Louis
Posts: 6436 Joined: Jan. 2006
|
Troll,
Ah the nit pick. Wonderful! You failed to pick nits with your "But I don't support Jim Crow laws!" when I haven't said you did. So you thought this would be a better nit to pick. Remove the word "forced" if you like. It actually makes no difference, because you are advocating "forced" repatriation whether you like it or not. Just because you're not doing it with guns and trains to Auschwitz doesn't make it less "forced". As demonstrated by your own words.
Anyway, nice try. No dice. Snipping one part of someone's argument out of context does not an "error" make. I note you don't deal with ANY of the actual points, but simply (as with your nit pick over the word "segregation") pick on one word. That isn't debate Troll, that's lying. You're insisting that YOUR interpretation of a word is what someone else means by it. Oopsie. Just like "segregation" Troll, you're insisting that what I've said is what YOU mean. Not the case. Humpty Dumpty has come out of his semantic hidey hole again hasn't he? "A word means precisely what I say it means and no more!"
I'd happily apologise were I wrong but, to use the word of the moment, I'm taking the "Holistic" approach. Treating your arguments as a whole, as a dialogue, rather than a series of disjointed statements which I can pick at the semantics of in order to obfuscate. Which let's be honest, is what you are doing.
Here's the original proposal 14 Nov 2005. In a thread SPECIFICALLY started by you to discuss race issues.
As mentioned later on in the thread is this revealing snippet.
Quote | Yes, details. Why do this in the first place? Consider: How does a wise man solve a problem? Answer: He steps aside to let the problem solve itself. Like it or not, all cultures compete with each other. Immigration, in fact, is nothing more than citizens flocking to the victor, which is why America has an "immigrant" problem, while Liberia doesn't (it does, admittedly, have an "electricity" problem, a "transportation" problem, or a "please God let me keep my head attached to my shoulders for just one more %#$%! day!" problem, which might account for its lack of our problems). Thing is, once people enter a wealthy, secure nation, that nation can subsidize whatever fool habits they might have had, and even cultivate a couple of new ones in the bargain (America being the world's leading exporter in this area). This, frankly, will not work. We need cultures that can help us solve our problems, because our bonehead decisions affect the rest of the world. We also need a way to try out those bonehead ideas before thrusting them on the world. But how? Easy: let the communities decide. You want to live in a community in which strangers have sex in the bathrooms? Great, you do that, and I'll live in a community that waits for marriage. Let's run a race and see who wins. The life of a gangsta sound appealing? Go for it, just keep it away from me. Want to relive the good ol' days in Nazi-ville? Swell - I'll live with the Jews and we'll compare notes later. Sure, many communities will abuse their new freedoms. That's O.K.; they'll pay the price soon enough. What will happen, of course, is that the world will notice a trend. The communities that follow truth (Since when is this something you are acquainted with, Troll? will miraculously be the only ones worth living in. Stable, productive, spiritual communities will flourish. People will crane their necks at the emerging miracle, and ask, "How can they do this? And how can we have what they have?" "I don't want to live a bitter life where neighbors eye each other warily, where gunshots are heard every day, where people have given up! Paley oh Paley let me join in your fellowship!" And I take them by the hand, and lead them to a world they never imagined.
Can you handle the truth? |
Surely not judging individual immigrants based on your assessment of their culture before they even arrive Troll? No of course not! That's not racist is it? Fuckwit. As for your utopian fantasies, they're more revealing that you know.
We (and this includes the UK btw because we have the highest rate of immigration in Europe IIRC) don't need "cultures that help us solve our problems" we need INDIVIDUALS that help us solve our problems. For example, trying to claim, which you are, that certain groups of immigrants have less members at the extreme end of the IQ distribution (which accoridng to you is where all the work gets done, a false claim anyway, and one you never established) and thus these cultures, and individuals from them, should be subject to greater scrutiny at immigration control is discriminating on the basis of race or culture. That is what those words mean. That is racist. The fact that you take that as an insult, when it is merely a description of YOUR stated views is a manifestation of how wrong you know those views to be and your insecurity about it. I can't help that you don't like your own words.
