they say "this is red wine though" and you whine "racist." This is the level of reasoning. You are race baiting pathetically. Find me a single quote of a US politician supporting the deportation of all illegl immigrants except the white ones can stay. Or even find me an X post of a random person saying that. It's a totally asinine position nobody holds except in the fantasyland of boogey-strawmen. Even the white nationalists aren't stupid enough to hold that view. People care about the problems that exist more than made up ones. That's it. It is not the fault of citizens of a country what color the illegal immigrants there are or aren't and how politically correct or incorrect that makes you for being opposed to breaking the law. Do you know why Haitians and Venezuelans are topical? It's not because they are this or that color. It's because Biden launched a parole program called CHNV. Do you know what that stands for? Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela. That's why you find stronger opposition to those migrants than to ones from Malta and Singapore because Biden didn't bring in a million of them without asking and without a plan and with questionable consequences. Not because illegals from Singapore are white so they're okay illegals, of course. But you didn't ask me about Singapore. You asked me about Sweden. Because who is the one making this about race. It’s not race baiting. People are totally fine with immigration as long as it’s people like them, that have no problems in life, and are also priviledged, wealthy, from a western culture. The moment it’s someone with a different religion, a different skin colour and most importantly, an economically difficult background, there is only rejection, fear mongering and hatred. That’s where I wonder why you guys have so little empathy, and where that lack comes from. You have a candidate villfying, demonizing, openly defaming with lies and racist tropes people who come from one of the poorest and most difficult country on earth. And instead of thinking about their lives, their hopes, their misfortunes, you applaud with both hands. And i don’t get that lack if humanity and i hope i never will. People are fine with immigration of people not like them. There’s tons of foreign students in our universities, foreigners working in tech, Filipinos working in healthcare, etc. it’s almost like people take issue with millions of people flooding through a porous border and the skin color doesn’t matter so much. Do you believe that if Springfield had 20k swedes we'd hear cries of "They're eating our goldfish"? People are obviously not fine with immigration of people not like them.
It’s not like the red carpet was rolled out for Irish or Italians during periods of large migration… despite their whiteness…
|
United States43222 Posts
On September 27 2024 10:15 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 09:11 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 27 2024 08:40 BlackJack wrote:On September 27 2024 07:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2024 06:06 oBlade wrote:On September 27 2024 05:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2024 04:05 oBlade wrote:On September 27 2024 03:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2024 02:16 WombaT wrote:On September 27 2024 01:57 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
Yes, from having been in 49 states and had a civic education.
[quote]
What?
[quote]
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?
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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?
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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. What percent of illegal immigrants in the US are Australians and Swedes...? On September 27 2024 03:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:
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. Hopefully they would thrive in the country they were born in and maintain citizenship of, which makes it conceptually 100 times more compassionate than mere "deportation," if compassion for outlanders were foremost on your mind. Tell me, why do you think the brown people are there illegally and the white ones legally? I did not say that. You have asked me why nobody cares about illegal Australians and Swedes. I have asked you to show me the illegal Australians and Swedes. You have then assumed that Australians and Swedes are all white, apparently given up on finding evidence of a problem 5 minutes ago you were complaining that people don't complain about, overlooking the possibility that the problem is either miniscule, doesn't exist, or if it does is already fucking included in the solution. Imagine you enter a room and there's red wine spilled everywhere, and one person says "we should clean this up" and you whine "how come you don't care about cleaning up all the spilled white wine" and they say "this is red wine though" and you whine "racist." This is the level of reasoning. You are race baiting pathetically. Find me a single quote of a US politician supporting the deportation of all illegl immigrants except the white ones can stay. Or even find me an X post of a random person saying that. It's a totally asinine position nobody holds except in the fantasyland of boogey-strawmen. Even the white nationalists aren't stupid enough to hold that view. People care about the problems that exist more than made up ones. That's it. It is not the fault of citizens of a country what color the illegal immigrants there are or aren't and how politically correct or incorrect that makes you for being opposed to breaking the law. Do you know why Haitians and Venezuelans are topical? It's not because they are this or that color. It's because Biden launched a parole program called CHNV. Do you know what that stands for? Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela. That's why you find stronger opposition to those migrants than to ones from Malta and Singapore because Biden didn't bring in a million of them without asking and without a plan and with questionable consequences. Not because illegals from Singapore are white so they're okay illegals, of course. But you didn't ask me about Singapore. You asked me about Sweden. Because who is the one making this about race. It’s not race baiting. People are totally fine with immigration as long as it’s people like them, that have no problems in life, and are also priviledged, wealthy, from a western culture. The moment it’s someone with a different religion, a different skin colour and most importantly, an economically difficult background, there is only rejection, fear mongering and hatred. That’s where I wonder why you guys have so little empathy, and where that lack comes from. You have a candidate villfying, demonizing, openly defaming with lies and racist tropes people who come from one of the poorest and most difficult country on earth. And instead of thinking about their lives, their hopes, their misfortunes, you applaud with both hands. And i don’t get that lack if humanity and i hope i never will. People are fine with immigration of people not like them. There’s tons of foreign students in our universities, foreigners working in tech, Filipinos working in healthcare, etc. it’s almost like people take issue with millions of people flooding through a porous border and the skin color doesn’t matter so much. Do you believe that if Springfield had 20k swedes we'd hear cries of "They're eating our goldfish"? People are obviously not fine with immigration of people not like them. It’s not like the red carpet was rolled out for Irish or Italians during periods of large migration… despite their whiteness…
I think you need GH to give you a refresher on what whiteness is. Those papists didn’t count back then.
