|
On July 24 2025 01:03 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2025 00:59 KwarK wrote:
My recollection is that xDaunt went full whites only ethnostate after spending too long on the internet. Sad. That's what I mean. The full whites only ethnostate is now reminiscent of how government policy in the US is being carried out (forcibly kidnapping and deporting random non white people regardless of their legal status) and people here defend it regularly. Its the new normal.
This reminded me that I think it's fascinating/funny that LightSpectra has been calling oBlade "Stormfront" for a while now.
It would seem either oBlade's racism is bad enough to get actioned or LightSpectra should be discouraged from referring to another poster out of their name like that.
That's not even about politics, that's just basic communication/conflict resolution/behaving like adults.
A lot of people here are so immersed that the absurdity of that doesn't register, then someone like Jankisa comes along and the ridiculousness is impossible for them not to see.
|
Northern Ireland26351 Posts
On July 24 2025 01:03 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2025 00:59 KwarK wrote:
My recollection is that xDaunt went full whites only ethnostate after spending too long on the internet. Sad. That's what I mean. The full whites only ethnostate is now reminiscent of how government policy in the US is being carried out (forcibly kidnapping and deporting random non white people regardless of their legal status) and people here defend it regularly. Its the new normal.
One can draw some lines between the two, but also entirely plausible deniability.
Whereas if you overtly advocate that a white ethnostate is desirable it’s kinda hard to deny that you’re advocating for a white ethnostate
|
On July 24 2025 01:29 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2025 01:03 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 24 2025 00:59 KwarK wrote:
My recollection is that xDaunt went full whites only ethnostate after spending too long on the internet. Sad. That's what I mean. The full whites only ethnostate is now reminiscent of how government policy in the US is being carried out (forcibly kidnapping and deporting random non white people regardless of their legal status) and people here defend it regularly. Its the new normal. One can draw some lines between the two, but also entirely plausible deniability. Whereas if you overtly advocate that a white ethnostate is desirable it’s kinda hard to deny that you’re advocating for a white ethnostate
Fair.
If there's one thing we've achieved by banning the likes of xdaunt, its to make the right wing ethnostate fanbois cloak their views behind more subtle language.
I guess political correctness can be self defeating sometimes lol
|
On July 24 2025 02:04 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2025 01:29 WombaT wrote:On July 24 2025 01:03 Jockmcplop wrote:On July 24 2025 00:59 KwarK wrote:
My recollection is that xDaunt went full whites only ethnostate after spending too long on the internet. Sad. That's what I mean. The full whites only ethnostate is now reminiscent of how government policy in the US is being carried out (forcibly kidnapping and deporting random non white people regardless of their legal status) and people here defend it regularly. Its the new normal. One can draw some lines between the two, but also entirely plausible deniability. Whereas if you overtly advocate that a white ethnostate is desirable it’s kinda hard to deny that you’re advocating for a white ethnostate Fair. If there's one thing we've achieved by banning the likes of xdaunt, its to make the right wing ethnostate fanbois cloak their views behind more subtle language. I guess political correctness can be self defeating sometimes lol
I mean, maybe? I don't agree that oBlade is a right wing ethnostate fanboi, for instance. He is a professional troll, but who knows what he *actually* believes in. xDaunt was literally defending that the 14 words was a perfectly normal slogan and there was no reason to cancel people for saying them at a college rally (or something functionally equivalent. It's a while back and I don't remember the exact trigger for his perm ban).
|
Danglars was banned because all he did was stir the pot, who knows what his actual views were as he danced around them, almost cosplaying his name. XDaunt told you exactly what he thought. Depends on your preference I guess. But if you wanted to know what intelligent right wingers actually thought xDaunt would be your man 10 out of 10 times.
|
TL; DR
If you support deporting undocumented migrants you're a racist
also if you support not deporting undocumented migrants it's because you want a subclass of humans to do labor, ergo you're also a racist
if you point out Gaza's high fertility rate you're a racist
also if you use a figure of speech that compares their breeding rate to that of rabbits you're also a racist
If you spend 10 years talking about a socialist revolution but also throw zingers at Democrats to make yourself feel superior you must be a right-wing troll.
It's all stupid. Kwark does not want immigration laws enforced so that we can be cruel to migrants. Magic Powers does not want open borders so we can have an underclass whose labor we exploit. Stop constantly making the least charitable interpretations of each other's motives for fuck's sake.
Surely there are better arguments to be made than constantly calling people trolls and racists. It's like the scene in The Office when Michael Scott goes to Improv and in every scenario he pantomimes pulling out a gun because he thinks it's the most exciting thing you can do. Calling someone racist, troll, bigot, bad faith, disingenuous, etc. is the ace up the sleeve that everyone can't resist playing while everyone else is rolling their eyes.
|
United States43673 Posts
MP made the economic argument for having a class of people who are not subject to worker protections, OSHA, minimum wage, etc. and have no legal recourse if exploited by their employer.
