3 ms·

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

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?

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?