Michigan City Council Candidate: Keep Community white

[Purgatio]

Honestly this just sounds like freedom of association in action, and anyway whats so wrong about this candidate expressing her personal views about interracial marriage and procreation? Everyone's allowed to have their views and preferences on a subject as sensitive as dating and having children

What's so wrong about us expressing our opinion that she's a bigoted asshole who should mind her own business?

And in what universe is "some people shouldn't be allowed to associate here" "freedom of association?"

Oh its freedom of association because if members of a particular racial group what to form a community for themselves and their own people I don't really see the issue, as long as every other racial group has the same right that's still equality

[Neanderthaland]

What's so wrong about us expressing our opinion that she's a bigoted asshole who should mind her own business?

And in what universe is "some people shouldn't be allowed to associate here" "freedom of association?"

Because she has a view on how she believes ought to choose marital partners, there's nothing wrong with that. I'm sure we all have opinions on how people ought to choose spouses that differ from one another, and that's fine, she's just saying she personally thinks racial familiarity is a plus-point in a marriage, that's an opinion that certainly implies no hostility or prejudice against any group of people

She's not okay with people of other races moving freely into the community, and you argue this is "freedom of association."

She's not okay with people marring the partner of their choice, if that partner is another race, and you say this "implies no prejudice."

Out of curiosity: is war peace? Freedom slavery? Any other Department of Truth arguments you'd like to land on us?

[Korladis]

What's so wrong about us expressing our opinion that she's a bigoted asshole who should mind her own business?

And in what universe is "some people shouldn't be allowed to associate here" "freedom of association?"

Oh its freedom of association because if members of a particular racial group what to form a community for themselves and their own people I don't really see the issue, as long as every other racial group has the same right that's still equality

So in other words you have no problem with her or by extension anyone else deciding who and who may not live in a community based upon arbitrary criteria(such as skin color) right? Is that what you're trying to say?

[Purgatio]

Because she has a view on how she believes ought to choose marital partners, there's nothing wrong with that. I'm sure we all have opinions on how people ought to choose spouses that differ from one another, and that's fine, she's just saying she personally thinks racial familiarity is a plus-point in a marriage, that's an opinion that certainly implies no hostility or prejudice against any group of people

She's not okay with people of other races moving freely into the community, and you argue this is "freedom of association."

She's not okay with people marring the partner of their choice, if that partner is another race, and you say this "implies no prejudice."

Out of curiosity: is war peace? Freedom slavery? Any other Department of Truth arguments you'd like to land on us?

Freedom of association to me means the ability to choose from a diversity of forms human association. People who want to live in racially-diverse communities and neighbourhoods can persist in living in those neighbourhoods, but whats your objection to people like her who prefer a more racially-homogenous community wanting to form that of her own, as long as she and others like her don't prohibit other racial groups from forming similar communities of their own? And those who prefer diverse neighbourhoods can live in diverse neighbourhoods? That's real freedom of association.

And yes, she's expressing a view that people of a race should marry people of that same race, how is that prejudicial? What race is that prejudiced against exactly? Against black people? Why, because she thinks its wrong for a white person to marry a black person? But she also thinks its wrong for a black person to marry a white person over another black person....so that would make her, by your logic, prejudiced against white people? It makes no sense. The fact is believing people should marry members of their own race isn't a racist view at all, it does not imply contempt for other races or a belief that any race is superior or inferior to another. Its a view that all races are equal but should marry within their own people. What could possibly be hateful about that?

[Purgatio]

Oh its freedom of association because if members of a particular racial group what to form a community for themselves and their own people I don't really see the issue, as long as every other racial group has the same right that's still equality

So in other words you have no problem with her or by extension anyone else deciding who and who may not live in a community based upon arbitrary criteria(such as skin color) right? Is that what you're trying to say?

There's nothing arbitrary about race at all, racial groups are a product of human history, of kinship and filiation. You can even trace human races based on relative proximity and most recent common ancestors (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7163193) and in the same way as no one objects to someone wanting to live with their biological family, why should anyone be deprived, if they choose, of the right to want to live with their wider racial family, bonded uniquely by a common heritage and ancestry?

[Rojava Free State]

What's so wrong about us expressing our opinion that she's a bigoted asshole who should mind her own business?

And in what universe is "some people shouldn't be allowed to associate here" "freedom of association?"

