NationStates

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:Tbh I think in the west we're moving back toward the original xenophobia of culture and away from race as a dividing line. Like nowadays people don't really need you to be a different race to dislike you. There's people in Britain who aren't fond of Poles or Romanians despite them being "white" in the UK, and in America there's many people who view Arabs as white and dislike them and many who view them as people of color and accept them. Like I think nowadays, because it isnt cool to be biologically racist, people are moving past "this country should be white and if you aren't white stay out," and moving toward "if you don't fit in our culture, stay out." I know in many European countries prejudice is based around culture and not phenotype, like in Greece or the Balkans or Russia or Sweden (many swedes aren't fond of eastern Europeans, finns or sami).

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:Tbh I think in the west we're moving back toward the original xenophobia of culture and away from race as a dividing line. Like nowadays people don't really need you to be a different race to dislike you. There's people in Britain who aren't fond of Poles or Romanians despite them being "white" in the UK, and in America there's many people who view Arabs as white and dislike them and many who view them as people of color and accept them. Like I think nowadays, because it isnt cool to be biologically racist, people are moving past "this country should be white and if you aren't white stay out," and moving toward "if you don't fit in our culture, stay out." I know in many European countries prejudice is based around culture and not phenotype, like in Greece or the Balkans or Russia or Sweden (many swedes aren't fond of eastern Europeans, finns or sami).

Ethel mermania wrote:

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:Tbh I think in the west we're moving back toward the original xenophobia of culture and away from race as a dividing line. Like nowadays people don't really need you to be a different race to dislike you. There's people in Britain who aren't fond of Poles or Romanians despite them being "white" in the UK, and in America there's many people who view Arabs as white and dislike them and many who view them as people of color and accept them. Like I think nowadays, because it isnt cool to be biologically racist, people are moving past "this country should be white and if you aren't white stay out," and moving toward "if you don't fit in our culture, stay out." I know in many European countries prejudice is based around culture and not phenotype, like in Greece or the Balkans or Russia or Sweden (many swedes aren't fond of eastern Europeans, finns or sami).

There has always been a fear of " the other", in humans, and like you identify it can be cultural. Wheather we call them whites v blacks, or Nords v slavs. I kinda think racism is just a modern reflection of that

Seangoli wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Imagine concluding that immigration is bad because European colonists went around the world murdering and conquering people.

Well, Native Americans constantly displaced one another through violence. We have numerous mass Graves and the like from prehistoric periods, and the historic period is marred by a near endless series of displacements and conflicts, some of which could very easily be viewed as ethnic cleansing on the scale of what Europeans did (I can rattle off a few tribes that were wiped out, or nearly wiped out, quite intentionally by displacing tribes). The same can be said for most everywhere in the world.

Humans suck. They see something/someplace other people have, want it, and are willing to kill over it.

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:I think it's funny how in old cowboy and Indian films the natives were portrayed as attacking the white settlers just because, when in reality the first reaction of native Americans upon seeing white people was probably "look, people with yellow hair. That's crazy."

Ayytaly wrote:

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:I think it's funny how in old cowboy and Indian films the natives were portrayed as attacking the white settlers just because, when in reality the first reaction of native Americans upon seeing white people was probably "look, people with yellow hair. That's crazy."

Films, sports mascots, you name it. Natives will always be seen as both savages and outsiders in their own land. It's even worse when other races partake in the patronization and marginalization of them.

Picairn wrote:

Koletsia wrote:Sociology, what a joke.

The hallmark of anti-intellectualism, folks.

All western European countries right now are struggling to figure out what they can do about the skyrocketing increase of ethnic ghettos in their cities. These ghettos are the result of "birds flocking together" because that's what humans naturally do.

Citation needed. In Denmark, for example, immigrants flock to low-income housing areas because the government engaged in a series of legal discrimination policies. viewtopic.php?p=38469022#p38469022

They are the focal points of the most crime in every western country because they are home to people originally from savage cultures where savagery is totally normal and part of everyday life.

I love the smell of racism after lunch.

Why is it that it is acceptable for every single non-western nation to demand immigrants integrate or even follow the major religion yet western nations must accept the whole world without demanding anything at all?

Literally wrong. India has over two thousand ethnic groups with enough religious, cultural, linguistic and genetic diversity to give the whole continent of Africa a run for its money.

White supremacists can never come up with new original arguments, it seems.

Isn't it strange? Do the people who write such tripe not believe in democracy? If they did, then they wouldn't be churning out such anti-democratic garbage that goes against the daily experiences of regular people who can no longer even leave their homes without locking everything up and turning on the security system in fear of some Ali or Muhammad breaking in and taking everything that isn't bolted to the ground.

Which is more anti-democratic, welcoming refugees who are fleeing wars and disasters into the country or demanding the police state to forcibly assimilate them using authoritarian tactics? Isn't it strange? Right wingers who are distrustful of government now demand government to stomp on minorities' civil rights.

But then again, to these people that's a result of "racism", right? That's because the host nation didn't give enough free shit to these people (which is never enough of course) and we must do even more to accommodate them.