|
On September 27 2024 10:15 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 09:11 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 27 2024 08:40 BlackJack wrote:On September 27 2024 07:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2024 06:06 oBlade wrote:On September 27 2024 05:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2024 04:05 oBlade wrote:On September 27 2024 03:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2024 02:16 WombaT wrote:On September 27 2024 01:57 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
Yes, from having been in 49 states and had a civic education.
[quote]
What?
[quote]
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?
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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?
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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. What percent of illegal immigrants in the US are Australians and Swedes...? On September 27 2024 03:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:
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. Hopefully they would thrive in the country they were born in and maintain citizenship of, which makes it conceptually 100 times more compassionate than mere "deportation," if compassion for outlanders were foremost on your mind. Tell me, why do you think the brown people are there illegally and the white ones legally? I did not say that. You have asked me why nobody cares about illegal Australians and Swedes. I have asked you to show me the illegal Australians and Swedes. You have then assumed that Australians and Swedes are all white, apparently given up on finding evidence of a problem 5 minutes ago you were complaining that people don't complain about, overlooking the possibility that the problem is either miniscule, doesn't exist, or if it does is already fucking included in the solution. Imagine you enter a room and there's red wine spilled everywhere, and one person says "we should clean this up" and you whine "how come you don't care about cleaning up all the spilled white wine" and they say "this is red wine though" and you whine "racist." This is the level of reasoning. You are race baiting pathetically. Find me a single quote of a US politician supporting the deportation of all illegl immigrants except the white ones can stay. Or even find me an X post of a random person saying that. It's a totally asinine position nobody holds except in the fantasyland of boogey-strawmen. Even the white nationalists aren't stupid enough to hold that view. People care about the problems that exist more than made up ones. That's it. It is not the fault of citizens of a country what color the illegal immigrants there are or aren't and how politically correct or incorrect that makes you for being opposed to breaking the law. Do you know why Haitians and Venezuelans are topical? It's not because they are this or that color. It's because Biden launched a parole program called CHNV. Do you know what that stands for? Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela. That's why you find stronger opposition to those migrants than to ones from Malta and Singapore because Biden didn't bring in a million of them without asking and without a plan and with questionable consequences. Not because illegals from Singapore are white so they're okay illegals, of course. But you didn't ask me about Singapore. You asked me about Sweden. Because who is the one making this about race. It’s not race baiting. People are totally fine with immigration as long as it’s people like them, that have no problems in life, and are also priviledged, wealthy, from a western culture. The moment it’s someone with a different religion, a different skin colour and most importantly, an economically difficult background, there is only rejection, fear mongering and hatred. That’s where I wonder why you guys have so little empathy, and where that lack comes from. You have a candidate villfying, demonizing, openly defaming with lies and racist tropes people who come from one of the poorest and most difficult country on earth. And instead of thinking about their lives, their hopes, their misfortunes, you applaud with both hands. And i don’t get that lack if humanity and i hope i never will. People are fine with immigration of people not like them. There’s tons of foreign students in our universities, foreigners working in tech, Filipinos working in healthcare, etc. it’s almost like people take issue with millions of people flooding through a porous border and the skin color doesn’t matter so much. Do you believe that if Springfield had 20k swedes we'd hear cries of "They're eating our goldfish"? People are obviously not fine with immigration of people not like them. It’s not like the red carpet was rolled out for Irish or Italians during periods of large migration… despite their whiteness…
Which is why i don’t think it’s just specifically anti black racism or anything. It’s been the poles, the Italians, the jews, and now it’s the Muslims. Always people vulnerable, poorer, and in need.