Needless to say Troll, I don't accept your quibble because I believe that you are quibbling over tiny things and ignoring the bigger picture deliberately to obfuscate the facts of your own bigotry. Perhaps if you behaved honourably I would be more disposed to granting you the benefit of the doubt. You haven't, thus I'm not. You think that because I view you as lacking honour due to your conduct here that my views of your conduct should be treated skeptically? This is after all the post you link to. Staggering.
Yet again, you DEMAND respect for both yourself and your views whilst demonstrating conclusively that you don't deserve it in either manner. How many time have people told you that respect is earned Troll? On what basis do you demand that you or yoour views demand repect? Not one single opinion you have espoused pre or post your supposed "confession" (yet again, to hammer this home, I don't believe elements of this "confession" your behaviour before and after are identical. Evidence which speaks louder than your whining) has been based on anything other than google trawled nonsense, a significant portion of which you clearly don't understand and which doesn't support your claims, bald assertion, and outright lies.
Like I said Troll, I need nothing more than your exact words to prove conclusively that you are a racist, or playing one here for the sake of your own amusement. Just like the "sweaty wrestler" love you get taunted with, how the #### could anyone know if this is representative of your real life, offline opinions or desires? No one knows you personally as far as I am aware. You are being judged on one thing and one thing alone: your exact words as posted on this forum. The fact that you don't like this is not evidence that that judgement is in error.
As for your petty quibble about the word "forced", like I said, I'll remove it if it suits you. Let me know and I'll happily do so. Others might buy into your semantic obfuscation, but I don't. Let's examine your own words shall we:
Quote | And no, my policy would not forcibly deport anyone. It would present a nice dilemma for those immigrants who so love to bitch about our country: leave, or admit that their native cultures are so dysfunctional that they couldn't be paid to live there. But I think many would go for this carrot, especially given the stick mentioned in part 3 of my plan. Even if they don't, the point will have been made. |
and:
Quote | "The stick" refers to part 3 of my plan, which is:
Quote "3) Let freedom of commerce and association ring through the land. Abolish minimum wage, race laws, and any other useless, government-bloating, liberty-crushing machinations on the citizen. Let people pay what they want, live with whom they want, and say what they want." So the dullards get no support there, either. In case anyone didn't get the message, I said on page two:
Quote "To address your point, no, I don't pine for the return of Jim Crow laws. Or race laws of any kind. If people of different ethnic groups wish to live, work, and love together, it ain't any of my nor the government's business."
and later I outlined my plan again:
Quote "1) Cash bribes to encourage emigration of people who hate our guts 2) Heavy immigration from Europe, Israel, and Northeast Asian countries to replace our departing malcontents 3) New legislation repealing all race laws 4) Letting the resulting freedom of association weed out the bad cultures amongst our remaining malcontents" Then, to clear up any possible misunderstanding, I stated on page five:
Quote "Recall that my buyout program is entirely voluntary; anyone who wants to can stay." |
Forgive the sub formatting in the quotes.
Let's pick a few things out. You are advocating using market forces to coerce people who don't to adopt your cultural values (or a narrow set of cultural values defined by you, the "us" in your screed) out of your country. You are advocating repealling ALL race laws (your words not mine) which therefore include laws preventing racial discrimination (should such a terrible thing ever occur in PaleyWorld) as well as positive discrimination laws (which you and I agree by the way foster greater inequality). You'd also abolish minimum wage laws. Incidentally how does your cultural censorship (encouraging repatriation of people whose views of your culture and opinions don't jive with your own) come from the first amendment, or the social responsibility of a rice nation to poorer ones, something your nation was founded on I seem to remember?
This I am sure you think is a very "Darwinian" social model. Guess what Troll, you're making the "Is/Ought" fallacy again. Human societies the world over have been struggling to improve their lot, the efforts have been to avoid being subject to the pitiless happenstance of nature, not to emulate it. Evolutionary biology is representative of how things are, not the definition of "values" and "ethics". Ironically one of your common troll claims is that evolutionary biology erodes societies like bad movies erode film making. Yet you are advocating precisely an evolutionary social scenario, and as many have pointed out to, one that will undoubtedly lead to your own extinction. Please look up irony in the dictionary. All my irony meters have melted.
Let's see what happens.
So in PaleyWorld a nice new immigrant to the glorious USA arrives and sails past Lady Liberty. His English isn't brilliant but passable, and he's a black muslim. His first port of call after passing all the required uber-scrutiny someone of his race and religion (as advocated by you remember) is the employment office. Now since anyone can say what they like and all laws against racial discrimination have been repealed his first contact with an employment officer doesn't go well. Coincidentally the employment officer holds certain views on "racial purity" and the "suitability of certain cultures as immigrants". What a shocker! The employment officer refuses to help him, calling him a "damned dirty heathen nigger". As all race laws have been repealed our immigrant hasn't gotten off to a very good start, and has no recourse to the law to protect him from the consequences of this employment officer's views, after all this is an immigrant who has passed all the scrutiny you have set him and just wants to work. He hasn't had an opportunity yet to assert those cultural values that differ from yours.
Anyway, since he is a decent chap, he is not dismayed by one tiny setback and so across town he goes to another employment office. Hey, perhaps he's hit the first guy on a bad day, it can't get worse. His optimism is borne out. The next employment officer is a diamond. He gets a good job starting the next day, the job even involves somewhere to stay until he gets his own place. He sleeps in a motel that night (he isn't totally impoverished, but by no means rich) and turns up the next day for work.
He has a great first day, he enjoys the banter and company of his colleagues, and the work is just hard enough to be interesting, but not so hard as to be oppressive. "Wow I'm lucky" he thinks to himself. He is a devout chap though, and after a couple of months, where he has been praying on the job as unobtrusively as possible, after all he wants to show he can work before making requests, he asks his boss if he can take some time off for a religious festival. His boss replies that he can't take any time off because it's a busy time and it's incovenient. His role as a worker is more important than his role as a believer. He's disappointed, but he makes no complaint, just continues. He notices though that around easter time, work ceases for everyone in the workplace. He also notices that work is just as busy as it was when he asked for time off for his religious festival. He brings this up to his manager as a rather unfair practice and recieves the answer "This is our white christian country, you do things our white christian way". He wonders if this is just, and decides to ask an employment lawyer if he can work over easter, which isn't important to him, but not work over ramadan which is important to him. The lawyer replies the same way the manager does, so our curious immigrant (a good and diligent member of the community remember) decides to ask further afield. He writes to his governor, same answer. He writes to his senator, same answer. He writes to a supreme court judge mentioning he remembers from the constitution something about free practice of religion. By this time, his name is in the system.
As he hasn't given up his religion and cultural values of hard work and tolerance for the dominant cultural views in the USA of PaleyWorld he is presented with a nice dilemma. He is accused of loving to bitch about our country and in no way wishes to lie by admit that their native cultures are so dysfunctional that they couldn't be paid to live there or leave. What is wrong with his culture? Has he not worked hard? Has he not swallowed his pride in the face of racist abuse? Has he not done his best to fit in? All he wants to do is take religious holidays when they are relevant to his religion, but since the PaleyActs of the early 21st century (should that be 14th century he wonders) as he is an immigrant of a different culture and religion to the majority, he is not entitled to the same representation as a white christian native born American. He doesn't want to work less (in fact in terms of his company he is doing them a favour, keeping productivity up at a time of year when productivity is normally low), he just wants to take holidays at a time consonent with his beliefs. He has been in the country 2 years by this point, and is offered a choice by his immigrant management officer, assigned to him by the police who were called by the supreme court judge: leave with a $10000 cheque and return to his war torn former home, or be silent about his desire to have holidays at times relevant to his religion. Abandon his faith or abandon his hope of a better life in the USA. Disappointed he turns away from what he considered to be the promised land, a land he thought he could find tolerance and respect for his actions in, not judgement based solely on his cultural differences from the herd. Having been accused of the immigration status altering crime of "bitching about our country" he returns to his home nation.
The home nation welcomes him with open arms, but sadly as his native culture is so dysfunctional that he couldn't be paid to live there, the cure for a heinous disease caused by an overactive bile duct he was working on doesn't materialise as soon as hoped. He dies before his work is realised, ironically President Paley, the instigator of the PaleyActs which encouraged him to abandon his desire to take holiday at a culturally suitable time and return to his native land disgusted at the illogical bigotry of America, dies of the self same disease this Nobel laureate emigrated to cure.
Ok, so this is facecious and over simplified, but that's the entire point. Your views on immigration are vastly oversimplified by virtue of the fact of your racism. You are treating individuals as representatives of a culture rather than as people possessing a specific cultural heritage. You're buying the "fear the immigrants and their different ways" line of racist demagogues. Your "my way or the highway" view of cultural differences is utterly asinine, extreme mutliculturalism is a strawman erected by racists like you to knock down. A strawman raised only to disguise your fear of cultural change, and your prejudices against people of different races and cultures.
It's also MASSIVELY ironic given that you are at least partially not a Native American, I seem to remember some claim that you are partially NA. You don't like THIS wave of immigrants but ignore the fact that at least part of your personal heritage, and indeed the massive majority of American people's heritage is that of immigrants. Your culture, your democracy, your secular state borrowed whole cloth from the European Enlightenment and Renaissance, the very concepts themselves predating christianity and an America. You are quibbling about a minor historical insignificance, a matter of whether your family were here this century or last. The self same arguments were raised about the Jewish people, the Irish, the Africans. "They're too culturally different", "They have to accept our values or leave" etc etc have ALL been heard before, and ALL were wrong before.
As usual you are focussing on the minor differences at the expense of the massive similarities. Strangers having sex in toilets (a reference to homosexual cottaging I assume, although correct me if wrong), gang culture, murder, rape, crime, religious intolerance ALL existed before immigration, before multiculturalism, before tolerant secular democracies. You are advocating a return to the 18th century, perhaps because you've chosen the name Ghot of Paley, you've chosen the cultural values of his time. Another irony is that it is YOU who is advocating a set of cultural values at odds with modern, western values. Of course some immigrants do to, but then I expect someone like you, who has grown up with the advantages of a western upbringing you value so highly to demonstrate a greater degree of thinking ability than your stereotypical west hating savage. I wonder why you don't?
Nobody is denying that some compromise must be made in the social contract between individual and state, sometimes those compromises go both ways. People have to modify their individual freedoms in accordance with the democratically decided on norms, that applies to immigrants equally as to natives. Sacrificing babies to JuJu every third full moon is not going to be a popular import! Not accepting whole cloth the values of your narrow cultural views is not like sacrificing babies to JuJu.
The very foundation of the USA supports the right of a citizen, immigrant or otherwise, to dissent. To burn the flag, hate the white guy and to spout vile imprecations. Just as it protects people saying flag buring is evil, hating the black guy and spouting equally vile imprecations. I don't like it any more than you do, but the difference is I've read a book or two and you are a shit ignorant googletrawling racist. I know that centuries of racist and exclusionary politics have not worked. I know that some of the policies we enact now are racist, and will do us damage. I know that whatever totalitarian attempt at censorship we make it will never work, they've all been tried before and all have failed. I know that airing unpleasant views, unpleasant deeds, examining them, arguing with them, showing how false they are is how to combat them. It's worked every time. Incidentally this is why I want you banned from this forum, because your very dishonesty hinders that process. I don't expect your puerile little mind to even grasp that concept. Like I said, you are homourless scum.
For you love freedom so much, you want it just for people who agree with you.
Louis
P.S. "forced". How is coercing people into a choice between on the one hand denying their culture and values utterly and accepting your own, accepting a system in which prejudice and bigotry are unfettered thus at least potentially denying them opportunity, and on the other hand asking them to leave the country not force? Just because there are no guns involved doesn't mean it isn't forced. Yet another of your semantic quibbles shown up for the obfuscatory lie it is. Nice try scum, but you're fighting a battle of wits and you are unarmed.
-------------- Bye.
|