Why Are Lefties Against Guns, Secure Borders, etc?

[Kaltros]

N3bu

Kaltros

N3bu

wikipedia

racially-based selection criteria

doesn't really explain why the White Australia policy was bad.

Uh.. Whut?

Will you state, for the record, to this forum and everyone on it.. that Racial Discrimination is good? Or not bad? How about Racial Segregation?

Why is the question so hard for you to answer? Here it is again: "Why was the White Australia policy bad?"

[N3bu]

I like especially how you dodged the racist bullet by pretending that racial discrimination in immigration policies is ethical because it's just the government exercising it's right to control it's borders.

[HMS Thunder Child]

Kaltros

HMS Thunder Child

Kaltros

HMS Thunder Child

Kaltros

Yes, I am. I think policy should be based on more than feelings. As in, some sort of rational explanation.

[Snide]

So what would you call a racist policy? The epitome of reason?

There, there. I already told you I prefer more than just feelings with a thin coating of words.

Feel free to take a shot at answering my original question in a reasonable way, though. "Why do you consider the White Australia Policy bad?"

[Angry]

I gave you an answer. That you are a bigot and thus refuse to accept it is of little concern to me.

Still, I'll spell it out for you. That you ask why it's wrong for them to keep Australia white shows that you have neither an issue with maintaining racial superiority nor an issue with obliterating the existence of native peoples.

Immigration policy is not the same thing as ethnic cleansing at all. Deporting someone or refusing them entry is not the same as killing them. The difference shouldn't be that hard to see.

Quote:

You are a bigot and a moron. And don't even think to tone police me again. It is fallacious to disregard an argument simply due to the tone the person is taking. If a policy's goal is to ensure racial dominance of a group, it is racist.

Let me see if I understand your argument. It seems to be "It's racist, and racism is bad!" Did I understand your argument correctly?

And your argument seems to have a lot of unspoken assumptions, such as, apparently, that the inhabitants of a country have no right to control their own borders and that anybody should be able to immigrate absolutely anywhere without consequence or the consent of the people whose country you move into.

You ought to bring more of the assumptions behind your argument out front so I can understand it better.

[Snide]

I don't believe I equated the two. Not that it matters. Whether through cliff, policy, or forced relocation, working to keep Australia white is racist.

[Annoyed/Snide]

You could distill it down to that if you ignore the rest of the context. One would think that would be enough, but apparently not.

[Annoyed]

I've never argued that countries do not have sovereignty over their borders. But that's not what you're arguing, either. I'm arguing that enacting border controls so as to maintain a white supremacist paradigm is indeed racist, and you're arguing that there is nothing wrong with that. Do not try and paint your argument as anything but white hooded.

[Snide]

Also, it's quite interesting you argue that since the British and later the Australians didn't seem to have any qualms whatsoever with immigrating absolutely anywhere without consequence or the consent of the peoples whose lands they immigrated into.

[N3bu]

Kaltros

N3bu

Kaltros

N3bu

wikipedia

racially-based selection criteria

doesn't really explain why the White Australia policy was bad.

Uh.. Whut?

Will you state, for the record, to this forum and everyone on it.. that Racial Discrimination is good? Or not bad? How about Racial Segregation?

Why is the question so hard for you to answer? Here it is again: "Why was the White Australia policy bad?"

I just did. Because it's racial discrimination. In case you didn't pick up on it the first time.
Now, let me just try and think ahead a bit here. My guess is, your next question going to be something like "Why is Racial Discrimination bad?" To which I answer pre-emptively "Are you going to tell me it's not bad?"

The only other response I can dream up for you, is that you would dismiss my argument on the basis that I'm just some stupid blind liberal once again pulling out the overused and under-justified Racist card.

But just so you know, that tactic only works when there is ambiguity about there being Racism involved. There is no ambiguity here, the policy objectively discriminated against immigrants on the basis of their race. That IS racist.

[Kaltros]

N3bu

Demand to immigrate.

The focus on illegal immigration is legitimate, I won't say otherwise, but it is still used to avoid the issue. Whenever someone tries to say anything about a broken immigration system the immediate response is to focus on law breakers and ask why they shouldn't be punished. This is about trying to fix the reason they break the law in the first place.