People were totally racist against Italians back then and Italians certainly represented otherness the way mexicans can represent it today. I personally think we should use the term “racist” much less and “xenophobic” much more as it much better describes the phenomenon imo.
|
On September 27 2024 10:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 10:15 BlackJack wrote:On September 27 2024 09:11 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 27 2024 08:40 BlackJack wrote:On September 27 2024 07:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2024 06:06 oBlade wrote:On September 27 2024 05:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2024 04:05 oBlade wrote:On September 27 2024 03:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2024 02:16 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
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. What percent of illegal immigrants in the US are Australians and Swedes...? On September 27 2024 03:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:
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. Hopefully they would thrive in the country they were born in and maintain citizenship of, which makes it conceptually 100 times more compassionate than mere "deportation," if compassion for outlanders were foremost on your mind. Tell me, why do you think the brown people are there illegally and the white ones legally? I did not say that. You have asked me why nobody cares about illegal Australians and Swedes. I have asked you to show me the illegal Australians and Swedes. You have then assumed that Australians and Swedes are all white, apparently given up on finding evidence of a problem 5 minutes ago you were complaining that people don't complain about, overlooking the possibility that the problem is either miniscule, doesn't exist, or if it does is already fucking included in the solution. Imagine you enter a room and there's red wine spilled everywhere, and one person says "we should clean this up" and you whine "how come you don't care about cleaning up all the spilled white wine" and they say "this is red wine though" and you whine "racist." This is the level of reasoning. You are race baiting pathetically. Find me a single quote of a US politician supporting the deportation of all illegl immigrants except the white ones can stay. Or even find me an X post of a random person saying that. It's a totally asinine position nobody holds except in the fantasyland of boogey-strawmen. Even the white nationalists aren't stupid enough to hold that view. People care about the problems that exist more than made up ones. That's it. It is not the fault of citizens of a country what color the illegal immigrants there are or aren't and how politically correct or incorrect that makes you for being opposed to breaking the law. Do you know why Haitians and Venezuelans are topical? It's not because they are this or that color. It's because Biden launched a parole program called CHNV. Do you know what that stands for? Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela. That's why you find stronger opposition to those migrants than to ones from Malta and Singapore because Biden didn't bring in a million of them without asking and without a plan and with questionable consequences. Not because illegals from Singapore are white so they're okay illegals, of course. But you didn't ask me about Singapore. You asked me about Sweden. Because who is the one making this about race. It’s not race baiting. People are totally fine with immigration as long as it’s people like them, that have no problems in life, and are also priviledged, wealthy, from a western culture. The moment it’s someone with a different religion, a different skin colour and most importantly, an economically difficult background, there is only rejection, fear mongering and hatred. That’s where I wonder why you guys have so little empathy, and where that lack comes from. You have a candidate villfying, demonizing, openly defaming with lies and racist tropes people who come from one of the poorest and most difficult country on earth. And instead of thinking about their lives, their hopes, their misfortunes, you applaud with both hands. And i don’t get that lack if humanity and i hope i never will. People are fine with immigration of people not like them. There’s tons of foreign students in our universities, foreigners working in tech, Filipinos working in healthcare, etc. it’s almost like people take issue with millions of people flooding through a porous border and the skin color doesn’t matter so much. Do you believe that if Springfield had 20k swedes we'd hear cries of "They're eating our goldfish"? People are obviously not fine with immigration of people not like them. It’s not like the red carpet was rolled out for Irish or Italians during periods of large migration… despite their whiteness… I think you need GH to give you a refresher on what whiteness is. Those papists didn’t count back then.
My grandma didn't recognize my parents marriage until a few years before her death because my dad was raised catholic.
