|
|
| Re: Conservative Jeb Bush Notices Racism Is Bad (1173805) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Conservative Jeb Bush Notices Racism Is Bad |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Mon Apr 14 15:57:20 2014, in response to Re: Conservative Jeb Bush Notices Racism Is Bad, posted by GP38/R42 Chris on Mon Apr 14 15:01:32 2014. What are you some kind of a leftist propaganda tool? You deterine if anyone is a racist because they think there needs to be a process for orderly entrance to a country?No, I determine that someone is a racist because they think they think a society established by white people is a "country" whose laws have to be obeyed, but the society that those white people forcibly displaced doesn't count at all. If you're not a racist then answer this: Why do people who want to live in North America today need permission from the people already living on the continent, but the people who came to North America a few hundred years ago not only didn't need permission from the people already living on the continent, but were perfectly justified in killing them? That same law is in effect for whatever non-US country you come from, and no matter the race... Ah, it doesn't matter what race you are— if you're not part of this race, you aren't allowed to live here. Totally not racist. Remember, race covers ancestry— not just pigmentation. Take New York for example. The Dutch BOUGHT it from the Indians. Citation needed. Closest I was able to find was that the Dutch bought the rights to non-exclusive use of Manhattan for hunting. They then lost it in war to the British. The Americans won a war and got it from the British, and so forth. Do you think any country just always had the "people" that are there from the beginning. So you're arguing that might makes right? Not racist, I admit, but also not much of an improvement. Do you think the current borders don't count, just because they used to be someone else's borders, different borders? Do you think we didn't acquire Texas, California, New Mexico, Arizona after the war with Mexico? Do those states and land still belong to the Mexicans too? No, I think land doesn't "belong" to specific races period. See, that's why I keep calling you a racist— because no matter how much you scream and no matter how much shit and non sequiturs you fling, at the end of the day, you are claiming that specific swaths of land are reserved for the exclusive use of specific races (and members of other races who get special dispensation which is rarely granted). This is a country. Yes, I think we've established that. Name a country that always existed and borders never changed, former people displaced. Name one. Borders change. They always have, but that doesn't mean there isn't rule of law in the new formation. You keep consistently missing the point. The point is this: Name a city. It could be any city in any country. Name any six people who want to move to that city. Do they all have the same right to move to that city or do some need special permission while others don't? If so, why? On what basis? Who has special entilement? You have to follow the same process to come here whether you are Mexican, African, Africa is not a country German, RUssian, Polish, El Salvadorian, or name a country or nationality. WHo has special entitlement? I do. You do. If you think otherwise, then explain exactly what the "process to come here" is and show that you went through it. Do you know how ito communicate without labeling people who debate or disagree with your assessment names or labels? Non sequitur. You said that certain rights are contingent on race, so I said you're a racist. If you read through this forum, you will notice that I disagree with many people but I only call the racist ones racists. Hawaii is a United States STATE. If you don't know that, please look at your geography. Hawaii is not a different country. Is that too hard for you to understand? Once again, you completely miss the point. Why, precisely, do I have the right to move to Hawaii but someone with non-US ancestry doesn't? That's the question you have consistently failed to answer. Is that too hard for you to understand? Racist against Russians, you pPiece of garbage? What the HELLL is that supposed to mean? It means you think that Russians need special dispensation to get rights that are automatic for other races. I used a random white country. So what? I already explained that "race" covers ancestry, not just pigmentation. In some cases, it may even cover culture. It doesn't matter WHERE they come from. there is a process to become a member of this country, as it is with any country. That could be filled in with ANY country. OK, so fill it in with "United States." WHy is it "racist" to agree with the law of the United states as set forth? A few generations ago, the law of the United States declared black people to be property. One generation ago, perhaps even within your lifetime, the law of the United States declared black people to be inherently inferior. Are you seriously trying to claim that United States law is non-racist by definition? If the law says that your right to live and work depends on your race, then the law is racist. But you aren't arguing racism is wrong. You are calling anyone against illegal immigration a "racist". "Illegal immigration" is a right-wing euphemism that basically means "immigrants who don't get the special dispensation required for members of their race." So I am calling anyone who is against members of the "wrong" race immigrating without special dispensation to be a racist. I don't see how that's controversial. Good for you as I roll my eyes when you feel the need of bringing race into any argument. You're the one who brought race into the argument, dumbass. The entire argument is about whether your right to live and work in a particular town should be contingent on your ancestry, and last time I checked, I'm the one claiming it shouldn't. You only see the world in terms of color and it's pathetic. Didn't I just spend the last several posts explaining to you that there's more to race than colour? You consistently ignored me, either because you just aren't bright enough to pick it up, because you refuse to believe anything that would prove you're racist, or because you reflexively ignore anything said by someone who believes in racial equality. |
|
|
|