And why do you think they break the law here on the American continent?

Quote:

Your also trying to assume control of my point and direct it elsewhere. I don't argue nations shouldn't have control, control however doesn't entail stoppage. I support nations having control, I also support nations using that control to allow people to more freely immigrate into said country.

Some nations in control of immigration choose stoppage. Japan is one example. But if you think nations can't put stoppage in place then how much control do the nations really have? If some nations want to stop all immigration, why not?

Quote:

Observed cultural and statistical difference are long based in observed cultural disparity brought about by being considered a sub-human class. Blacks and Latinos are ghettoised and criminalized by culture now because there is nothing they can do as a people to fix a problem that was created by white people in the first place.

That's not based on reality on the ground at all. U.S. schools, most of them, go out of their way to bring minorities into top schools. Oprah's cultural hegemony alone ought to be a shining example of how blacks are not, by default, considered a sub-human class and ghettoized. Do you know how many white people watch and revere Oprah? And have watched her for years and years? Latinos also get plenty of service. There are signs everywhere written in Spanish, helpful bi-lingual people waiting to assist, and so on.

Quote:

That is to say, by segregating black and Latinos in the first place and turning the system against them White people institutionalised the criminalization of minorities. This happens almost everywhere. Anywhere you see an honest to god minority culture, it started because the minorities couldn't integrate their culture with the local culture because the ethnic majority didn't want them. 20, 30 40 years later it bites them in the a** when those ethnic minorities distrust and segregate themselves from society by second nature. People refuse to acknowledge it because it is the most ******** shameful and awkward conversation ever. You would obviously disagree, so I know I can't convince you of this fact.

Hmm. Jews have maintained a fairly strong minority identity in the U.S., yet they still integrate fairly well, have a lot of cultural influence, and etc. That's one example of a minority that is both powerful in U.S. culture, yet not exactly part of that culture.

And I'm not really sure what you want here. On one hand you seem dissatisfied with segregation, but I'm not sure you'd be happy with melting everyone into one giant monoculture either. One giant monoculture would basically erase the cultural identities of the groups within it. Is that what you want? One giant monoculture?

Quote:

I don't have to assume Multiculturalism is good, I just have to assume that racism and segregation is bad. I don't even have to assume that. By just trying to stop racial discrimination in immigration policies Australia greatly increase it's multiculturalism.

That's kind of like saying "I don't have to assume marriage is good, I just have to assume loneliness and singlehood is bad" isn't it?

Seeing a problem isn't enough. You also have to find a good solution. It is always possible to find a bad solution to any problem that either doesn't work or makes things worse somehow.

[Kaltros]

N3bu

I like especially how you dodged the racist bullet by pretending that racial discrimination in immigration policies is ethical because it's just the government exercising it's right to control it's borders.

Go ahead and shoot a machine gun full of racist bullets at me if you like.

Let's get to it, then. Why do you think racially discriminatory immigration policies are unethical?

[Disa Uniflora]

Kaltros

Disa Uniflora

Kaltros

N3bu

Kaltros

Yes, I am. I think policy should be based on more than feelings. As in, some sort of rational explanation.

wikipedia

The term White Australia Policy comprises various historical policies that intentionally restricted non-white immigration to Australia. It came into fruition with Federation in 1901, and the policies were progressively dismantled between 1949 and 1973.
Competition in the goldfields, labour disputes and Australian nationalism created an environment of racial antagonism during the second half of the 19th century. Such factors led to the passage of the Immigration Restriction Act in 1901, one of the first Acts of the national parliament following federation. The passage of this bill is considered the commencement of the White Australia Policy as Australian government policy. Subsequent acts further strengthened the policy up to the start of World War II.[1] These policies effectively allowed for the privileging of British migrants over all others through the first decades of the 20th century.
The policy was dismantled in stages by several successive governments after the conclusion of World War II, with the encouragement of first non-British and later non-white immigration, allowing for a large multi-ethnic post-war program of immigration. The Menzies and Holt Governments effectively dismantled the policies between 1949 and 1966 and the Whitlam Government passed laws to ensure that race would be totally disregarded as a component for immigration to Australia in 1973. In 1975 the Whitlam Government passed the Racial Discrimination Act, which made racially-based selection criteria illegal. In the decades since, Australia has maintained largescale multi-ethnic immigration.

