3 ms·

I'm not implying your racist. I suspect you aren't. I'm just pointing out that you don't seem to have a rational reason not to be - your reasoning supports rac

I'm not implying your racist. I suspect you aren't. I'm just pointing out that you don't seem to have a rational reason not to be - your reasoning supports racism just as well as nationalism. This simply means your position is unreasoned - merely a collection of arbitrary views held together by emotion, tribalism, mood affiliation and similar things. That's all. If you dispute this diagnosis, can you state a principled reason to oppose violence against blacks economically competing with whites, but support violence against Indians economically competing with Americans?

raverbashing 10y ago
You're overthinking this. You can argue that the notion of country or state should not exist but that means of organization will happen regardless, with different levels of openness, because people is people and end up in groups. In the end, modern countries that were created because people have affinity with each other have lasted more than in the cases they haven't. Of course it's not rational, because people. And people in one groups will usually favour those in the same group (starting with the family) And in the IT world you'll probably find a lot of Indians that were selected in favour of native US blacks, because of what they know (and how much they charge to employ that knowledge, of course)