4 ms·

I agree that we should ban whites from this country, since they commit the vast majority of murders here in America. So many innocent lives have been lost to w

I agree that we should ban whites from this country, since they commit the vast majority of murders here in America. So many innocent lives have been lost to white murderers that own guns. I mean, if we're going to be bigoted and ascribe negative traits to entire groups based on the actions of a few, shouldn't we do that to protect our safety by ascribing whites as murderers based on them committing the vast majority of the 17,000 murders that happen in our country every year? America needs to defend themselves against whites, who are placing carnage into our peaceful country with their murderous ways. If whites can't find a way to make peaceful journey in the world, then they have to go. Moderate whites need to step up and completely denounce their violent sub-groups. COMPLETELY DENOUNCE -- not quietly bolster or nod knowingly to. (this is how bigotry works, and remember, it can go both ways. Do you want this kind of bigotry to happen to whites? I get that it's hard to not be bigoted when it's so much easier mentally to associate a race with the actions of a few, but that's what it takes to be smart- you have to actually think instead of being mentally lazy) Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/385/ https://xkcd.com/385/

jakeogh 10y ago
Why equate an ideology to skin color?
- grzm 10y ago
  I think the point is comparing stats of violence across demographics in the US, in particular comparing Muslims with other groups. Replacing whites with Christians will likely provide similar results for stats within the United States. I think it's reasonable to compare threats if that's a motivating criteria for supporting the ban. There are a lot of orthogonal issues involved in the discussion of immigration, its effects on society, violence, identifying direct and indirect causes. And they touch on a lot of sensitive topics. So much of the discussion gets politicized and shrill. It's difficult to trust each other enough to have the nuanced discussion that's required. Look at the language being used in this thread. Are people legitimately trying to understand each other? Or telling each other what the truth is? How subtle are the points being made? How much of it is expressed in absolute, general terms? 'battlebot is claiming that Islam, a violent ideology, is harming American citizens, and that there have been many attacks, and that they're fine with the Muslim ban. 'mozumber is claiming that most violent attacks in the US are perpetrated by white gun owners. 'jakeogh (you) are claiming further upthread it's not a Muslim ban 'lifeformed is claiming it's a crypto Muslim ban Trump is trying to slip in. One could roughly put the four of you into two groups in terms of who each is arguing against (note, not who they agree with) Yet I really don't see any of you talking with each other, trying to find some understanding of each other, if not agreement. There doesn't appear to be any faith that the others may actually be rational people who have different values and reasons for their positions, even if they don't agree. No attempt to honestly understand another's position. And I'm probably misunderstanding all of you, to boot!
- mozumder 10y ago
  Because actions happen on individual people, and not on an ideology.
  - jakeogh 10y ago
    Opposing an ideology necessary involves individuals. Pretending it's skin color that motivates this will continue to result in endless defeats on the 'everyone is welcome' side you appear to be trying to defend.

jakeogh 10y ago

Why equate an ideology to skin color?

grzm 10y ago
I think the point is comparing stats of violence across demographics in the US, in particular comparing Muslims with other groups. Replacing whites with Christians will likely provide similar results for stats within the United States. I think it's reasonable to compare threats if that's a motivating criteria for supporting the ban. There are a lot of orthogonal issues involved in the discussion of immigration, its effects on society, violence, identifying direct and indirect causes. And they touch on a lot of sensitive topics. So much of the discussion gets politicized and shrill. It's difficult to trust each other enough to have the nuanced discussion that's required. Look at the language being used in this thread. Are people legitimately trying to understand each other? Or telling each other what the truth is? How subtle are the points being made? How much of it is expressed in absolute, general terms? 'battlebot is claiming that Islam, a violent ideology, is harming American citizens, and that there have been many attacks, and that they're fine with the Muslim ban. 'mozumber is claiming that most violent attacks in the US are perpetrated by white gun owners. 'jakeogh (you) are claiming further upthread it's not a Muslim ban 'lifeformed is claiming it's a crypto Muslim ban Trump is trying to slip in. One could roughly put the four of you into two groups in terms of who each is arguing against (note, not who they agree with) Yet I really don't see any of you talking with each other, trying to find some understanding of each other, if not agreement. There doesn't appear to be any faith that the others may actually be rational people who have different values and reasons for their positions, even if they don't agree. No attempt to honestly understand another's position. And I'm probably misunderstanding all of you, to boot!
mozumder 10y ago
Because actions happen on individual people, and not on an ideology.
- jakeogh 10y ago
  Opposing an ideology necessary involves individuals. Pretending it's skin color that motivates this will continue to result in endless defeats on the 'everyone is welcome' side you appear to be trying to defend.