Oh its freedom of association because if members of a particular racial group what to form a community for themselves and their own people I don't really see the issue, as long as every other racial group has the same right that's still equality

This caused a civil war in northern ireland.I'm sure husker could explain it more

[Necroghastia]

She's not okay with people of other races moving freely into the community, and you argue this is "freedom of association."

She's not okay with people marring the partner of their choice, if that partner is another race, and you say this "implies no prejudice."

Out of curiosity: is war peace? Freedom slavery? Any other Department of Truth arguments you'd like to land on us?

Freedom of association to me means the ability to choose from a diversity of forms human association. People who want to live in racially-diverse communities and neighbourhoods can persist in living in those neighbourhoods, but whats your objection to people like her who prefer a more racially-homogenous community wanting to form that of her own, as long as she and others like her don't prohibit other racial groups from forming similar communities of their own? And those who prefer diverse neighbourhoods can live in diverse neighbourhoods? That's real freedom of association.

And yes, she's expressing a view that people of a race should marry people of that same race, how is that prejudicial? What race is that prejudiced against exactly? Against black people? Why, because she thinks its wrong for a white person to marry a black person? But she also thinks its wrong for a black person to marry a white person over another black person....so that would make her, by your logic, prejudiced against white people? It makes no sense. The fact is believing people should marry members of their own race isn't a racist view at all, it does not imply contempt for other races or a belief that any race is superior or inferior to another. Its a view that all races are equal but should marry within their own people. What could possibly be hateful about that?

On what logic is that belief founded?

[Rojava Free State]

So in other words you have no problem with her or by extension anyone else deciding who and who may not live in a community based upon arbitrary criteria(such as skin color) right? Is that what you're trying to say?

There's nothing arbitrary about race at all, racial groups are a product of human history, of kinship and filiation. You can even trace human races based on relative proximity and most recent common ancestors (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7163193) and in the same way as no one objects to someone wanting to live with their biological family, why should anyone be deprived, if they choose, of the right to want to live with their wider racial family, bonded uniquely by a common heritage and ancestry?

Race is arbitrary. you can't draw a defined geographic or genetic boundary between different races. I mean seriously who is and isn't white? Everyone has their own definition

[Purgatio]

Oh its freedom of association because if members of a particular racial group what to form a community for themselves and their own people I don't really see the issue, as long as every other racial group has the same right that's still equality

This caused a civil war in northern ireland.I'm sure husker could explain it more

Not every society is Northern Ireland. America has lots of neighbourhoods where a particular ethnic group disproportionately congregates together as it is, and most of America's churches aren't racially-diverse, so its not like this woman's proposal is particularly radical.

[Purgatio]

Freedom of association to me means the ability to choose from a diversity of forms human association. People who want to live in racially-diverse communities and neighbourhoods can persist in living in those neighbourhoods, but whats your objection to people like her who prefer a more racially-homogenous community wanting to form that of her own, as long as she and others like her don't prohibit other racial groups from forming similar communities of their own? And those who prefer diverse neighbourhoods can live in diverse neighbourhoods? That's real freedom of association.

And yes, she's expressing a view that people of a race should marry people of that same race, how is that prejudicial? What race is that prejudiced against exactly? Against black people? Why, because she thinks its wrong for a white person to marry a black person? But she also thinks its wrong for a black person to marry a white person over another black person....so that would make her, by your logic, prejudiced against white people? It makes no sense. The fact is believing people should marry members of their own race isn't a racist view at all, it does not imply contempt for other races or a belief that any race is superior or inferior to another. Its a view that all races are equal but should marry within their own people. What could possibly be hateful about that?

On what logic is that belief founded?

Why should it matter? It hurts no one for a person to make a personal choice about who to live with and who to marry, why not allow them to choose based on their personal comfort if no one's getting hurt?

[Korladis]

So in other words you have no problem with her or by extension anyone else deciding who and who may not live in a community based upon arbitrary criteria(such as skin color) right? Is that what you're trying to say?

There's nothing arbitrary about race at all, racial groups are a product of human history, of kinship and filiation. You can even trace human races based on relative proximity and most recent common ancestors (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7163193) and in the same way as no one objects to someone wanting to live with their biological family, why should anyone be deprived, if they choose, of the right to want to live with their wider racial family, bonded uniquely by a common heritage and ancestry?

There's nothing wrong with wanting to build a community based around a particular culture, but the problem starts when you start telling people of other races that they are unwelcome there. What you(and by extension the city council candidate) are arguing for is the right of homogeneous community to turn away anyone who doesn't meet their racial standard. I'm sorry, but turning away people from your community based on race is not only racist, but also discrimination. Do you not see that?

[Purgatio]

There's nothing arbitrary about race at all, racial groups are a product of human history, of kinship and filiation. You can even trace human races based on relative proximity and most recent common ancestors (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7163193) and in the same way as no one objects to someone wanting to live with their biological family, why should anyone be deprived, if they choose, of the right to want to live with their wider racial family, bonded uniquely by a common heritage and ancestry?

Race is arbitrary. you can't draw a defined geographic or genetic boundary between different races. I mean seriously who is and isn't white? Everyone has their own definition

You could find out from 23AndMe and other ancestry testing sites by testing your DNA with that of 'reference populations' made of persons of known European descent

[Purgatio]

There's nothing arbitrary about race at all, racial groups are a product of human history, of kinship and filiation. You can even trace human races based on relative proximity and most recent common ancestors (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7163193) and in the same way as no one objects to someone wanting to live with their biological family, why should anyone be deprived, if they choose, of the right to want to live with their wider racial family, bonded uniquely by a common heritage and ancestry?

There's nothing wrong with wanting to build a community based around a particular culture, but the problem starts when you start telling people of other races that they are unwelcome there. What you(and by extension the city council candidate) are arguing for is the right of homogeneous community to turn away anyone who doesn't meet their racial standard. I'm sorry, but turning away people from your community based on race is not only racist, but also discrimination. Do you not see that?

Its not racist because the persons turned away can live in diverse neighbourhoods or live in homnogenous neighbourhoods with members of their own race. I don't see whats so unequal about a system where every person of any race has the same right to (1) live in a diverse community or (2) form racially homogeneous neighbourhoods of their own. You're literally giving everyone of any race the same legal rights. There's no inequality.

[Korladis]

This caused a civil war in northern ireland.I'm sure husker could explain it more

Not every society is Northern Ireland. America has lots of neighbourhoods where a particular ethnic group disproportionately congregates together as it is, and most of America's churches aren't racially-diverse, so its not like this woman's proposal is particularly radical.

Yes, but here's the problem with your argument...Most of those neigborhoods barring a rare view have no issue with people not of that particular ethnic group settling within their community. By contrast what this woman is arguing for is not just a white community, but the right to turn away anyone who doesn't fit within her racially focused vision of her community. That is unacceptable in any first world country, let alone America.

[Necroghastia]

On what logic is that belief founded?

Why should it matter? It hurts no one for a person to make a personal choice about who to live with and who to marry, why not allow them to choose based on their personal comfort if no one's getting hurt?

You call this

she's expressing a view that people of a race should marry people of that same race

a personal choice? I don't give a rat's ass about what she does herself, but why advocate for others to do the same?

[Korladis]

There's nothing wrong with wanting to build a community based around a particular culture, but the problem starts when you start telling people of other races that they are unwelcome there. What you(and by extension the city council candidate) are arguing for is the right of homogeneous community to turn away anyone who doesn't meet their racial standard. I'm sorry, but turning away people from your community based on race is not only racist, but also discrimination. Do you not see that?

Its not racist because the persons turned away can live in diverse neighbourhoods or live in homnogenous neighbourhoods with members of their own race. I don't see whats so unequal about a system where every person of any race has the same right to (1) live in a diverse community or (2) form racially homogeneous neighbourhoods of their own. You're literally giving everyone of any race the same legal rights. There's no inequality.

Not really. You're denying them the right to live in a community based upon a factor that they have no control over, and one that's frankly completely arbitrary. What you're effectively arguing for is revived and somewhat toned down form of segregation. But please do tell me though how it's not racist for someone to be rejected from a community based on skin color..

[Rojava Free State]

This caused a civil war in northern ireland.I'm sure husker could explain it more

Not every society is Northern Ireland. America has lots of neighbourhoods where a particular ethnic group disproportionately congregates together as it is, and most of America's churches aren't racially-diverse, so its not like this woman's proposal is particularly radical.

Settling in neighborhoods based upon race is segregation dude. We already tried that and it was a horrible time

[Purgatio]

Not every society is Northern Ireland. America has lots of neighbourhoods where a particular ethnic group disproportionately congregates together as it is, and most of America's churches aren't racially-diverse, so its not like this woman's proposal is particularly radical.

