NationStates

Duvniask wrote:

Purgatio wrote:
Also, that statement in your example is racist because it says "whitey". If Trump had tweeted "Ilhan Omar should return to her country, blackey" obviously I'd say that's racist.

I almost edited it out of my post, because I knew, I just knew you were gonna hinge on this word.

The fact of the matter is, you'd still cry racism if someone else subjected you to it, without directly referencing your race and why wouldn't you? What reason is there for them to tell you that you don't belong, after all, you were raised there, spent all your life there, and here they come, for some reason, telling you that you don't belong. And why? Why would they tell you to go back to "your own country", when the only connection you have to "it" is your lineage, in other words, your race?

If you can't see the racism implicit in telling someone brown to go back to "their own country", despite being born in the US, then you're being willfully ignorant. Their connection to said "country" is their race, their ethnicity, or religion, I suppose, whichever one you choose. You're plugging your fingers into your ears at this point, and so are all the others who defend Trump with this obfuscatory nonsense.

He was making a point that if a person hates and despises a country so much, it is hypocritical for them to stay there and enjoy its privileges and amenities. That's all. Now you might disagree with his assessment that these four Congresswomen hate America, and that's fine, we can have that debate, but there's no evidence it was racist. I genuinely don't see the issue with criticising, say, a Polish American who goes on and on about how much he hates American capitalism for someone to say "look man you've benefitted from the fact that your ancestors came to this country so you could have a better life, if you hate this country so much go back to Poland". Is that racist? I don't think it is, you're just making a point about ingratitude and hypocrisy.

Nakena wrote:

Zurkerx wrote:
Well, I only like and respect the highest quality of news.

*takes a seat in his golden throne.

Squire! Fetch me my grapes. I'm hungry...

The other ones though are a little debatable. From what I got told Economist went down the drain bigly. *reaches you the grapes and chews one*

I haven't read the Economist in a while so who knows. *Gasps as his mouth drops, his eyes widen over the fact someone took one of his grapes.

Squire! Is there a vacancy in the gulag? He just took one of my grapes...

Nakena wrote:

Kowani wrote:How does one reconcile libertarianism and monarchy?

Ask Hans Herman Hoppe.

I Hoppe you believe I don't like the man.

Ah, H Cube (H3 because well, I want to be cool about it ). But yeah, it's surprisingly a thing: a strong leader not elected, kind of like a Tsar except, you know, with more freedom.

Nakena wrote:

Page wrote:
In any case it's really cringey for her to whine that Trump's open racism diminish her ability to spout her own bullshit about Ilhan Omar, which is less direct as Trump's but no less stupid.

Also, like I said, Meghan McCain is the worst. She had Tulsi Gabbard on her show, Tulsi educated her about American foreign policy and it was like talking to a brick wall. Then she interviewed Julian Castro and she was incapable of understanding the difference between decriminalization vs. legalization. And everything she's thus far said against Ilhan Omar is stupid.

Sounds like a neocon relic from the 2000s.

Pretty much, she makes a name for herself as a "moderate" and by moderate she means: I'm cool with gay people getting married but I hope America bombs every preschool in Syria, look at how nuanced and thoughtful I am, I take good ideas from both sides!

Kowani wrote:

The Greater Union of Man wrote:It is a simple idea, if you don't like a country, leave it. There are 195 other recognized countries, several unrecognized, and an unclaimed swath of land in the Sahara. You have plenty of choices and nobody should have to live somewhere that they hate

This is, of course, a terrible idea.
1775: If you don’t like King George’s taxes, just leave!
1865: If you don’t like slavery, just leave!
1965: If you don’t like Jim Crow, just leave!
2019: If you don’t like structural racism, just leave!

Yeah slavery is a bad example since the people suffering under it quite literally couldn't leave.

But honestly, criticising a country is fine but there comes a point where someone is rampantly demonising a country, saying it is running concentration camps and questioning its very morality and legitimacy that you can't help but wonder "why are you still here if you think this nation is such an immoral and terrible piece of shit?"

Kowani wrote:

The Greater Union of Man wrote:It is a simple idea, if you don't like a country, leave it. There are 195 other recognized countries, several unrecognized, and an unclaimed swath of land in the Sahara. You have plenty of choices and nobody should have to live somewhere that they hate

This is, of course, a terrible idea.
1775: If you don’t like King George’s taxes, just leave!
1865: If you don’t like slavery, just leave!
1965: If you don’t like Jim Crow, just leave!
2019: If you don’t like structural racism, just leave!

And it's an mind-numbingly stupid thing to say about an elected representative who, ostensibly, ran for office with the goal of fixing the things they think are wrong about their country. Which we know for a fact to be the case with all these congresswomen. Every single one of them has pushed for legislation and policies aimed at resolving the problems they perceive in their country.

Purgatio wrote:

Kowani wrote:This is, of course, a terrible idea.
1775: If you don’t like King George’s taxes, just leave!
1865: If you don’t like slavery, just leave!
1965: If you don’t like Jim Crow, just leave!
2019: If you don’t like structural racism, just leave!

Yeah slavery is a bad example since the people suffering under it quite literally couldn't leave.

I was talking about abolitionists, actually.

But honestly, criticising a country is fine but there comes a point where someone is rampantly demonising a country, saying it is running concentration camps and questioning its very morality and legitimacy that you can't help but wonder "why are you still here if you think this nation is such an immoral and terrible piece of shit?"

To work to alleviate the problems it causes? Closing one’s eyes does nothing.

Purgatio wrote:But honestly, criticising a country is fine but there comes a point where someone is rampantly demonising a country, saying it is running concentration camps and questioning its very morality and legitimacy that you can't help but wonder "why are you still here if you think this nation is such an immoral and terrible piece of shit?"

Maybe because they want to change it? Maybe they want to push for closing the concentration camps, for instance?

"You're accusing my country of doing something really bad is going too far and your only choice is obviously giving up on us" is, again, an incredibly idiotic thing to say about an elected representative who's been pretty open about the fact that they want to help solve this really bad thing that you get so offended about when they point it out.

Kowani wrote:

Purgatio wrote:
Yeah slavery is a bad example since the people suffering under it quite literally couldn't leave.

I was talking about abolitionists, actually.

But honestly, criticising a country is fine but there comes a point where someone is rampantly demonising a country, saying it is running concentration camps and questioning its very morality and legitimacy that you can't help but wonder "why are you still here if you think this nation is such an immoral and terrible piece of shit?"

To work to alleviate the problems it causes? Closing one’s eyes does nothing.

Again you can criticise a country and want its policies to change or be different, but if you think a country is morally-reprehensible or its very institutions are morally-unjustifiable it does beg the question why you are still there, paying taxes and working to support an economy of a country that you regard as morally-bankrupt.

Purgatio wrote:

The Black Forrest wrote:
The problem with that argument? Biden for example hasn't been told to leave this country.

Oh. I did think of one example. Calling Warren Pocahontas. Problem is the Native Americans find that objectionable.

Yeah I agree that was racist but in fairness I'm more disturbed by Elizabeth Warren being touted by her university as an example of faculty diversity, which is the bigger structural racial issue than Trump using an offensive slur online.

Hey. We can agree on some things.

Personally. I think he is a racist. The problem? It's being used as a distraction. As I mentioned before(maybe another thread). Ignore what he says and watch what he does.

Side note: I am going to follow his example and support my Hispanic countrymen by having a taco bowl for lunch.

Purgatio wrote:

Kowani wrote:I was talking about abolitionists, actually.

To work to alleviate the problems it causes? Closing one’s eyes does nothing.

Again you can criticise a country and want its policies to change or be different, but if you think a country is morally-reprehensible or its very institutions are morally-unjustifiable it does beg the question why you are still there, paying taxes and working to support an economy of a country that you regard as morally-bankrupt.

Not really. One has to pay taxes if they wish to change anything. Internal reform tends to work better than revolution. It is, in effect, a relationship-the worse things get, that’s why you see people getting involved.

Kowani wrote:

The Greater Union of Man wrote:It is a simple idea, if you don't like a country, leave it. There are 195 other recognized countries, several unrecognized, and an unclaimed swath of land in the Sahara. You have plenty of choices and nobody should have to live somewhere that they hate

This is, of course, a terrible idea.
1775: If you don’t like King George’s taxes, just leave!
1865: If you don’t like slavery, just leave!
1965: If you don’t like Jim Crow, just leave!
2019: If you don’t like structural racism, just leave!

I've always wondered why libertarian/right wing government haters don't just leave for Somalia or some other small government paradise. Is it because in the USA they can afford that philosophy of theirs and in Somalia they couldn't?

Kvatchdom wrote:

Yawkland wrote:
I'm talking about you. You hate the US.

Sounds like a personal problem my guy. I don't hate you though, yet atleast. I've had very wholesome moments with even right-wing Americans on this forum.

I just dont think the country should exist.

And I think you lot should be barred from getting in, but we can't always have what we want.

Kowani wrote:This is, of course, a terrible idea.
1775: If you don’t like King George’s taxes, just leave!

... Except we did leave. We just took the land with us. By force. With guns.

Kowani wrote:

Purgatio wrote:
Again you can criticise a country and want its policies to change or be different, but if you think a country is morally-reprehensible or its very institutions are morally-unjustifiable it does beg the question why you are still there, paying taxes and working to support an economy of a country that you regard as morally-bankrupt.

Not really. One has to pay taxes if they wish to change anything. Internal reform tends to work better than revolution. It is, in effect, a relationship-the worse things get, that’s why you see people getting involved.

Or, if things are that bad in one country, you move to start a better life elsewhere. Isn't that why immigration exists?

Purgatio wrote:

Kowani wrote:Not really. One has to pay taxes if they wish to change anything. Internal reform tends to work better than revolution. It is, in effect, a relationship-the worse things get, that’s why you see people getting involved.

Or, if things are that bad in one country, you move to start a better life elsewhere. Isn't that why immigration exists?

"My country, right or wrong: if right to be kept right, and if wrong to be set right."

Purgatio wrote:

Kowani wrote:Not really. One has to pay taxes if they wish to change anything. Internal reform tends to work better than revolution. It is, in effect, a relationship-the worse things get, that’s why you see people getting involved.

Or, if things are that bad in one country, you move to start a better life elsewhere. Isn't that why immigration exists?

Which is it, should people who have a problem with what's going on in their country emigrate, or should they stay and fix their own country? It can't be both.

Page wrote:

Purgatio wrote:
Or, if things are that bad in one country, you move to start a better life elsewhere. Isn't that why immigration exists?

Which is it, should people who have a problem with what's going on in their country emigrate, or should they stay and fix their own country? It can't be both.

For a lot leaving seems be the easier option in general. I think this is related to globalization. People just move instead of trying to fix a place like they were more inclined so in the past.

Necroghastia wrote:

Purgatio wrote:
Or, if things are that bad in one country, you move to start a better life elsewhere. Isn't that why immigration exists?

"My country, right or wrong: if right to be kept right, and if wrong to be set right."

Why? Your country is not a matter of birth alone, if a nation no longer shares your worldview, your cherished cultural values, why would you stay there? Where not leave to somewhere else that aligns better with your way of thinking and how you want the world to be?

Page wrote:

Purgatio wrote:
Or, if things are that bad in one country, you move to start a better life elsewhere. Isn't that why immigration exists?

Which is it, should people who have a problem with what's going on in their country emigrate, or should they stay and fix their own country? It can't be both.

Like I said, if a person no longer thinks a country reflects his most important cultural and social values, he should leave to one that does. I never said it was both.

Nevv Vegas wrote:>House voting over tweets instead of the gushing southern border, climate change or anything else

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yjZohb9xeM

We call this "appealing to worse problems".

Vassenor wrote:

Nevv Vegas wrote:>House voting over tweets instead of the gushing southern border, climate change or anything else

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yjZohb9xeM

We call this "appealing to worse problems".

AKA the Fallacy of Relative Privation.

Tobleste wrote:

Galiantus III wrote:
Oh look. An actual racist. See lefties? They brand themselves. No need to call people racists who aren't.

Skin color doesn't matter. Genetics and heritage doesn't matter. We're all people. Trump says ambiguous things because it wins him attention, but he doesn't actually do anything that is racist. White supremacists and the far left are desperate to make race the important issue.

So all racists are also honest about it?

I'm not going to make any "all X are Y" claims. That's ridiculous. But for the most part, I would say racists are honest. That is one of the wonderful things about having the First Amendment. People can say what they really think without immediate punishment, and therefore most people will tell you what they actually think. A very small minority of people are vocal about their racism. If we estimate that number is about 1%, I think it would be fine to assume maybe 2-3% of the population is actually racist. I don't know the actual numbers, but they are small.

Racism is not natural, and must therefore be learned. People have to be taught to think in a way contrary to their nature, so if the ideology is going to grow, racists must be vocal. And since racism was on the decline until fairly recently. People will blame Trump or Obama for the stop in progress because they were in a position of power, but I think that is a mistake. As it turns out, the far right benefits from persuading people that large sections of the population are communists, here to destroy the country. Likewise, the far left benefits from persuading people that large sections of the population are fascists, here to destroy the country. It's fear-mongering on both sides.

Also, if white supremacists want to make race an issue, should the rest of us just ignore it?

Yes. If you give them attention you are helping them make race an issue, and they have already won that battle.

Purgatio wrote:

Necroghastia wrote:
"My country, right or wrong: if right to be kept right, and if wrong to be set right."

Why? Your country is not a matter of birth alone, if a nation no longer shares your worldview, your cherished cultural values, why would you stay there? Where not leave to somewhere else that aligns better with your way of thinking and how you want the world to be?

If you have the capacity to make change for the better, why wouldn't you?

Necroghastia wrote:

Purgatio wrote:
Why? Your country is not a matter of birth alone, if a nation no longer shares your worldview, your cherished cultural values, why would you stay there? Where not leave to somewhere else that aligns better with your way of thinking and how you want the world to be?

If you have the capacity to make change for the better, why wouldn't you?

Because its ungrateful and hypocritical for a person to enjoy the benefits of citizenship, residing in a country, enjoying its utilities and amenities and services, all the while claiming that the entire enterprise is fundamentally morally-reprehensible and rotten. Like a homeless guy entering a homeless shelter whilst ranting online everyday about how the shelter is run by oppressors and the homeless shelter is a discriminatory and oppressive institution. Hard to take it seriously.

Eternal Lotharia wrote:Trump loses control of his base.

Omar already gets slurs and threats back home. What are the odds this latest masturbation rally inspires a stupid fuck to try and kill her?