White supremacy

[Arcaanae]

Both. Legally, it is free speech. Morally and factually, it is wrong.

This. My dad was a white supremacist. Those kinds of ideas are poisonous, but, fortunately our right to free speech and thought are protected. Just as long as they aren't hurting anyone and don't get too loud, those smooth white heads will remain unblemished.

[Wikkiwallana]

We have enough people and we can be picky these days.

No more immigrants from bad nations either. We should have a 'bad nation list' and nobody from this list would get work/study permits.

The new poem should read: "Give me your educated, your rich, your higher classes yearning to breath free, the wanted people of your teeming shore (so long as this shore is not on the national 'bad nation list') send these, the ambitious, to me. I lift my lamp beside the golden door and to all else NO VACANCY."

Too bad Thank God you have no say in the matter.

Fixed that for you.

[Ostroeuropa]

Seems pretty awful to me.

[Wikkiwallana]

Too bad you have no say in the matter.

It is too bad because I could turn around the USA quickly if I had full dictator powers. We would have a Singapore levels of crime, higher economic freedoms, lower debt, lower taxes, a smaller but smarter and wealthier population (through a soft eugenics policy), and very low rates of religious terrorism. Europeans would be begging to be allowed to move to the USA (once they have their civil war in the near future). Sadly, only a few would be allowed in (based on their political and religious views).

No you couldn't. And wealth isn't genetic.

Oh well, we can be an open door to the "wretched refuse " of the world. That saying is truer today than ever.

Singapore has a more intelligent idea about this:

http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refdaily?pass=463ef21123&date=2009-03-25&cat=Asia/Pacific

Singapore cannot accept Rohingya refugees: minister
Publisher: AFP, Agence France Presse
Story date: 24/03/2009

SINGAPORE, March 24, 2009 (AFP) –

Singapore cannot accept Rohingya refugees should they attempt to land but would help them depart for another country, a senior government official said Tuesday.

"Given our limited land and natural resources, Singapore is not in a position to accept persons seeking political asylum or refugee status," said senior minister of state for foreign affairs Balaji Sadasivan.

Why can't the USA say this? We should follow Singapore's lead. The USA won't likely lose Singapore's respect if they enact such a policy. The country isn't perfect but they sure have less crime, lower obesity rates, clean streets, good cultural attractions, great food, and good economic policies, great public transit, an airline with pretty and friendly flight attendants, and a top rated airport. They manage this despite having a diverse culture represented by 4 religions and with large populations of Chinese, Malaysm Indians, British, and Thais. We could learn a lot from them.

Singapore is 5 million people in 710 square kilometers, For comparison, New York City, alone, is 8 million in 784 square kilometers, if you subtract the water. Do you not understand why we can't run both countries the same way?

[Libertarian California]

Too bad you have no say in the matter.

It is too bad because I could turn around the USA quickly if I had full dictator powers. We would have a Singapore levels of crime, higher economic freedoms, lower debt, lower taxes, a smaller but smarter and wealthier population (through a soft eugenics policy), and very low rates of religious terrorism. Europeans would be begging to be allowed to move to the USA (once they have their civil war in the near future). Sadly, only a few would be allowed in (based on their political and religious views).

Oh well, we can be an open door to the "wretched refuse " of the world. That saying is truer today than ever.

Singapore has a more intelligent idea about this:

http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refdaily?pass=463ef21123&date=2009-03-25&cat=Asia/Pacific

Singapore cannot accept Rohingya refugees: minister
Publisher: AFP, Agence France Presse
Story date: 24/03/2009

SINGAPORE, March 24, 2009 (AFP) –

Singapore cannot accept Rohingya refugees should they attempt to land but would help them depart for another country, a senior government official said Tuesday.

"Given our limited land and natural resources, Singapore is not in a position to accept persons seeking political asylum or refugee status," said senior minister of state for foreign affairs Balaji Sadasivan.

Why can't the USA say this? We should follow Singapore's lead. The USA won't likely lose Singapore's respect if they enact such a policy. The country isn't perfect but they sure have less crime, lower obesity rates, clean streets, good cultural attractions, great food, and good economic policies, great public transit, an airline with pretty and friendly flight attendants, and a top rated airport. They manage this despite having a diverse culture represented by 4 religions and with large populations of Chinese, Malaysm Indians, British, and Thais. We could learn a lot from them.

Did anyone else get reminded of the movie called The Purge?

[Wikkiwallana]

White supremacy is wrong, but if people insist on safegaurding freedom of speech, then they should not attempt to suppress it.

Nopt suppressing it doesn't mean we can't combat it.

[Wikkiwallana]

We don't see much Christian/Jewish/Buddhist obsessed with holywar (unless you can prove otherwise) .

Where've you been, buddy?

[Arcaanae]

Nopt suppressing it doesn't mean we can't combat it.

Well said.

[Wikkiwallana]

Considering White Nationalists wouldn't give non racists freedom of speech under their ideal system, and they certainly wouldn't give non whites and Jews freedom to live within "White Nations", I have absolutely no moral problem with restricting White Nationalists freedom of speech.

Then your morality is nearly as broken as theirs.

[Agymnum]

Considering White Nationalists wouldn't give non racists freedom of speech under their ideal system, and they certainly wouldn't give non whites and Jews freedom to live within "White Nations", I have absolutely no moral problem with restricting White Nationalists freedom of speech.

Then your morality is nearly as broken as theirs.

This. A militant liberal is just as bad as a militant conservative.

In before "but that's false equivalence, you can't do that!"

[Freiheit Reich]

It is too bad because I could turn around the USA quickly if I had full dictator powers. We would have a Singapore levels of crime, higher economic freedoms, lower debt, lower taxes, a smaller but smarter and wealthier population (through a soft eugenics policy), and very low rates of religious terrorism. Europeans would be begging to be allowed to move to the USA (once they have their civil war in the near future). Sadly, only a few would be allowed in (based on their political and religious views).

No you couldn't. And wealth isn't genetic.

Oh well, we can be an open door to the "wretched refuse " of the world. That saying is truer today than ever.

Singapore has a more intelligent idea about this:

http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refdaily?pass=463ef21123&date=2009-03-25&cat=Asia/Pacific

Singapore cannot accept Rohingya refugees: minister
Publisher: AFP, Agence France Presse
Story date: 24/03/2009

SINGAPORE, March 24, 2009 (AFP) –

Singapore cannot accept Rohingya refugees should they attempt to land but would help them depart for another country, a senior government official said Tuesday.

"Given our limited land and natural resources, Singapore is not in a position to accept persons seeking political asylum or refugee status," said senior minister of state for foreign affairs Balaji Sadasivan.

Why can't the USA say this? We should follow Singapore's lead. The USA won't likely lose Singapore's respect if they enact such a policy. The country isn't perfect but they sure have less crime, lower obesity rates, clean streets, good cultural attractions, great food, and good economic policies, great public transit, an airline with pretty and friendly flight attendants, and a top rated airport. They manage this despite having a diverse culture represented by 4 religions and with large populations of Chinese, Malaysm Indians, British, and Thais. We could learn a lot from them.

Singapore is 5 million people in 710 square kilometers, For comparison, New York City, alone, is 8 million in 784 square kilometers, if you subtract the water. Do you not understand why we can't run both countries the same way?

That is like saying that a recipe for blueberry pancakes only shows me how to make 8 but I need to make enough to serve 800. Am I powerless to make the pancakes using that recipe?

Wait a second.....Oh, I can multiply everything by 100 and I can make 800 pancakes. Luckily I have extra people and resources to help me with my goals. It may take more work because it is on a larger scale but it can be done.

Get the analogy? We have more resources (police, military, money, etc..) we just do what Singapore has done but on a larger scale. Step #1 is caning the car vandals and thieves (an easy first step).

[Agymnum]

That is like saying that a recipe for blueberry pancakes only shows me how to make 8 but I need to make enough to serve 800. Am I powerless to make the pancakes using that recipe?

Wait a second.....Oh, I can multiply everything by 100 and I can make 800 pancakes. Luckily I have extra people and resources to help me with my goals. It may take more work because it is on a larger scale but it can be done.

Get the analogy? We have more resources (police, military, money, etc..) we just do what Singapore has done but on a larger scale. Step #1 is caning the car vandals and thieves (an easy first step).

Comparing running a nation to making pancakes clearly makes a lot of sense.

Clearly.

At some point, solutions that work for smaller groups break down in larger groups.

Example: Tribalism/community focus works in tribes, not in huge, sovereign nations.

[Wikkiwallana]

No you couldn't. And wealth isn't genetic.


Singapore is 5 million people in 710 square kilometers, For comparison, New York City, alone, is 8 million in 784 square kilometers, if you subtract the water. Do you not understand why we can't run both countries the same way?

That is like saying that a recipe for blueberry pancakes only shows me how to make 8 but I need to make enough to serve 800. Am I powerless to make the pancakes using that recipe?

Countries aren't baked goods. And you still have it wrong. It's like saying a recipe tells you how to make pancakes 8 cm across, but you wish to make one 800 cm across with the same recipe.

Wait a second.....Oh, I can multiply everything by 100 and I can make 800 pancakes. Luckily I have extra people and resources to help me with my goals. It may take more work because it is on a larger scale but it can be done.

No, things change with scale. Be they pastries or countries. "Add moar!" is not a sufficient answer.

Get the analogy? We have more resources (police, military, money, etc..) we just do what Singapore has done but on a larger scale. Step #1 is caning the car vandals and thieves (an easy first step).

More resources, which means we can accept more people. Did you not even read the press release you quoted? Not that it would surprise me if you didn't.

Also, no, thankfully this country has legal protections against cruel and unusual punishment.

[Freiheit Reich]

That is like saying that a recipe for blueberry pancakes only shows me how to make 8 but I need to make enough to serve 800. Am I powerless to make the pancakes using that recipe?

Countries aren't baked goods. And you still have it wrong. It's like saying a recipe tells you how to make pancakes 8 cm across, but you wish to make one 800 cm across with the same recipe.

Wait a second.....Oh, I can multiply everything by 100 and I can make 800 pancakes. Luckily I have extra people and resources to help me with my goals. It may take more work because it is on a larger scale but it can be done.

No, things change with scale. Be they pastries or countries. "Add moar!" is not a sufficient answer.

Get the analogy? We have more resources (police, military, money, etc..) we just do what Singapore has done but on a larger scale. Step #1 is caning the car vandals and thieves (an easy first step).

More resources, which means we can accept more people. Did you not even read the press release you quoted? Not that it would surprise me if you didn't.

Also, no, thankfully this country has legal protections against cruel and unusual punishment.

Yes, he said Singapore is small and can't accept more. Small is subjective. Also, I would say we have plenty of people and will be more selective on who can come in. We could still accept some but with strict requirements.

Is wealth genetic? No, IQ may be though. East Asians are the wealthiest racial group in the USA AND this group has the highest IQ (book: 'The Bell Curve'). IQ is an indicator of future success. Why do you think SK and Japan have done so well in the last 50 years while Congo and Haiti have done poorly?

Are there poor people with high IQ? Yes. However, people with high IQs tend to have better success in life. How many people with IQ below 75 do you know that are successful office managers or business owners?

[Wikkiwallana]

Countries aren't baked goods. And you still have it wrong. It's like saying a recipe tells you how to make pancakes 8 cm across, but you wish to make one 800 cm across with the same recipe.


No, things change with scale. Be they pastries or countries. "Add moar!" is not a sufficient answer.


More resources, which means we can accept more people. Did you not even read the press release you quoted? Not that it would surprise me if you didn't.

Also, no, thankfully this country has legal protections against cruel and unusual punishment.

Yes, he said Singapore is small and can't accept more. Small is subjective. Also, I would say we have plenty of people and will be more selective on who can come in. We could still accept some but with strict requirements.

No, small is pretty objective when it comes to nation size. America is the 4th largest country by area, but only 179th by population density. Singapore is 190th in size, but 3rd in population density. There is no trick of semantics that will allow you to wave that away.

