Here we go
Oh, you have the right to say it. And other people have the right to judge you on what you say.
You can say you don't have anything against Mexicans. However, no one is obliged to believe you. After several decades of dog whistles, and uses of that exact kind of language to support previous racist immigration laws (e.g. anti-Chinese movements in the US or Pete Wilson's attacks on "Mesoamericans" in the 90s), pretty much everyone knows what you really mean.
In many cases, those who have a "specific view of what American culture should be" are basically white supremacists. They are either hiding it, or just oblivious to their own implicit racism.
Why gosh! I wonder why.
www.newsweek.com
Or, the function of denying that "I'm racist" is so that the individual can keep being racist, and continue to perpetuate structural racism, without the pain of being called out for being racist.
Funny, I always thought that "calling a racist a racist" meant you were condemning racists. Who knew?
Here we go
Oh, you have the right to say it. And other people have the right to judge you on what you say.
"Freedom of speech" does not mean "freedom from the consequences of your speech."
You can say you don't have anything against Mexicans. However, no one is obliged to believe you. After several decades of dog whistles, and uses of that exact kind of language to support previous racist immigration laws (e.g. anti-Chinese movements in the US or Pete Wilson's attacks on "Mesoamericans" in the 90s), pretty much everyone knows what you really mean.
Heck, even the KKK these days often doesn't want to admit to being racists.
And... "Mesoamerican?" What the what? Does that mean you're fine with mestizos or Criollos from Mexico? Are you going to give visa applicants a DNA test, to check for European ancestry? Yeesh.
In many cases, those who have a "specific view of what American culture should be" are basically white supremacists. They are either hiding it, or just oblivious to their own implicit racism.
Why gosh! I wonder why.
KKK Hands Out Fliers For Christmas
"Why can't pro-white rights organizations exist without being labeled racist" the Klan fliers asked.
Or, the function of denying that "I'm racist" is so that the individual can keep being racist, and continue to perpetuate structural racism, without the pain of being called out for being racist.
It's like a magic spell. Just recite the incantation "I'm not a racist! Some of my best friends are black!" and poof... you are "not a racist." That's how it works, right...?
Funny, I always thought that "calling a racist a racist" meant you were condemning racists. Who knew?
Back in the real world, the reality is that a huge swath of Americans are racists, or at least prejudiced against minorities. The racists have repeatedly demanded that we ignore racism, or that change is happening "too fast," or that protestors "aren't civil," and so on. All they really want is to maintain the status quo, or go back to an earlier period of unquestioned white privilege, and sweep injustice under the rug. I see no reason to accommodate them. Why do you?
When I say 'you don't have the right' I mean something a little different. I mean that the right to have that ideas has been severely vilified. So that one does not have the right to believe what one believes, see what ones sees, etc. The function of the emotionalized use of the term "racist!" has an ulterior function: to shame one into a certain conformity. You show, I would say, how this works throughout your post. You are skilled in these rhetorical usages it seems to me.
When I say 'even if I may have nothing against them' I mean as people in the struggle that we all are in on this earth, or really as parts-and-parcels of God's creation, and also as souls worthy of respect. My ethics direct me to hold to these views and ideas and to respect all people. But that does not in any sense mean that I have an ethical or moral obligation to desire them to inhabit my lands nor necessarily to become fellow-members of my culture and nation.
) and I will always tell you exactly what I think. I could write out here an entire group of reasons why I think that America would have been better off holding to its enforcement of the former immigration guidelines (1924) and why those of 1965 have resulted in tangible harms to the fabric of the nation. I am clear about this because I have done my research. This has nothing to do with hatred or any sort of bad animus. I feel I could make a genuinely moral and ethical argument in pro of my view. And that is the reason why I could formulate the view: because it is ethical to do so. And also socially responsible.Well you see you really lay it on the line. You demonstrate what I said. But I counter by saying there is nothing, absolutely nothing, morally or ethically wrong with the desire to protect or defend one's nation. You have established as a tenet and as an a priori that, indeed, there is something wrong with that view or desire. And you attach the sister-term of the hot word "racist!" another powerful tool: "white supremacist". But I would want to be 'supreme' within my own territory, and I imagine that Mexicans, Japanese, Nigerians and others hold to the same or similar view. There is nothing wrong with it!
My view is that *we* should all get out from under the weight and power of the entire condemnatory project. That means: confronting and defeating you (plural) at an idea-level. I can do this easily of course because I am practiced at it. It is far harder for those still under your perverse power. I always say to them: try to work your way out. I will help!
Yes, it really is a problem. I can suggest that they read Jared Taylor or Sam Francis or Greg Johnson's numerous books. You must have grasped that I reject absolutely the way you use and wield your destructive term "racist!" I believe that a perspective that includes race, ethnicity and cultural matrix as relevant points in a wide group of considerations is in no sense immoral or unethical. I can defend this view against you, against ten of you and against a million!
Racism is a perception, treatment, belief that the color of a person's skin can give you insight into their intelligence, work ethic or character. Particularly when it causes you to form negative assumptions or hold a negative bias about the person based on little or no relevant knowledge about that person.
For starters, I would like to end the war on drugs entirely. I believe it was designed specifically to give largely white and racist police officers an excuse to go after African Americans. The war has driven countless African Americans into gangs and prisons which has intern seriously hurt family units and made it very difficult for African Americans to get legitimate jobs increasing poverty and creating a vicious cycle making them more likely to turn to gangs or crime to survive.
>>In many cases, those who have a "specific view of what American culture should be" are basically white supremacists.<<
LMAO. I dont remotely care anymore about the terms "racism", "racist", "white supremacist", "bigot", or any other overused and therefore meaningless NONSENSE.
keep shrieking it, fewer and fewer people really care. Not because they're "racists", just because the boy has cried wolf over and over and then nobody cares anymore.
Even as we type your big "woke" movement is petering out, just another social media fad that no intelligent person has much time for. IMO of course.
Y A W N
And yet here you are, asking people their opinions about racism.
Hello? What planet are you on?
Racism is a perception, treatment, belief that the color of a person's skin can give you insight into their intelligence, work ethic or character. Particularly when it causes you to form negative assumptions or hold a negative bias about the person based on little or no relevant knowledge about that person.
For starters, I would like to end the war on drugs entirely. I believe it was designed specifically to give largely white and racist police officers an excuse to go after African Americans. The war has driven countless African Americans into gangs and prisons which has intern seriously hurt family units and made it very difficult for African Americans to get legitimate jobs increasing poverty and creating a vicious cycle making them more likely to turn to gangs or crime to survive.
This in turn is used to justify racist beliefs that somehow African Americans are all lazy criminals.
The second thing I would do is put restrictions on using property taxes to pay for schools. This overwhelming allows wealthy white neighborhoods to fund incredibly schools for their children while leaving African Americans in poverty attending horribly underfunded classrooms.
I would like to pass a law requiring teachers working in a particular school district to be paid a rate that is roughly equivalent to police officers in the same district. As well as requiring a ratio of teacher to student that is based relative to the number of police officers per resident.
This would force cities and states to invest in education instead of simply throwing African Americans in prison.
Third, I would like to see any and all crimes committed by police officers to be elevated to federal crimes and therefore investigated by and prosecuted by federal authorities. If a cop kills someone it should not be his buddy on the precinct softball team carrying out the investigation
or deciding whether or not to file charges.
Fourth, we should replace the student loan system with a system that allows students to choose a voluntary income tax option to repay their tuition. It could be as little as 2% on top of normal income taxes and tuition would be free otherwise. This would help African Americans as well as anyone else
to go to college without being overwhelmed by student loans that make it impossible for them to buy a home or save for retirement.
Fifth, I would make mortgage insurance illegal, I would make down payment requirements illegal, and I would put limits on interest rates t
And yet here you are, asking people their opinions about racism.
Y'know, I don't care about fashion; my life would be completely unchanged if Versace closed. You know what I don't do? I don't go onto fashion subreddits, ask people why they care about fashion, and then proclaim "I don't remotely care about fashion!" when I disagree with people.
Hello? What planet are you on?
The host of "The Bachelor" bowed out (i.e. was suspended or fired) for coddling a contestant who did things like attend a "plantation party," and defending his position. A music theory prof at UNT recently got booted from a journal for defending a virulently racist music theorist, in virulently racist terms. The NBA is investigating the VP of the Utah Jazz for allegedly making racist comments.
For better or for worse, there is no sign that "fewer and fewer people really care" about accusations of racism right now.
Oh, I forgot. You don't care.
And again... In the US at least, you have the right to say what you want. In almost no cases will US governments use the force of law to stop you from making public statements, even if those statements are explicitly racist.
And I am under no obligation to take your comments seriously, when your own statements demonstrate the opposite.
Oh, really?
% Grade A bullshit.There is, when your idea of "defending the nation" is demanding that it be a white nation.
There is a LOT wrong with it.
The racist doesn't want to be called a racist. Well that's a shock.
Yeah, what a surprise. Stormfront is thataway. --->
Jared Taylor: White supremacist, founder of American Renaissance.
That's not how bigotry works. It is a fact that the majority of police are white. It is also a fact that particularly back in the 70's when the war on drugs began that a significant number of them were very racist.
No, I said they can't charge PMI, can't require down payments, and are limited in how much they can charge for interest.
hating rattlesnakes is a form of speciesism which is a form of racism
Better said you are not grasping what I am actually referring to.
As to the rest of what you wrote -- tomorrow.
I see your point.
In fact I did not advocate that and what I did was to propose that the policy of 1924 was not in itself immoral nor unethical. What I am suggesting is that any people, any nation on this Earth, any community of people, have a right to determine who enters their nation and community. I also say that to think all these things through is an act of assuming responsibility. I then proposed that the change on the immigration policy of 1965 has led to notable negative consequences, and I propose that these consequences can be noticed, enumerated and discussed. However, I also note that to carry on such a discussion has been 'made illegal' (this is a metaphor) and to think such thoughts have been made thoughtcrime. And I also proposed that you demonstrate a diseased rhetorical position which, as I say, involves certain forms of lying, cheating and deception. This can be seen as well, and exposed to the light of day, and talked about.
If you can *demand* that it be a mixed nation, or a multi-cultural nation, then it is without any doubt possible and as justified to assert something different. This is a simple equation. Just think it through and you yourself will have done the work. So I refer to somewhat abstract examples. Take the example of an imagined *Nigeria*. I want you to propose that instead of being a black nation that it should or it must become a 'multi-ethnic' nation and I want you to argue to the residents of Nigeria that they must accept your imposition. On what moral and ethical basis will you build your case? And when your impositional social-engineering ideology and its project is questioned and rejected? What will you tell them?
This is a bad argument. I did not assert that a nation is 'static'. What you are doing here is making a very specific statement and also a wide cultural recommendation that a nation must incorporate all manner of different people because no nation is 'static'. But a nation could be non-static and dynamic and yet still hold to some specific immigration guidelines. Again you are lying and you are deceiving, perhaps without knowing it, by advocating for demographic changes that might not be *good*, that might not be wanted, and because your ideological orientation forces you to these tendentious views. But you do not necessarily have any sound argument to support, genuinely, your assertions. And the tool that you primarily use is one of *blame & shame* to attack anyone who proposes a different way of looking at the questions.
No, I used 'supreme' only in the sense of being numerically superior and thus being able to control affairs. Again it is useful to refer to an abstract example -- our imagined *Nigeria* will do. I assert that it is entirely justifiable for the people of Nigeria to exert 'supremacy' over their own affairs. But I am using the term in a fair and accurate sense, not as you use it, as a way to undermine a genuine and common-sense understanding.
That is just an assertion, a claim. When there was a different immigration policy (1924) there was a legal and agreed-on series of quota. And I assure you that having made that decision was entirely moral. I mean, it could be defended in sound moral and ethical terms.
The term 'white supremacy' as you use it is clearly a charged rhetorical term and it is underhanded and devious. This is your primary *trick*. And what you do can be seen and exposed and thus your tactics can be confronted. It is rather an involved process (as you see from what I do here) but it can be done and it must be done.
This is an important one. You assume just because you have attached the word "racist!" that you have successfully countered certain of their propositions. You have also associated me with your rhetorical and underhanded declaration about them. A common gambit in our distorting present!
I don't have my own definitions for words. I use the dictionary.
Political parties using race-based identity politics, especially when used to pass subversive fiscal policy.
^so not a class reductionist poser.
^not a poser at all.
. Pro-tip in a legal system where money talks the existence of laws does not mean the issue just magically go away.