He may not explicitly want there to be a subclass, he just likes the economic benefits and doesn’t ask too many questions. Like someone who insists that they don’t want cows to die but steak should be on the menu and however that happens is fine.
When you dig into the implications of the economic argument for allowing undocumented workers to stay and work it gets pretty awful. People just don’t really do that. They should though. If the economy needs these people then that needs to be something that goes through congress and includes recognition and legal status of some kind.
|
The "economic argument" for being pro-immigration does not hinge on being able to treat them as second-class citizens. The same "economic argument" applies to legal immigrants as well who do enjoy the protections you mention. I'm certain MP would be in favor of giving out green cards to whoever wants one and legal protections to anyone already here.
|
On July 24 2025 05:06 BlackJack wrote:
Surely there are better arguments to be made than constantly calling people trolls and racists.
Calling someone a racist isn't an argument, it's just an accusation. It's usually true but whether it is or not never, ever, matters, so if it's an ace up a sleeve it's a weakass ace in a game with no stakes. This is no different from the lib thing on capitalism, it's a core belief; there's a contradictory position at the start, where the subject wants to be both rational/correct and conservative on social issues, but it's immediately clear that the generic liberal position on all social issues is correct; and then from that terrible start we try and weave around that.
|
No the arguments for being ok with illegal immigration and legal immigration are completely different. And on top of that I'm certain this is not the place to discuss what those are.
|
United States43673 Posts
On July 24 2025 05:41 BlackJack wrote:
The "economic argument" for being pro-immigration does not hinge on being able to treat them as second-class citizens. The same "economic argument" applies to legal immigrants as well who do enjoy the protections you mention. I'm certain MP would be in favor of giving out green cards to whoever wants one and legal protections to anyone already here.
With apologies to tofu, the giving out of green cards is completely key to my point.
There is no contradiction between deporting people here illegally and giving out green cards. The people with green cards wouldn’t be deported. It’d be the people without green cards.
Let’s say you give everyone legal status. Let’s that same day you deport everyone here illegally. It’s zero people but you still did it. That’d be entirely consistent. Nobody working under the table, nobody getting exploited. That’s fine.
But let’s say you can’t give everyone legal status. Is it right to allow anyone who doesn’t have legal status to remain and work under the table? To let their employers threaten to call ICE on them if they refuse to be sexually harassed?
That’s the crux of my point. What do you do with people without legal status? I would argue humane repatriation is the only ethical treatment for anyone who can’t otherwise be made a legal resident. And that the economic implications of their illegal labour do not change that ethical situation.
Congress can decide who they’re willing to allow to remain here legally. Deporting everyone here illegally doesn’t preclude the passing of some well crafted legislation to reduce the size of that group. But ultimately whoever congress decides will not have access to legal status and the protections it grants cannot be allowed to remain as a subclass for economic reasons.
|
Nobody is offering the 3rd option where we give all the illegal immigrants green cards and legal protections. If they were MP would support it. MPs argument is that absent of giving them legal status, allowing them to live and work under uncertain legal status is preferable to rounding them up for deportation. You should be able to recognize a lesser evilism argument better than anyone.
|
United States43673 Posts
On July 24 2025 06:30 BlackJack wrote:
Nobody is offering the 3rd option where we give all the illegal immigrants green cards and legal protections. If they were MP would support it. MPs argument is that absent of giving them legal status, allowing them to live and work under uncertain legal status is preferable to rounding them up for deportation. You should be able to recognize a lesser evilism argument better than anyone.
Wasn’t this both of our points? Weren’t you the one who says MP would give them amnesty and me saying “okay that’s great but what about anyone not legalized?”.
I’m not sure if you’re just BlackJacking me right now. What are we arguing over?
To clarify my point. I’m saying the preference should be
1. Assess economic/moral arguments for granting legal status (keeping families together, allowing for seasonal labour movements, reviewing criminal histories etc.) and pass whatever congress passes.
2. State policy should be to humanely repatriate anyone not covered by 1 regardless of the economic implications. The state around enforce its policy because choosing not to amounts to an unofficial policy of letting them stay without giving them rights. That policy is morally abhorrent.
To clarify my understanding of the counter argument isn’t it
1. Assess economic/moral arguments for granting legal status (keeping families together, allowing for seasonal labour movements, reviewing criminal histories etc.) and pass whatever congress passes.
2. Do not enforce whatever the policy is. Repatriate nobody because economy/racism. Create subclass of people that the government chooses to allow to live in America but chooses not to give legal recognition to.
I don’t see how that’s a lesser evil. I also can’t imagine the prospect of keeping a permanent subclass labour force motivating congress to pass particularly good legislation. The worse their legislation is the more housekeepers they get. In a way this is a question as old as the United States. Can you have the labour of a population without having to treat them as people? Do the economic advantages of keeping them justify the moral issues? Why I like my proposal is because it forces the question, if you had to choose between treating people as people or giving up the labour what would you pick. Why I don’t like proposals that allow for unofficial policies that tolerate a subclass is precisely because they don’t force that choice. Give room for Congress to pick keeping them but not giving them rights and the cynic in me says that’s what we’re getting.
My understanding of your interjection here
On July 24 2025 05:41 BlackJack wrote:
I'm certain MP would be in favor of giving out green cards to whoever wants one and legal protections to anyone already here.
was that you were proposing it as a third option. My response to it was that it’s not a third option, it’s just my plan. Assuming legislation was passed to allow it then sure, give out those green cards.
You’ve now completely lost me though, I can’t reconcile your prior post about giving out green cards with your current post about not giving out green cards.
Edit: tofu, in my view this topic doesn’t have strict rules and is as good a place as any to discuss this but we can move it to the main topic if you like. Up to you.
|
You don't have to pitch your stance. You can probably infer from my post history that my position aligns with yours and not with MP's "lets not enforce laws or the border" position. My objection is your insistence on framing MP's argument in the least charitable way, e.g. that he wants to keep the undocumented around so that we may exploit them and not because he doesn't want to see them rounded up and sent to "detention facilities" or "death camps" depending on who's doing the naming.
On July 24 2025 06:46 KwarK wrote:
I don’t see how that’s a lesser evil.
Good. Me neither. Argue that then. Not wanting people without legal status to stick around so that they can be exploited is reasonable. What's not reasonable is insisting that the guy that is against any and all deportations wants workers that we can exploit by threatening them with deportation.
|
United States43673 Posts
On July 24 2025 07:24 BlackJack wrote:You don't have to pitch your stance. You can probably infer from my post history that my position aligns with yours and not with MP's "lets not enforce laws or the border" position. My objection is your insistence on framing MP's argument in the least charitable way, e.g. that he wants to keep the undocumented around so that we may exploit them and not because he doesn't want to see them rounded up and sent to "detention facilities" or "death camps" depending on who's doing the naming. Good. Me neither. Argue that then. Not wanting people without legal status to stick around so that they can be exploited is reasonable. What's not reasonable is insisting that the guy that is against any and all deportations wants workers that we can exploit by threatening them with deportation.
Did he not make the economic argument for non deportion of people without legal status? Can’t have the steak without the abattoir.
|
On July 24 2025 07:26 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2025 07:24 BlackJack wrote:You don't have to pitch your stance. You can probably infer from my post history that my position aligns with yours and not with MP's "lets not enforce laws or the border" position. My objection is your insistence on framing MP's argument in the least charitable way, e.g. that he wants to keep the undocumented around so that we may exploit them and not because he doesn't want to see them rounded up and sent to "detention facilities" or "death camps" depending on who's doing the naming. On July 24 2025 06:46 KwarK wrote:
I don’t see how that’s a lesser evil. Good. Me neither. Argue that then. Not wanting people without legal status to stick around so that they can be exploited is reasonable. What's not reasonable is insisting that the guy that is against any and all deportations wants workers that we can exploit by threatening them with deportation. Did he not make the economic argument for non deportion of people without legal status? Can’t have the steak without the abattoir.
It's a counter to the right-wing talking point of "they took 'er jobs." If someone says we should deport them because they are poisoning the economy and another person comes along and says no, they are contributing to our economy, it doesn't mean the 2nd person necessarily thinks it's great if we can pay them below minimum wage to pick crops while threatening them with ICE if they act up.
Your argument is that even if MP doesn't want illegal immigrants to be exploited, that's what the policies he supports will inevitably lead to. Well the same applies to you. You want deportation but you want it done humanely and with dignity. But nobody cares what you want anymore than they care what MP wants. Your wish that innocents won't get caught up in the dragnet of mass deportation is no less a pipe dream than MP's wish that no illegal immigrants are exploited on farms. So you can both keep going back and forth and calling each other racist because of the worst byproducts of the policies you support or you could instead interpret each other in the most charitable way and argue against each other's strongest points.
|
United States43673 Posts
Well I think you know which of those is going to be what happens so if that was your point then you've wasted both of our times with this exchange.
|
Hyrule19194 Posts
Yeah this is a lot of stuff that should be in the main thread.
|
Could we get Kwark to chill out a bit?
There was a short point made about how German companies think tariffs for cars are worthwhile. Since then we have had ~10 posts discussing if Germans are stupid in the US politics thread...
