4 ms·

>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 understandin

by 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.

dragontamer 9y ago
> What matters is that people in general are biased. It is unreasonable to anticipate that they will act otherwise. Do you agree with that? Yes. So whenever people start discussing policies which benefit one race over another, I give them the finger. Whether they're "Black Power" or "White Supremacists", its all the same to me. Unfair advantages towards one race will always be met with skepticism from me. I'm not an idiot. There will always be selfish people who want to advance their own race above all others. And my response to them, whether they're Black, White, Yellow, Brown, Red or Purple, is the same. A giant middle finger. My political aim is for equality for all. > 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? Of course. The world isn't perfect, and I don't expect perfect policy decisions to be made all the time. Take for example the current opioid epidemic. By and large, Opioid deaths have shown a great correlation to rural white women deaths. So any Opioid related legislation will naturally benefit rural white women more than other races and subgroups. (See here: https://wire.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/women-bear-greater-burden-opioid-epidemic https://wire.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/women-bear-greater...) However, the Opioid epidemic affects us all. So I would support any fair legislation that deals with Opioids across the country (even if disproportionally, rural white women would get the primary benefit). So even if "one race" or subgroup gets an unbalanced benefit (and in this case rural white women), the general cause of destroying the Opioid epidemic is a cause I can rally behind. Some issues affect us all, even if they affect some of us unequally. And that's where the power of fair governance comes into play. Problems in our culture generally for some reason only plague one race or subculture at a time. Its the result of an imperfect world. So I understand that. > I certainly haven't given you any reason to believe I care about the dominance of my race above all else. "Stop the tide of changing racial demographics." You said it, not me. You said the wall is a racial issue. