There's nothing scary about gay marriage, even if it advances the interests of people who are barely connected to me (I only have a few publicly gay friends, and most of them managed to get married by traveling elsewhere... like Canada).
The whole "white nationalism" thingy with them freaking out about "advancements of other races" is kinda creepy to me. Just because one group of people benefit makes no difference to the strength of my position. Its like they don't understand the concept of "non-zero sum games".
I'm generally against rules and regulations where one race benefits over another.
> Do you have any evidence that white nationalists deny the existence of non-zero sum games?
Evidence? Nah, just an anecdote about my experience. White Nationalists refuse to understand that all races can benefit from proper policy decisions, and turn everything into an "us vs them".
For example, a common white nationalist refrain is "They took our jobs". While the counterargument is simply "They took the jobs that no one wants to take", or perhaps "More jobs for everybody creates more jobs for everybody". After all, the economy expands when more people have money, because more people start spending it on more services.
Yes: if illegal immigrants spend more money, then the local economy benefits and more jobs can be created.
For whatever reason, white nationalists refuse to believe in the possibility that maybe, just maybe, there exists a path for everybody to benefit in society.
> Surely you understand that it's perfectly possible for one race to benefit at the expense of another.
Yes. Racial quotas are an example of that. But good policy decisions don't necessarily have to resort to quotas to fix the issues of dwindling inner-city opportunities for people in poverty.
A proper policy framework and law structure can ensure that everybody benefits. A rising tide lifts all boats.
A wall, deportation-based policy, and other such policy decisions FORCE the discussion to become a zero-sum game. A bit of creativity and foresight however can demonstrate far better fixes that are better for society overall.
Sure, but you don't make the rules. Do you have evidence to suggest everyone is opposed to such policies? And I don't just mean they say they're opposed to them. I mean they truly oppose them, and that they agree with you on which criteria should be used to determine whether a rule or regulation meets that definition, and that they're totally unbiased in the application of those criteria?
>White nationalists refuse to understand...
They deny the theoretical possibility of such a rule? Or did they deny that the particular rules you discussed fit that description? Or did they deny that such rules were likely to be the only ones produced as a result of other racial groups having more political power, and that the more likely result would be rules which benefit those other racial groups?
>While the counterargument is simply "They took the jobs that no one wants to take",
And the counter-counter-argument is that if wages were not being driven down by immigrants, especially illegal ones who are more likely to hide their income, then the tens of millions of out of work Americans would have an incentive to move to the places where those jobs are available.
>After all, the economy expands...
There is no reason to believe that the benefits of the expanded economy are distributed evenly. There is actually quite a lot of reason to believe those benefits go mostly to people at the top of the income bracket whose wages are not driven down by immigration and whose businesses benefit enormously from the reduced labor costs.
>For whatever reason, white nationalists refuse to believe in...
Why would you expect that path to be the one we go down when every racial group has an incentive to act selfishly? What invisible hand is guiding them to work together for the benefit of all racial groups, rather than focusing their efforts on benefiting at the expense of others? Especially once the low hanging fruit on the latter tree has been picked?
>A wall, deportation-based policy...
The point of the wall and deportations is to stop the tide of changing racial demographics. Control over government authority is a zero sum game. You either win or lose office. Why would white people expect other racial groups not to use that power to further their own racial interests at the expense of white racial interests? Even if they pursue some policies which benefit everyone, why would anyone expect those to be the only policies they pursue?
Indeed. But only one side seems to be interested in advancing the "white race". And that's the side I'm interested in making SURE they lose. Note, I'm also against any sides that advance the "black race" above and beyond anything that's fair. (Ex: "Black Power", Racial Quotas, etc. etc.)
The political concept here is simply an issue of fairness and race neutrality. The Government should be race neutral and racially blind, and ideally so should society.
Let the best man (or woman) win the job, if said human is Black, White, Yellow, Purple, or Red... gay, lesbian, male, female or transgender. If the best people are chosen for each job without any bias, then the USA will be in a far stronger position than any other country in the world.
The side that is working on making sure EVERYBODY wins is the side I'm on. What side are YOU on?
-------------------
There are certain governmental policies that only benefit the white race. Unfortunately for you, I'm not white. I've got plenty of white friends and I'd hate for them to feel uncomfortable about the future and all, but I'm not going to do anything that benefits white people only. And most of the white people I know don't want an unfair whites-only advantage and/or policies either.
I agree that there are proposed policies that do nothing but hamper white people. And said policies (ie: Racial Quotas), are awful and terrible. We don't want to "hurt" anybody in our quest to improve this country.
-----------------------
> The point of the wall and deportations is to stop the tide of changing racial demographics.
Erm, that's horrifying that you care about dominance of your race above all else and so casually support this idea.
I think this gets at the root of what you're not understanding, so I'll just address this. It doesn't matter what side you're on. It doesn't matter what side I'm on. What matters is that people in general are biased. It is unreasonable to anticipate that they will act otherwise. Do you agree with that?
There are policy choices which must be made by governments in which there is no option which will result in equal benefit to all races. Indeed, there is no definitive way to even measure that which everyone would agree to. Do you agree with that statement?
>Erm, that's horrifying that you care about dominance of your race above all else and so casually support this idea.
Please try to stick to the topic at hand. I haven't expressed any preference one way or the other, and I certainly haven't given you any reason to believe I care about the dominance of my race above all else. If you only read what you want to read rather than what's actually written, you're never going to have a productive conversation.
Yes.
So whenever people start discussing policies which benefit one race over another, I give them the finger. Whether they're "Black Power" or "White Supremacists", its all the same to me. Unfair advantages towards one race will always be met with skepticism from me.
I'm not an idiot. There will always be selfish people who want to advance their own race above all others. And my response to them, whether they're Black, White, Yellow, Brown, Red or Purple, is the same. A giant middle finger.
My political aim is for equality for all.
> There are policy choices which must be made by governments in which there is no option which will result in equal benefit to all races. Indeed, there is no definitive way to even measure that which everyone would agree to. Do you agree with that statement?
Of course. The world isn't perfect, and I don't expect perfect policy decisions to be made all the time.
Take for example the current opioid epidemic. By and large, Opioid deaths have shown a great correlation to rural white women deaths. So any Opioid related legislation will naturally benefit rural white women more than other races and subgroups. (See here: https://wire.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/women-bear-greater...)
However, the Opioid epidemic affects us all. So I would support any fair legislation that deals with Opioids across the country (even if disproportionally, rural white women would get the primary benefit).
So even if "one race" or subgroup gets an unbalanced benefit (and in this case rural white women), the general cause of destroying the Opioid epidemic is a cause I can rally behind. Some issues affect us all, even if they affect some of us unequally. And that's where the power of fair governance comes into play.
Problems in our culture generally for some reason only plague one race or subculture at a time. Its the result of an imperfect world. So I understand that.
> I certainly haven't given you any reason to believe I care about the dominance of my race above all else.
"Stop the tide of changing racial demographics."
You said it, not me. You said the wall is a racial issue. Fundamentally, the wall is an immigration issue, but YOU chose to turn it into a racial issue.
At a certain point, when someone quacks like a white-supremacist, I start to think they're a white-supremacist. A typical conservative would have kept the discussion racially neutral, but YOU chose to turn it into a race issue.
If you want me to think of you differently, choose your words more wisely.
It does not matter what policies you support. It does not matter who you give a middle finger to. You are not the supreme emperor. What you support does not become law. Laws come about through a process involving great numbers of humans who are acting as a consequence of their biases.
>The world isn't perfect, and I don't expect perfect policy decisions to be made all the time.
That's, again, not the point. The point is that policy decisions which affect all races equally are not available in many cases, no matter who you give the finger to.
>And that's where the power of fair governance comes into play.
What power? Who decides what constitutes fair governance? Who makes sure fair governance is what happens? Please do not reply by saying you give a middle finger to everyone who doesn't support fair governance. That is not an answer.
