2 ms·

Frankly, I no longer have this nagging need to be considered "a good person". I've witnessed too many biases in how people tell good people from bad, they make

Frankly, I no longer have this nagging need to be considered "a good person". I've witnessed too many biases in how people tell good people from bad, they make outright errors, even worse, they refuse to acknowlege their errors, refuse to learn. Now, it's enough for me to bring my point across. > Everything is kind of fine as long as the numbers are small and the places of origin for immigrants are not too outlandish However, a) the numbers of immigrants are huge, and b) places of origin of said immigrants are worrysome. Therefore it seems that your sentiment does not apply. I was content too when numbers were tolerable. That was long past. > "caps or selective admittance or anything else to quickly deal with "mass immigration"," Here you can't see why the problem arose. The need to deal with immigration arose long ago, maybe 15 years ago, maybe 10. Nothing were done by policy makers or "inclusionists" or who you call them. They left doors wide open, even after it was obviously leading to social stress. Fast forward 10 years, they've lost all their cred with me. The time for slow and correct measures was 10 years ago and they weren't implemented. So obviously now I'm pro-quick solutions. And inclusionists can think all they want. They ignored my concerns for too long for me to listen to them now. They rejected dialogue first. They were also calling names like you can't help yourself not to. UPD: "You can be opposed to whatever you like." - people will also vote on referendums and elections whatever they like, don't come worried then.

AnonymousPlanet 10y ago
To be honest, my digressions were so long that, once I reached the topic of immigration, I kind of started glossing over the details. The entire point, however, wasn't to discuss finer points of immigration, but give a bigger picture of the mindsets that are at work here and in other topics. > And inclusionists can think all they want. They ignored my concerns for too long for me to listen to them now. They rejected dialogue first. They were also calling names like you can't help yourself not to. Well, I tried to provide you with a bigger picture, explaining on what grounds dialogue might have been rejected. You asked a general question and I thought you were genuinely interested in talking about the topic on a higher level. But apparently you're just here to go through the same thoughts again and again.
- guard-of-terra 10y ago
  In my opinion, the whole "inclusionist" versus "exclusionist" distinction is much less important compared to "pushes their agenda no matter what" versus "listens to other parties' concerns". So it happens that proponents of mass immigration in power were firmly in the first camp. They shoved immigration down our throats and continue it to that day, and they label anybody who object as various "-ists". That's just not healthy and there will be unavoidable repercussions in the long run. It's much easier to argue policies with people who you previously did not screw other, and that, "screwed over", is what I feel about this situation. In all your claims I can sense the deeply ingrained notion that, no matter what I think, voice or oppose, it's me who will have to cave and make peace on your terms. What's if it's no longer so? What's if it's you who are looking forward to several decades of your valid concerns discarded and ignored? What if wheel has turned?

AnonymousPlanet 10y ago

To be honest, my digressions were so long that, once I reached the topic of immigration, I kind of started glossing over the details. The entire point, however, wasn't to discuss finer points of immigration, but give a bigger picture of the mindsets that are at work here and in other topics. > And inclusionists can think all they want. They ignored my concerns for too long for me to listen to them now. They rejected dialogue first. They were also calling names like you can't help yourself not to. Well, I tried to provide you with a bigger picture, explaining on what grounds dialogue might have been rejected. You asked a general question and I thought you were genuinely interested in talking about the topic on a higher level. But apparently you're just here to go through the same thoughts again and again.

guard-of-terra 10y ago
In my opinion, the whole "inclusionist" versus "exclusionist" distinction is much less important compared to "pushes their agenda no matter what" versus "listens to other parties' concerns". So it happens that proponents of mass immigration in power were firmly in the first camp. They shoved immigration down our throats and continue it to that day, and they label anybody who object as various "-ists". That's just not healthy and there will be unavoidable repercussions in the long run. It's much easier to argue policies with people who you previously did not screw other, and that, "screwed over", is what I feel about this situation. In all your claims I can sense the deeply ingrained notion that, no matter what I think, voice or oppose, it's me who will have to cave and make peace on your terms. What's if it's no longer so? What's if it's you who are looking forward to several decades of your valid concerns discarded and ignored? What if wheel has turned?