On July 30 2025 23:22 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 30 2025 20:24 Broetchenholer wrote:On July 30 2025 17:22 KwarK wrote:On July 30 2025 14:24 Broetchenholer wrote:On July 30 2025 10:36 KwarK wrote:On July 30 2025 10:23 BlackJack wrote:On July 29 2025 21:50 KwarK wrote:On July 29 2025 21:11 Jankisa wrote:On July 29 2025 20:34 Gorsameth wrote:On July 29 2025 20:22 KT_Elwood wrote:
[quote]
EU CEOs want to slash their central-european workforce anyway, they gonna eat the tariffs by killing jobs seems to be on the menu for us.
German steel? Dead.
German cars? Made in Hungary.
German Defense Industry?: Hiring in Romania.
German plastics and chemicals?: Call the Chinese office for orders.
except, once gain, the EU doesn't eat the tariffs. the US does. A German company does not pay 15% extra to ship steel to the US. The US client pays 15% extra to the US government. Can you please explain to us why is Germany desperate to sign the deal and get the tariffs down from 25 % to 15 % if this is such a non issue, the US is paying it, why would they care? www.ft.comHere are some quotes from industry and leaders in EU, even Mertz who praised the deal getting done is saying it will have negative consequences on the EU and German economy, why is this so difficult to understand? Why did EU humiliate itself and gave all these concessions if all tariffs are doing is making shit more expensive for the US? Where is the logic in this? You’re not understanding, despite the long post explaining it. The trade is mutually beneficial. The tariff is paid by Americans but still interferes with the trade. If Americans start taxing themselves more then the trade goes down and both sides lose. Germany is one of the sides that would lose and so they don’t want it. America is one of the sides and therefore they shouldn’t want it. But Trump doesn’t know the first thing about anything and he thinks that if Germans are losing then that’s somehow a win for him. Tariff = lose-lose is an oversimplification. For example the EU's 10% tariff on cars. Is the EU also too stupid to realize that tariff = bad or perhaps they think the protection it offers to domestic auto companies outweighs any negatives to their consumers? Clearly the EU thought it was "good" to have a tariff against US cars but if a US tariff against EU cars is automatically bad then I'd like to hear some reasoning for the discrepancy. German lobbying. The discrepancy is German lobbying? German lobbying is bad? Germans are stupid to not realize they are hurting themselves with tariffs? Care to explain? Not sure why you immediately jumped to “Germans are stupid” but maybe some are. First, can you be less of an asshole? Seriously, just try once not to be an asshole. I didn’t say, suggest, or imply that Germans were stupid. That would be a stupid thing to imply, everyone knows Germans have made huge contributions to the expansion of human knowledge over the years. But if you, a German, feel the need to jump in and straw man my view as “Germans are stupid” then you can’t subsequently whine if I partially agree with you. You were looking for a reason to be offended and found one in your own words, I wasn’t involved, you wanted to get upset. Show nested quote +On July 30 2025 20:24 Broetchenholer wrote:
As you before argued that tariffs are always bad and shooting yourself in the foot, you must believe that germans are stupid because they wanted to shoot themselves in the foot. 1. I didn’t argue that tariffs are always bad. That’s yet another attempt to put words in my mouth. 2. I don’t believe that Germans are stupid. I also don’t believe that industry lobbyists speak for an entire nationality. But again, if you really want to get offended by your idea that Germans are stupid then it’s your prerogative. Just don’t drag me into it. 3. Not all EU residents are Germans. If my argument is that German lobbying is making the EU is shoot its residents in the foot then that does not imply that they foolishly wanted to shoot themselves in the foot. They could want to bar Spaniards from buying cheaper imported cars in favour of German ones. The interests of German industry and of the rest of the EU residents are not necessarily aligned. 4. Not all Germans are car industry lobbyists. The interests of car industry lobbyists and all Germans are not necessarily aligned. If I suggest that German lobbyists have encouraged a particular policy then that is not a statement about the intelligence of the German people. 5. Nobody has to be stupid. People working for the German car industry can rationally want to force everyone to buy German cars without being stupid. This can be an objectively bad policy for the EU as a whole and still become policy without anyone being stupid. The good of the group and the good of subsets of individuals within the group need not be aligned. This whole discussion of stupid Germans is absurd. Nobody but you is arguing that Germans are stupid and I don’t know why you’re trying so hard to convince me that they are. I believe Trump to be stupid because of all of the things that he says and does. He's an individual. No part of my observations and conclusions about Trump can be extrapolated to the population of Germany.
|
United States43673 Posts
The question should really be why I am being demanded to defend the intelligence of Germans in the first place when I never said anything to the contrary.
Also you'll note that when someone proposed that ridiculous straw man I dismissed it with a single sentence rather than engage it on its merits because there was no merits to engage it on. I'm not trying to have that discussion, I'm trying to shut it down.
Broetchenholer keeps trying to drag me into a discussion of whether Germans are stupid and I keep trying to get out of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