Is wealth genetic? No, IQ may be though.

See my earlier comments on IQ in this thread.

East Asians are the wealthiest racial group in the USA AND this group has the highest IQ (book: 'The Bell Curve').

Big whoop.

IQ is an indicator of future success.

Not a great one.

Why do you think SK and Japan have done so well in the last 50 years while Congo and Haiti have done poorly?

Well, SK and Japan have had centuries of prosperity to build upon as well as valuable resources and good trading partners. Meanwhile, Africa was carved up and bled dry by conquerors for the last few centuries, then "freed" as a random patchwork with no respect for local alliances or feelings, and continuously rocked by famine and various civl wars. Meanwhile, Haiti is a nation of people descended from slaves ripped from their homes and carried across an ocean, given nothing, taught nothing, and freed only through their own revolution, and lies right in the path of regular hurricanes. It's amazing to me that it's even still there.

Anyone who knows more history than what I can skim off wikipedia in two minutes, please feel free to correct my surely grievous errors, but I believe I made my point.

Are there poor people with high IQ? Yes. However, people with high IQs tend to have better success in life. How many people with IQ below 75 do you know that are successful office managers or business owners?

It is far from the all knowing predictor you believe it to be.

Edit: fixed tag

[Avenio]

Why do you think SK and Japan have done so well in the last 50 years while Congo and Haiti have done poorly?

Geography.

[Revolutionarily]

until they do something illegal they can have that thought in our country

[Diopolis]

White supremacy is wrong, but if people insist on safegaurding freedom of speech, then they should not attempt to suppress it.

Just because someone has a right to say something doesn't mean I shouldn't do my best to shut them up about it.

I don't support freedom of speech, but if freedom of speech is applied in general, then it is hypocritical to attempt to suppress groups that one does not believe in.

[Slovenya]

White supremacy is wrong, I'm sure most can agree with this, however White Pride isn't. I'm proud to be white, but I don't think white people are superior to any other race.

[Agymnum]

White supremacy is wrong, I'm sure most can agree with this, however White Pride isn't. I'm proud to be white, but I don't think white people are superior to any other race.

Pride is never wrong. Asian Pride, Black Pride, White Pride, etc. are all wonderful things.

Supremacy is the problem. Supremacy is what oppresses people and hurts others.

[Slovenya]

Pride is never wrong. Asian Pride, Black Pride, White Pride, etc. are all wonderful things.

Supremacy is the problem. Supremacy is what oppresses people and hurts others.

exactly, but there are those who will call you a nazi on the basis that you have white pride. Thank you for having common sense

[The Marxist State]

Considering white supremiscists targeted my (technically white) grandparents in the 60s, it's safe to say I have a problem with them.

Why do you think SK and Japan have done so well in the last 50 years while Congo and Haiti have done poorly?

Geography.

There's an excellent book and associated documentary on this subject called Guns, Germs, and Steel.

[Diopolis]

White supremacy is wrong, but if people insist on safegaurding freedom of speech, then they should not attempt to suppress it.

Nopt suppressing it doesn't mean we can't combat it.

I know- combating it does not contradict freedom of speech, but suppressing it does. Not that that's a bad thing, but countries that pay lip service to freedom of speech should not violate it.

[Agymnum]

Pride is never wrong. Asian Pride, Black Pride, White Pride, etc. are all wonderful things.

Supremacy is the problem. Supremacy is what oppresses people and hurts others.

exactly, but there are those who will call you a nazi on the basis that you have white pride. Thank you for having common sense

Well, my issue is that people who preach white pride tend to also preach the idea that all other races are inferior. The two aren't intertwined ideas, but they're often closely associated.

[Slovenya]

Well, my issue is that people who preach white pride tend to also preach the idea that all other races are inferior. The two aren't intertwined ideas, but they're often closely associated.

oh definitely. They put shame on the white race, but, back to the topic, I would support safeguarding their right to preach whatever it is they wish. Just like the radical New Black Panther Party spewing their hate; I would defend their right to speak their mind (even though I don't agree with them).