>You said the wall is a racial issue
It's an issue which affects the racial demographics of the United States, which over the past 50 years have been changing dramatically. Those are not controversial facts.
This discussion has been racial since the comment I initially replied to which suggested Donald Trump has a "solid pulse on scared white men".
This is a democracy. You and I do.
The only question therefore, is if you support policies that I support. If you do not, then we do not work together and instead we work against each other in the system that has been created.
Just as "Black Power" advocates get a say, you and I get a say in the governance system of this country. As do "White Supremacists". But MY ideal is a system where no race is superior to any other race.
That's really all I'm trying to convince you of, that working on the ideal of equality for all is worth fighting for.
> It's an issue which affects the racial demographics of the United States, which over the past 50 years have been changing dramatically.
I can tell you aren't an idiot either. But come on, I know what you're going for.
> This discussion has been racial since the comment I initially replied to which suggested Donald Trump has a "solid pulse on scared white men".
Well congrats then, you've been played and trolled. Some would call this effect "getting triggered".
And you've continued to keep it racial instead of diverting it to more important, universal issues. For example, when I discuss the wall its typically about immigration policy, the needs of the labor force, and projections of the number of jobs we need.
"Racial Demographics" is very, very, very low on the list of shit I care about. I don't see why anyone should give an F about a 45% White population vs a 55% white population. But maybe you can explain to me why this is an important issue for you?
Or is that REALLY what you want to be talking about?
-----------------------
Look, I understand the cause of propagating a US Culture where people speak English. I'm actually more conservative on this issue than most people are.
For example: there are plenty of examples of non-English speaking people getting in trouble in the local Bay in my State. Locals have issues communicating with them that a storm is coming in, and next thing we know, a few non-English speakers are lost in the stormy waters.
So I do have a belief that standardizing on English speaking in this country would be beneficial, especially in local / rural areas where its impossible to find a translator. There are truly cultural issues at hand to talk about that can benefit society as a whole.
---------------
Now that I've given you an example of my perspective, I expect you to be able to "sell" this "protecting racial demographics" thing to me. What the hell are you talking about?
Right, a whole bunch of biased people. You're making my argument for me. They don't all agree on what fair governance means. Even if they all say they support it, and they mean what they say, when it comes down to specific issues, they will be viewing those issues through their biased lens.
>I don't see why anyone should give an F
I've tried to explain that. If you expected that other racial groups were going to use their political power to benefit their own race at the expense of your race, which is a totally reasonable outcome to expect, you might be concerned for the well-being of your descendants.
>Now that I've given you...
I'm not trying to sell you on anything. I'm trying to explain why people might have a reasonable concern about changing racial demographics.
To be honest, your explanation doesn't seem very reasonable to me.
> I've tried to explain that. If you expected that other racial groups were going to use their political power to benefit their own race at the expense of your race, which is a totally reasonable outcome to expect, you might be concerned for the well-being of your descendants.
Seems to me the problem is unreasonably biased people. And yes, I agree they exist. The issue is you're stuck thinking that any other race is your enemy.
That's not how it works. Most Muslims, African Americans, and whatever minority is out there, just want equality. And yes, white-people too. In general: most people want equality. This isn't a racial issue. Equality is a concept that unites everybody.
There are a few bad apples out there: ISIS, Black Power, White Supremacists, NeoNazis, etc. etc. These people are all jackholes who favor their own race (or in ISIS's case: religion) over all others.
We should create systems to find and demonstrate "Hate Groups" and creators of racial tension and use our abilities to stamp them out.
------------
The minute you start talking about "racial demographics are weakening my race" however, you break the peace and you've broken the idea of racial equality. Its not demographics that are a problem, its the individual jackholes and jackasses who manipulate our political system for their gain.
Fortunately for America, these "haters" are in the gross minority. They're loud, they're proud and they show up in virtually every news story / protest. But their viewpoints are incredibly fringe.
I am certainly not "stuck" thinking anything, and I never suggested anyone was my enemy. All I've suggested is that different policies will benefit or harm different races unevenly, and that in general people will be biased toward their own race.
