4 ms·
>I'm generally against rules and regulations where one race benefits over another. Sure, but you don't make the rules. Do you have evidence to suggest everyone
by seabta 9y ago
>I'm generally against rules and regulations where one race benefits over another.
Sure, but you don't make the rules. Do you have evidence to suggest everyone is opposed to such policies? And I don't just mean they say they're opposed to them. I mean they truly oppose them, and that they agree with you on which criteria should be used to determine whether a rule or regulation meets that definition, and that they're totally unbiased in the application of those criteria?
>White nationalists refuse to understand...
They deny the theoretical possibility of such a rule? Or did they deny that the particular rules you discussed fit that description? Or did they deny that such rules were likely to be the only ones produced as a result of other racial groups having more political power, and that the more likely result would be rules which benefit those other racial groups?
>While the counterargument is simply "They took the jobs that no one wants to take",
And the counter-counter-argument is that if wages were not being driven down by immigrants, especially illegal ones who are more likely to hide their income, then the tens of millions of out of work Americans would have an incentive to move to the places where those jobs are available.
>After all, the economy expands...
There is no reason to believe that the benefits of the expanded economy are distributed evenly. There is actually quite a lot of reason to believe those benefits go mostly to people at the top of the income bracket whose wages are not driven down by immigration and whose businesses benefit enormously from the reduced labor costs.
>For whatever reason, white nationalists refuse to believe in...
Why would you expect that path to be the one we go down when every racial group has an incentive to act selfishly? What invisible hand is guiding them to work together for the benefit of all racial groups, rather than focusing their efforts on benefiting at the expense of others? Especially once the low hanging fruit on the latter tree has been picked?
>A wall, deportation-based policy...
The point of the wall and deportations is to stop the tide of changing racial demographics. Control over government authority is a zero sum game. You either win or lose office. Why would white people expect other racial groups not to use that power to further their own racial interests at the expense of white racial interests? Even if they pursue some policies which benefit everyone, why would anyone expect those to be the only policies they pursue?
- dragontamer 9y ago> Control over government authority is a zero sum game. Indeed. But only one side seems to be interested in advancing the "white race". And that's the side I'm interested in making SURE they lose. Note, I'm also against any sides that advance the "black race" above and beyond anything that's fair. (Ex: "Black Power", Racial Quotas, etc. etc.) The political concept here is simply an issue of fairness and race neutrality. The Government should be race neutral and racially blind, and ideally so should society. Let the best man (or woman) win the job, if said human is Black, White, Yellow, Purple, or Red... gay, lesbian, male, female or transgender. If the best people are chosen for each job without any bias, then the USA will be in a far stronger position than any other country in the world. The side that is working on making sure EVERYBODY wins is the side I'm on. What side are YOU on? ------------------- There are certain governmental policies that only benefit the white race. Unfortunately for you, I'm not white. I've got plenty of white friends and I'd hate for them to feel uncomfortable about the future and all, but I'm not going to do anything that benefits white people only. And most of the white people I know don't want an unfair whites-only advantage and/or policies either. I agree that there are proposed policies that do nothing but hamper white people. And said policies (ie: Racial Quotas), are awful and terrible. We don't want to "hurt" anybody in our quest to improve this country. ----------------------- > The point of the wall and deportations is to stop the tide of changing racial demographics. Erm, that's horrifying that you care about dominance of your race above all else and so casually support this idea.
- seabta 9y ago>The side that is working on making sure EVERYBODY wins is the side I'm on. What side are YOU on? I think this gets at the root of what you're not understanding, so I'll just address this. It doesn't matter what side you're on. It doesn't matter what side I'm on. What matters is that people in general are biased. It is unreasonable to anticipate that they will act otherwise. Do you agree with that? There are policy choices which must be made by governments in which there is no option which will result in equal benefit to all races. Indeed, there is no definitive way to even measure that which everyone would agree to. Do you agree with that statement? >Erm, that's horrifying that you care about dominance of your race above all else and so casually support this idea. Please try to stick to the topic at hand. I haven't expressed any preference one way or the other, and I certainly haven't given you any reason to believe I care about the dominance of my race above all else. If you only read what you want to read rather than what's actually written, you're never going to have a productive conversation.