Its really an incredible self own to point to previous immigrant waves of people who were invited into the white race when it became convenient for the groups that were hating them. The Idea that the cruelty inflicted on the previously unwhite Europeans was justified because it made them white. Even the asian's that had the first immigration laws against them are perfectly welcome into the tent now. But now after we've had example after example of groups successfully settling in the nation its a problem and we need to size them from their homes, rip them from their families, and send them to whatever nation we judge that they came from. We've got to justify the previous cruelty by increasing the cruelty until it works.
|
On September 27 2024 09:46 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 09:11 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 27 2024 08:40 BlackJack wrote:On September 27 2024 07:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2024 06:06 oBlade wrote:On September 27 2024 05:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2024 04:05 oBlade wrote:On September 27 2024 03:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2024 02:16 WombaT wrote:On September 27 2024 01:57 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
Yes, from having been in 49 states and had a civic education.
[quote]
What?
[quote]
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?
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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?
[quote]
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.
[quote]
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. What percent of illegal immigrants in the US are Australians and Swedes...? On September 27 2024 03:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:
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. Hopefully they would thrive in the country they were born in and maintain citizenship of, which makes it conceptually 100 times more compassionate than mere "deportation," if compassion for outlanders were foremost on your mind. Tell me, why do you think the brown people are there illegally and the white ones legally? I did not say that. You have asked me why nobody cares about illegal Australians and Swedes. I have asked you to show me the illegal Australians and Swedes. You have then assumed that Australians and Swedes are all white, apparently given up on finding evidence of a problem 5 minutes ago you were complaining that people don't complain about, overlooking the possibility that the problem is either miniscule, doesn't exist, or if it does is already fucking included in the solution. Imagine you enter a room and there's red wine spilled everywhere, and one person says "we should clean this up" and you whine "how come you don't care about cleaning up all the spilled white wine" and they say "this is red wine though" and you whine "racist." This is the level of reasoning. You are race baiting pathetically. Find me a single quote of a US politician supporting the deportation of all illegl immigrants except the white ones can stay. Or even find me an X post of a random person saying that. It's a totally asinine position nobody holds except in the fantasyland of boogey-strawmen. Even the white nationalists aren't stupid enough to hold that view. People care about the problems that exist more than made up ones. That's it. It is not the fault of citizens of a country what color the illegal immigrants there are or aren't and how politically correct or incorrect that makes you for being opposed to breaking the law. Do you know why Haitians and Venezuelans are topical? It's not because they are this or that color. It's because Biden launched a parole program called CHNV. Do you know what that stands for? Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela. That's why you find stronger opposition to those migrants than to ones from Malta and Singapore because Biden didn't bring in a million of them without asking and without a plan and with questionable consequences. Not because illegals from Singapore are white so they're okay illegals, of course. But you didn't ask me about Singapore. You asked me about Sweden. Because who is the one making this about race. It’s not race baiting. People are totally fine with immigration as long as it’s people like them, that have no problems in life, and are also priviledged, wealthy, from a western culture. The moment it’s someone with a different religion, a different skin colour and most importantly, an economically difficult background, there is only rejection, fear mongering and hatred. That’s where I wonder why you guys have so little empathy, and where that lack comes from. You have a candidate villfying, demonizing, openly defaming with lies and racist tropes people who come from one of the poorest and most difficult country on earth. And instead of thinking about their lives, their hopes, their misfortunes, you applaud with both hands. And i don’t get that lack if humanity and i hope i never will. People are fine with immigration of people not like them. There’s tons of foreign students in our universities, foreigners working in tech, Filipinos working in healthcare, etc. it’s almost like people take issue with millions of people flooding through a porous border and the skin color doesn’t matter so much. Do you believe that if Springfield had 20k swedes we'd hear cries of "They're eating our goldfish"? People are obviously not fine with immigration of people not like them. Do these count? Because I actually could see it...
100%. Swedes just out there being weird and eating gold fish. Shouting at each other in their bork de bork bork language. Lock ur fishbowls.