>just want equality
You're not paying attention. I've already been over this. Even if they really do want equality, that's just a vague concept. It means different things to different people. There is no agreement over what objective criteria should be used to decide whether something meets the definition. When it comes down to deciding whether some policy promotes "equality", people are going to be influenced by their bias. You haven't once addressed this point.
>Equality is a concept
Exactly, it is just a concept. There are no clear, unambiguous, universally agreed upon criteria we can apply to some particular policy such that we would all come to the exact same conclusion. There is a whole lot of gray area, and that is where bias comes into the picture, even in the ideal scenario in which everyone is pro-equality.
>These people are all jackholes...
These people are the ones that publicly embrace their bias. They are not the only ones with a bias. Everyone has a bias. Not everyone is biased in favor of their own race, but most people are, consciously or not.
>you break the peace
The imaginary peace, which I have conclusively demonstrated cannot exist.
>Its not demographics that are a problem
Right, it's the fact that people are biased.
Well yeah. Justice, Equality for all, everything is a vague concept. There are entire books, parodies, and movies on this subject.
Unless you're seriously suggesting to me that YOU don't understand the concept behind equality. But that's not the issue here. The issue is that you think no one else believes in Equality, or something.
> All I've suggested is that different policies will benefit or harm different races unevenly, and that in general people will be biased toward their own race.
And all we gotta do is work on politics and demonstrate viewpoints where things truly are equal, in a way that many people can agree upon.
Its really not that hard. Bullies calling African Americans the N-word? That's not cool, chastise those guys. Racial Voting suppression going on in a certain area? F-those guys too, we shouldn't be trying to make one race have an easier time voting than another. Racial Quotas being suggested to be part of college-acceptance? That seems a bit like a bad idea to me.
I mean, these are REAL issues that are addressed all the time in Politics. Each time, "equality" may be up for debate but society comes to a general, sane conclusion.
---------------
I don't expect everyone's definition of "equality" to perfectly match. For the most part, I just don't want people to advocate the advance THEIR race at the detriment of other races.
And politics is work. That means I have to work to figure out people's opinions, analyze their viewpoints, and make decisions based on that.
So then you understand there is plenty of room for bias to create disagreement, which can have real world consequences, as I've been saying?
>The issue is that you think no one else believes in Equality, or something.
It's the "or something" bit, which I've explained very clearly, repeatedly, but which you won't address because it annihilates your argument.
>And all we gotta do...
Ya, all we gotta do. Easy as 1 2 3. Just tell mean white people not to call blacks the 'N' word and poof! Everyone will agree on the precise definition of equality.
>Racial Quotas being suggested...
You understand that a whole lot of people disagree with you about whether that promotes equality, right? All we gotta do is get them to agree with you, right? Just give the finger to people who engage in racial voting suppression, and bam! The exact definition of equality will get slammed into everyone's mind so hard they won't be able to disagree. As long as there are a few cases which you think no one could disagree with, even though people have disagreed with them rather strenuously in the past, the precise, universally agreed upon definition must be right around the corner, right?
>but society comes to a general, sane conclusion.
You understand society came to the conclusion 200 years ago that equality didn't even apply to other races, right? They believed in equality, they just meant something a little different by it than you do.
>I don't expect everyone's definition of "equality" to perfectly match.
So then you understand there's room for reasonable disagreement among reasonable people, and that their human biases will generally result in them preferring the answer which is better for their own race?
>For the most part, I just don't want people to advocate the advance THEIR race at the detriment of other races.
No one cares what you want. You not wanting it doesn't mean it's not going to happen. People are going to be biased toward their own race, consciously or not, and that's going to have real world consequences. Your hopes and feelings don't change reality.
If you don't care for my thoughts, then you don't need to have them.
"Goodbye".
Feel free to close out on a snarky note. I'll give you another chance to come up with something better. But the patheticness of your last response has pulled me back. If your final words are sufficiently snarky, I'll leave you alone. Or you can just leave too, that's cool.
What matters is how people actually behave.