That's a nice summary/history of the policy, but doesn't really explain why the White Australia policy was bad.

"Because you don't know the answer to that question, I pity you."

Great, more feelings in what is supposed to be a forum of rational discussion. But, since we're quoting:

"Gentlemen of the court, there are times that I'm ashamed to be a member of the human race and this is one such occasion."

Why would anyone even try engaging in a rational discussion with you, when just about everyone understands you to be a troll? This s**t for example. You imply that white separation policy is at least not bad and that's the full breadth of your 'rational discussion' on the matter and then from that point on just repeat "A bloo bloo bloo reason is better den feelings." I strongly doubt you had the slightest clue what Australia's white separation policy was, and you certainly haven't bothered to actually defend it. That's because you're a troll, or maybe just a shitstain, but in either case you're not some objective thinker, struggling against the tides of a sentimental world unleashed.

I've got time, so let me illustrate the point, and I suggest that other people set you on ignore as opposed to wasting their time with you, as I'm about to. That'll save the trouble of having to tolerate your dumb a** in any of my own future threads as well.

Quote:

And why do you consider the White Australia Policy bad?

Quote:

Yes, I am. I think policy should be based on more than feelings. As in, some sort of rational explanation.

Quote:

That's a nice summary/history of the policy, but doesn't really explain why the White Australia policy was bad.

Quote:

Great, more feelings in what is supposed to be a forum of rational discussion. But, since we're quoting:

"Gentlemen of the court, there are times that I'm ashamed to be a member of the human race and this is one such occasion."

Quote:

Why is the question so hard for you to answer? Here it is again: "Why was the White Australia policy bad?"

Wow, just look at all that ********' nuance. If anyone's arguing from a place of reason, it's this guy.

/Ignored

[Kaltros]

HMS Thunder Child

I've never argued that countries do not have sovereignty over their borders. But that's not what you're arguing, either. I'm arguing that enacting border controls so as to maintain a white supremacist paradigm is indeed racist, and you're arguing that there is nothing wrong with that. Do not try and paint your argument as anything but white hooded.

[Snide]

Let's say it is racist. So what? If a country does have a right to control its borders, doesn't that include restricting immigration however it pleases?

Quote:

Also, it's quite interesting you argue that since the British and later the Australians didn't seem to have any qualms whatsoever with immigrating absolutely anywhere without consequence or the consent of the peoples whose lands they immigrated into.

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[Kaltros]

HMS Thunder Child

Kaltros

HMS Thunder Child

Kaltros

It's not just an assumption where I come from, but based on observed reality. Here in the U.S. we have observed that, statistically, different ethnic groups behave in significantly different ways. Blacks and Latinos are much more into criminal activity of various sorts than whites and asians, for instance. Blacks and Latinos also consistently do worse on test scores, and in the case of blacks learning a new language is no excuse. Asians tend to do significantly better on tests than blacks, latinos, and whites, and to be wealthier and more law-abiding than everybody else. These are observed statistical differences.

Not to mention various observed cultural differences.

[Angry]

You haven't observed anything. You are abusing statistics, either through ignorance, bigotry, or a combination of both, and I presume option 3.

[Snide]

Why would I presume that, you ask? Look at your post history. You are a dead ringer for a white supremacist.

Why don't you dig into the statistics you think I'm abusing and point out how I've misread them? Which statistics do you have in mind?

[Annoyed]

FBI Uniform Crime Reports are the White Supremacist's go to guide for "justifiable" racism.

[Snide]

I could tell you that the methodology entirely ignores the effects of racial profiling, and the scope of the report does not even include historical basis, but you, as a white supremacist, would ignore it.

Racial profiling only goes so far, unless you want to assume some vast universal conspiracy on the part of every police officer, judge, lawyer, and other official involved in the justice system to completely fabricate evidence and wrongfully convict blacks and Latinos on a regular enough basis to make a statistical impact.

And how about test scores? You didn't even mention those.

[HMS Thunder Child]

Kaltros

HMS Thunder Child

I've never argued that countries do not have sovereignty over their borders. But that's not what you're arguing, either. I'm arguing that enacting border controls so as to maintain a white supremacist paradigm is indeed racist, and you're arguing that there is nothing wrong with that. Do not try and paint your argument as anything but white hooded.

[Snide]

Let's say it is racist. So what? If a country does have a right to control its borders, doesn't that include restricting immigration however it pleases?

Quote:

Also, it's quite interesting you argue that since the British and later the Australians didn't seem to have any qualms whatsoever with immigrating absolutely anywhere without consequence or the consent of the peoples whose lands they immigrated into.

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[Annoyed]

So what? So what? And sure, a country has the right to do with its borders as it wishes. That does not mean it is above reproach. It does not mean that you can say, "Well, it is racist, but they're allowed to do it, so I can't say anything." Yes, you can say something. You just won't, because you support it and you're hiding behind state privilege of sovereignty instead of defending your bigotry.

[Snide]

I suspected you might not. It was a point about how you're arguing that the poor white people are being wronged by having to let icky people of color into their country. Guess which white people brutally usurped control from people of color?

[HMS Thunder Child]

Kaltros

HMS Thunder Child

Kaltros

HMS Thunder Child

Kaltros

It's not just an assumption where I come from, but based on observed reality. Here in the U.S. we have observed that, statistically, different ethnic groups behave in significantly different ways. Blacks and Latinos are much more into criminal activity of various sorts than whites and asians, for instance. Blacks and Latinos also consistently do worse on test scores, and in the case of blacks learning a new language is no excuse. Asians tend to do significantly better on tests than blacks, latinos, and whites, and to be wealthier and more law-abiding than everybody else. These are observed statistical differences.

Not to mention various observed cultural differences.

[Angry]

You haven't observed anything. You are abusing statistics, either through ignorance, bigotry, or a combination of both, and I presume option 3.

[Snide]

Why would I presume that, you ask? Look at your post history. You are a dead ringer for a white supremacist.

Why don't you dig into the statistics you think I'm abusing and point out how I've misread them? Which statistics do you have in mind?

[Annoyed]

FBI Uniform Crime Reports are the White Supremacist's go to guide for "justifiable" racism.

[Snide]

I could tell you that the methodology entirely ignores the effects of racial profiling, and the scope of the report does not even include historical basis, but you, as a white supremacist, would ignore it.

Racial profiling only goes so far, unless you want to assume some vast universal conspiracy on the part of every police officer, judge, lawyer, and other official involved in the justice system to completely fabricate evidence and wrongfully convict blacks and Latinos on a regular enough basis to make a statistical impact.

And how about test scores? You didn't even mention those.

[Annoyed]

Let's take, for example, marijuana possession and usage. It's generally believed to be about the same across racial lines. People like their weed. Now, if you look at how marijuana possession is punished, you'll notice that far fewer white people are in prison for it. Isn't that odd?

Let's look at the way the death penalty is administered in say the US state of Georgia. Percentage-wise, white prisoners on death row are much less likely to die than black prisoners on death row. In late 2011, early 2012, there were a few cases which brought a bit of controversy. A black man was executed despite there being a call for another look at the evidence since all witnesses recanted their statements. Shortly after, a white man who had admitted, in court, that he had committed his crimes, was given a stay of execution. A little after that, another black man, who was mentally retarded and who should not have been given the death penalty, was executed, without further investigation as to whether or not he was capable of holding trial.

[Snide]

Test scores? What should I address about that? That standardized tests are geared towards middle class white kids? That poor schools often don't have the resources to adequately prepare kids for those tests? That black people tend to be in poor school districts due to an incessant (to this day) history of racism in housing in the United States?

Should I recap my story about how white America believed minority populations to be naturally infirm, ignoring the societal context within which they had forced these people? Or will you ignore it again?

[Kaltros]

HMS Thunder Child

Kaltros

HMS Thunder Child

I've never argued that countries do not have sovereignty over their borders. But that's not what you're arguing, either. I'm arguing that enacting border controls so as to maintain a white supremacist paradigm is indeed racist, and you're arguing that there is nothing wrong with that. Do not try and paint your argument as anything but white hooded.

[Snide]

Let's say it is racist. So what? If a country does have a right to control its borders, doesn't that include restricting immigration however it pleases?

Quote:

Also, it's quite interesting you argue that since the British and later the Australians didn't seem to have any qualms whatsoever with immigrating absolutely anywhere without consequence or the consent of the peoples whose lands they immigrated into.

I'm not sure what you're getting at.

[Annoyed]

So what? So what? And sure, a country has the right to do with its borders as it wishes. That does not mean it is above reproach. It does not mean that you can say, "Well, it is racist, but they're allowed to do it, so I can't say anything." Yes, you can say something. You just won't, because you support it and you're hiding behind state privilege of sovereignty instead of defending your bigotry.

What are you talking about? Nothing I've posted has been close to the bolded section just above. Try to stay focused. We were talking, as I recall, about why racially discriminatory immigration policy is bad. Not about protest or something. And you seem to be assuming that no country could ever have any reason besides mere bigotry to have a racially discriminatory immigration policy.

Quote:

[Snide]

I suspected you might not. It was a point about how you're arguing that the poor white people are being wronged by having to let icky people of color into their country. Guess which white people brutally usurped control from people of color?

Doesn't that cut both ways? If unrestricted immigration turned out badly for the former inhabitants, why is it good for the modern U.S.? Look at what unrestricted immigration did to the Native Americans, Aborigines, and etc. The past is the past, and the old cultures were mostly gone long before you or I were born. There's nothing we can do about those old dead white men who colonized all those places. We didn't move here with them, though. We were born here long after those times, and grew up here. Why should I feel guilty for things done before I was even born by people I never knew?

[Kaltros]

HMS Thunder Child

Kaltros

HMS Thunder Child

Kaltros

HMS Thunder Child

[Angry]

You haven't observed anything. You are abusing statistics, either through ignorance, bigotry, or a combination of both, and I presume option 3.

[Snide]

Why would I presume that, you ask? Look at your post history. You are a dead ringer for a white supremacist.

Why don't you dig into the statistics you think I'm abusing and point out how I've misread them? Which statistics do you have in mind?

[Annoyed]

FBI Uniform Crime Reports are the White Supremacist's go to guide for "justifiable" racism.

[Snide]

I could tell you that the methodology entirely ignores the effects of racial profiling, and the scope of the report does not even include historical basis, but you, as a white supremacist, would ignore it.

Racial profiling only goes so far, unless you want to assume some vast universal conspiracy on the part of every police officer, judge, lawyer, and other official involved in the justice system to completely fabricate evidence and wrongfully convict blacks and Latinos on a regular enough basis to make a statistical impact.

And how about test scores? You didn't even mention those.

[Annoyed]

Let's take, for example, marijuana possession and usage. It's generally believed to be about the same across racial lines. People like their weed. Now, if you look at how marijuana possession is punished, you'll notice that far fewer white people are in prison for it. Isn't that odd?

It's generally believed? By who? Based on what? Is this what passes for rigorous thought and good data to you?

Quote:

Let's look at the way the death penalty is administered in say the US state of Georgia. Percentage-wise, white prisoners on death row are much less likely to die than black prisoners on death row. In late 2011, early 2012, there were a few cases which brought a bit of controversy. A black man was executed despite there being a call for another look at the evidence since all witnesses recanted their statements. Shortly after, a white man who had admitted, in court, that he had committed his crimes, was given a stay of execution. A little after that, another black man, who was mentally retarded and who should not have been given the death penalty, was executed, without further investigation as to whether or not he was capable of holding trial.

A few cases does not equal statistical data. Even for the comparatively small data set of death row inmates.

How about all the other crime statistics available?

For the record, I tend to oppose the death penalty on principle.

Quote:

[Snide]

Test scores? What should I address about that? That standardized tests are geared towards middle class white kids? That poor schools often don't have the resources to adequately prepare kids for those tests? That black people tend to be in poor school districts due to an incessant (to this day) history of racism in housing in the United States?

If standardized tests are geared towards middle class white kids why do Asians do so much better on average at testing?

Quote:

Should I recap my story about how white America believed minority populations to be naturally infirm, ignoring the societal context within which they had forced these people? Or will you ignore it again?

No, because that's a red herring in this discussion.

[N3bu]

I'll take Disa's advice.

[Noogie]

Disa Uniflora

/Ignored

I just tipped you 25g and I want you to enjoy it on moon pies and penny whistles.