Indeed, it is disgraceful for a government to discriminate against minorities and refugees.

Then again, as most of the slime who come up with this trash have never even had regular jobs so perhaps they cannot understand what it is to pay enormous taxes that go to supporting these parasites while the country continues to collapse.

The "slime" are the scientists who have contributed to our understanding of the world and the universe? Who have pioneered technological innovations throughout centuries? Who have briefed and informed our leaders to make the wise choice in crucial decisions? Who have created efficient machinery that gave the average worker an easier life?

What have you contributed to the scientific progress?

This is ludicrous. All you have to do is actually live in any of these countries and see with your own eyes, speak with actual residents.

Residents that support your racism and hatred? Do you know that your biased anecdotal evidence does not refute statistical evidence?

In Australia, New Zealand and every single European country, the common view of actual working people (not insular tertiary students or academics who live in their own little bubbles) is that so-called "diversity" is a problem that needs to be solved.

Have you conducted a non-biased poll? Interview a random sample of 1,000 people across the country? Commissioned a statistical study? No? Then don't make up BS.

If you've lived in any other country in a regular neighbourhood for a significant amount of time, you'd know this. Even saviour of the sand people Merkel has admitted how bad multiculti has been for Germany. There is simply no escaping this. Your academics cannot fight against reality.

"AcAdEmIcS bAd!!!" Said the guy who puts forward his personal racism as evidence.

So students who have not had any real experience in the world are a good indicator of the success of multiculti?

Students in the Western world study in university and colleges which are some of the most diverse environments, hosting international students as well as students of different race and background, a perfect place to experience diversity. It's clear that you have no clue of the university life.

Why not survey actual working people who live and work among the 3rd world imports instead of such a selective sample?

Students do study and interact with international students from the 3rd world. Again, you are ignorant of the university environment.

Or even the families of people whose children were groomed, raped and murdered by people who come from cultures where rape and honour killings are completely normal? Couldn't ever do that, could you?

A biased sample is not a good sample. Interactions with different people produce different outcomes. Study statistics before making such an idiotic statement.

It would go against the narrative that you and your ilk are trying to push in order to destroy everything that has been achieved by the West.

Ah yes, because it's the left wing who is trying to enact authoritarian policies and undermine democracy, a pinnacle of Western civilization. Not.

You people just seethe at the fact that average people do not want this for their countries.

You don't speak for the average person. For the racists, perhaps.

The tide is turning and people are increasingly voting for those who say "no more". Then again, in your fantasy kookooland, the increasing masses of people who vote against furthering this death cult are just too stupid to understand "the studies" and are infected with mind viruses, incapable of accepting "the science".

"My gut feelings over science!!!"

Can't even read it without paying. Did you? Or did you just type in your argument into a websearch along with "journal" or "studies" and then paste the articles without having read them? If not, then could you actually copy+paste the actual article?

Why, can't criticize the study's arguments so you must go for ad hominems?

Totally unbiased bunch of people.

Yeah, totally. You got a problem with their names? Is that your racism speaking out again?

Regardless, if you've studied at university, you will very well know that a thesis proposal examining the damaging impacts of multiculturalism on social cohesion and identity will get you a one way ticket to the faculty office for a "discussion".

Any thesis that mirrors your racist screed certainly deserves that ticket.

Universities (at least humanities faculties) have long since been hijacked by certain interests who do not care about the lives of regular blue collar people except to demonise them as ignorant fools. For people who speak against hierarchy/class society, you people surely love looking down on others, don't you?

This isn't the gotcha you think.

In Australia, New Zealand and every single European country, the common view of actual working people (not insular tertiary students or academics who live in their own little bubbles) is that so-called "diversity" is a problem that needs to be solved.

Have you conducted a non-biased poll? Interview a random sample of 1,000 people across the country? Commissioned a statistical study? No? Then don't make up BS.

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:

Ayytaly wrote:
Films, sports mascots, you name it. Natives will always be seen as both savages and outsiders in their own land. It's even worse when other races partake in the patronization and marginalization of them.

And the worst irony is in the beginning the natives if anything were too generous. They gave the settlers everything they had to offer and their kindness was repaid with bloodshed and bullets.

Ayytaly wrote:This thread and the White Supremacist one are becoming more and more similar

FutureAmerica wrote:Nations like the US benefit greatly from immigration. Elon Musk is a great example. Then you have nations like Switzerland with very restrictive immigration policies which also benefit the small Swiss population. All nations on earth were made up of people displacing another native group for argument sake.

Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio wrote:As long as the free movement of individuals does not result in or is the result of forceful, coerced, or otherwise noninformed/nonconsensual relocation, then the aforementioned free movement itself is fine. However, I understand and can justify certain preferred traits of would-be-immigrants, such as giving preferential treatment to people immigrating due to being displaced from their former location injustly or due to something for which no one can be blamed. I believe that this would encompass people relocating due to natural disaster, war, famine, threat of war or unrest, or degree of human development / standard of living being greater at the destination area than the origin area. Additionally, I believe that this free movement can justifiably be temporarily delayed/restricted in instances of a clear and present danger (examples would include de-arming (if not arresting) people well-prepared for attacking, temporarily closing entrances/exits from a small area should there be (a) known fugitive(s) from justice who escaped in order to facilitate a search for said fugitive(s), and quarantining or taking similar precautions to limit the spread of a contagion).