|
On September 27 2024 11:17 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On September 27 2024 09:46 micronesia wrote:On September 27 2024 09:11 Fleetfeet wrote:On September 27 2024 08:40 BlackJack wrote:On September 27 2024 07:49 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2024 06:06 oBlade wrote:On September 27 2024 05:40 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2024 04:05 oBlade wrote:On September 27 2024 03:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:On September 27 2024 02:16 WombaT wrote:
[quote]
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. What percent of illegal immigrants in the US are Australians and Swedes...? On September 27 2024 03:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:
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. Hopefully they would thrive in the country they were born in and maintain citizenship of, which makes it conceptually 100 times more compassionate than mere "deportation," if compassion for outlanders were foremost on your mind. Tell me, why do you think the brown people are there illegally and the white ones legally? I did not say that. You have asked me why nobody cares about illegal Australians and Swedes. I have asked you to show me the illegal Australians and Swedes. You have then assumed that Australians and Swedes are all white, apparently given up on finding evidence of a problem 5 minutes ago you were complaining that people don't complain about, overlooking the possibility that the problem is either miniscule, doesn't exist, or if it does is already fucking included in the solution. Imagine you enter a room and there's red wine spilled everywhere, and one person says "we should clean this up" and you whine "how come you don't care about cleaning up all the spilled white wine" and they say "this is red wine though" and you whine "racist." This is the level of reasoning. You are race baiting pathetically. Find me a single quote of a US politician supporting the deportation of all illegl immigrants except the white ones can stay. Or even find me an X post of a random person saying that. It's a totally asinine position nobody holds except in the fantasyland of boogey-strawmen. Even the white nationalists aren't stupid enough to hold that view. People care about the problems that exist more than made up ones. That's it. It is not the fault of citizens of a country what color the illegal immigrants there are or aren't and how politically correct or incorrect that makes you for being opposed to breaking the law. Do you know why Haitians and Venezuelans are topical? It's not because they are this or that color. It's because Biden launched a parole program called CHNV. Do you know what that stands for? Cuba, Haiti, Nicaragua, Venezuela. That's why you find stronger opposition to those migrants than to ones from Malta and Singapore because Biden didn't bring in a million of them without asking and without a plan and with questionable consequences. Not because illegals from Singapore are white so they're okay illegals, of course. But you didn't ask me about Singapore. You asked me about Sweden. Because who is the one making this about race. It’s not race baiting. People are totally fine with immigration as long as it’s people like them, that have no problems in life, and are also priviledged, wealthy, from a western culture. The moment it’s someone with a different religion, a different skin colour and most importantly, an economically difficult background, there is only rejection, fear mongering and hatred. That’s where I wonder why you guys have so little empathy, and where that lack comes from. You have a candidate villfying, demonizing, openly defaming with lies and racist tropes people who come from one of the poorest and most difficult country on earth. And instead of thinking about their lives, their hopes, their misfortunes, you applaud with both hands. And i don’t get that lack if humanity and i hope i never will. People are fine with immigration of people not like them. There’s tons of foreign students in our universities, foreigners working in tech, Filipinos working in healthcare, etc. it’s almost like people take issue with millions of people flooding through a porous border and the skin color doesn’t matter so much. Do you believe that if Springfield had 20k swedes we'd hear cries of "They're eating our goldfish"? People are obviously not fine with immigration of people not like them. Do these count? Because I actually could see it... 100%. Swedes just out there being weird and eating gold fish. Shouting at each other in their bork de bork bork language. Lock ur fishbowls.
I found this unreasonably funny.
But yeah, talk about broad strokes, in any other context BJ would have a problem with the intellectual dishonesty involved in making too general a statement about this or that thing he feels like being contrarian about, but now that we're talking about illegal immigration, a subject where you have to bury your head in the sand to miss the latent racism, suddenly everyone is perfectly rational and unprejudiced, and nobody has an issue with people from different ethnicities and different walks of life, and all the problems they have with immigrants are all perfectly justified.
Right-O!
|
Maybe local Springfield people would then hit back by eating the swedes instead.
|
It's ironic that you use Swedes as an example of immigrants people wouldn't mind having in their country, given that crime is so bad in Sweden now (because of mass migration) that our neighboring Scandinavian countries are debating closing the borders to avoid spillover effects.
|
On September 27 2024 15:53 Elroi wrote:It's ironic that you use Swedes as an example of immigrants people wouldn't mind having in their country, given that crime is so bad in Sweden now (because of mass migration) that our neighboring Scandinavian countries are debating closing the borders to avoid spillover effects.
This argument makes no sense. You just said that the problem in Sweden is mass migration,[citation needed] presumably of non-Swedes. These then non-Swedes migrate to other countries[citation needed] where these other countries are considering introducing border controls to presumably stem this migration of non-Swedes[citation needed].
In what way is this about Swedes migrating?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://media-cdn2.greatbritishchefs.com/media/vqzjvbds/swede-heart-1.whqc_640x426q80.webp)