Yes, but here's the problem with your argument...Most of those neigborhoods barring a rare view have no issue with people not of that particular ethnic group settling within their community. By contrast what this woman is arguing for is not just a white community, but the right to turn away anyone who doesn't fit within her racially focused vision of her community. That is unacceptable in any first world country, let alone America.

Well a homogenous community won't stay homogenous for long if it can't be enforced. But that enforcement isn't discriminatory because, again, any non-white person turned away still has the right to form his own racially-homogenous community solely reserved for his racial group, so again every racial group has the same legal rights.

[Neanderthaland]

There's nothing wrong with wanting to build a community based around a particular culture, but the problem starts when you start telling people of other races that they are unwelcome there. What you(and by extension the city council candidate) are arguing for is the right of homogeneous community to turn away anyone who doesn't meet their racial standard. I'm sorry, but turning away people from your community based on race is not only racist, but also discrimination. Do you not see that?

Its not racist because the persons turned away can live in diverse neighbourhoods or live in homnogenous neighbourhoods with members of their own race. I don't see whats so unequal about a system where every person of any race has the same right to (1) live in a diverse community or (2) form racially homogeneous neighbourhoods of their own. You're literally giving everyone of any race the same legal rights. There's no inequality.

It literally is racist. It is the definition of racist. To turn away someone based on race.

[Purgatio]

Not every society is Northern Ireland. America has lots of neighbourhoods where a particular ethnic group disproportionately congregates together as it is, and most of America's churches aren't racially-diverse, so its not like this woman's proposal is particularly radical.

Settling in neighborhoods based upon race is segregation dude. We already tried that and it was a horrible time

Segregation was mandatory for everyone, what I'm suggesting is free and voluntary association. People who want to live in racially diverse communities and neighbourhoods can just keep doing so if they like it so much.

[Rojava Free State]

Yes, but here's the problem with your argument...Most of those neigborhoods barring a rare view have no issue with people not of that particular ethnic group settling within their community. By contrast what this woman is arguing for is not just a white community, but the right to turn away anyone who doesn't fit within her racially focused vision of her community. That is unacceptable in any first world country, let alone America.

Well a homogenous community won't stay homogenous for long if it can't be enforced. But that enforcement isn't discriminatory because, again, any non-white person turned away still has the right to form his own racially-homogenous community solely reserved for his racial group, so again every racial group has the same legal rights.

That is still discrimination though. Black people could still set up their own hair salons, bars and schools in the south but they were banned from the white ones, thus discriminated against. Same thing here

[Purgatio]

Why should it matter? It hurts no one for a person to make a personal choice about who to live with and who to marry, why not allow them to choose based on their personal comfort if no one's getting hurt?

You call this

she's expressing a view that people of a race should marry people of that same race

a personal choice? I don't give a rat's ass about what she does herself, but why advocate for others to do the same?

You're allowed to advocate your preference for what you think marriage is about, and others can choose to agree or disagree. She's literally not forcing you to do anything. She views marriage as a racial union, for members of the same race to be joined together as one, if you disagree then just go live your life the way you prefer, what's the big deal? She's not calling for interracial marriage to be banned using the law, she's expressing her own belief that it's wrong, but who cares?

[Korladis]

Settling in neighborhoods based upon race is segregation dude. We already tried that and it was a horrible time

Segregation was mandatory for everyone, what I'm suggesting is free and voluntary association. People who want to live in racially diverse communities and neighbourhoods can just keep doing so if they like it so much.

You literally just argued for enforcing the homogeneity of a community. If that's not advocating for segregation then I don't know what is dude. I mean...Just wow.

[Korladis]

Bugger off.

[Purgatio]

Well a homogenous community won't stay homogenous for long if it can't be enforced. But that enforcement isn't discriminatory because, again, any non-white person turned away still has the right to form his own racially-homogenous community solely reserved for his racial group, so again every racial group has the same legal rights.

That is still discrimination though. Black people could still set up their own hair salons, bars and schools in the south but they were banned from the white ones, thus discriminated against. Same thing here

Dude there are minority groups in America that would be more than happy to set up their own racially-homogenous communities too. It's human nature to want to associate with people more like yourself, in terms of physical appearance and behaviour. Just look at the example of historically-black colleges.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccZk_e3Tc5s