Of course, I would be expected to be biased in favour of this, considering that many of my ancestors relocated permanently, and some even did so after original intentions appeared temporary or for reasons which are/were not justified.

Ayytaly wrote:

Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio wrote:As long as the free movement of individuals does not result in or is the result of forceful, coerced, or otherwise noninformed/nonconsensual relocation, then the aforementioned free movement itself is fine. However, I understand and can justify certain preferred traits of would-be-immigrants, such as giving preferential treatment to people immigrating due to being displaced from their former location injustly or due to something for which no one can be blamed. I believe that this would encompass people relocating due to natural disaster, war, famine, threat of war or unrest, or degree of human development / standard of living being greater at the destination area than the origin area. Additionally, I believe that this free movement can justifiably be temporarily delayed/restricted in instances of a clear and present danger (examples would include de-arming (if not arresting) people well-prepared for attacking, temporarily closing entrances/exits from a small area should there be (a) known fugitive(s) from justice who escaped in order to facilitate a search for said fugitive(s), and quarantining or taking similar precautions to limit the spread of a contagion).

Of course, I would be expected to be biased in favour of this, considering that many of my ancestors relocated permanently, and some even did so after original intentions appeared temporary or for reasons which are/were not justified.

What is your ethnicity?

Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio wrote:

Ayytaly wrote:
What is your ethnicity?

White (not Anglo-Saxon) Protestant living in the Eastern USA, of central European descent if you want to go way back.

Ayytaly wrote:

Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio wrote:White (not Anglo-Saxon) Protestant living in the Eastern USA, of central European descent if you want to go way back.

German?

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:I think it's funny how in old cowboy and Indian films the natives were portrayed as attacking the white settlers just because, when in reality the first reaction of native Americans upon seeing white people was probably "look, people with yellow hair. That's crazy."

Adamede wrote:

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:I think it's funny how in old cowboy and Indian films the natives were portrayed as attacking the white settlers just because, when in reality the first reaction of native Americans upon seeing white people was probably "look, people with yellow hair. That's crazy."

Eh, sometimes. Thing is it’s pretty apparent those guys with yellow hair are settling on your land.

Ayytaly wrote:

Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio wrote:As long as the free movement of individuals does not result in or is the result of forceful, coerced, or otherwise noninformed/nonconsensual relocation, then the aforementioned free movement itself is fine. However, I understand and can justify certain preferred traits of would-be-immigrants, such as giving preferential treatment to people immigrating due to being displaced from their former location injustly or due to something for which no one can be blamed. I believe that this would encompass people relocating due to natural disaster, war, famine, threat of war or unrest, or degree of human development / standard of living being greater at the destination area than the origin area. Additionally, I believe that this free movement can justifiably be temporarily delayed/restricted in instances of a clear and present danger (examples would include de-arming (if not arresting) people well-prepared for attacking, temporarily closing entrances/exits from a small area should there be (a) known fugitive(s) from justice who escaped in order to facilitate a search for said fugitive(s), and quarantining or taking similar precautions to limit the spread of a contagion).

Of course, I would be expected to be biased in favour of this, considering that many of my ancestors relocated permanently, and some even did so after original intentions appeared temporary or for reasons which are/were not justified.

What is your ethnicity?

Ayytaly wrote:

Adamede wrote:Eh, sometimes. Thing is it’s pretty apparent those guys with yellow hair are settling on your land.

Hair hued yellow are foes not fellows.

Socialist States of Ludistan wrote:Someone was always there first, Denmark used to own southern Sweden, yet it’s still Swedish territory. I know it’s kinda a poor comparison, and maybe even a bit of a stretch, but the ‘natives’ aren’t alone in being natives anymore, and they’re the minority of natives, if that makes sense, so if you’re in America, and you can speak English, you should speak it. Unless of course you’re talking with your French friend or something like that, the same applies if an American went to Italy.

Page wrote:

Socialist States of Ludistan wrote:Someone was always there first, Denmark used to own southern Sweden, yet it’s still Swedish territory. I know it’s kinda a poor comparison, and maybe even a bit of a stretch, but the ‘natives’ aren’t alone in being natives anymore, and they’re the minority of natives, if that makes sense, so if you’re in America, and you can speak English, you should speak it. Unless of course you’re talking with your French friend or something like that, the same applies if an American went to Italy.

Someone who is able to speak English wouldn't be trying to talk in another language to an English speaker who doesn't understand that language in the first place, so what are we talking about?

Ayytaly wrote:

Adamede wrote:Eh, sometimes. Thing is it’s pretty apparent those guys with yellow hair are settling on your land.

Hair hued yellow are foes not fellows.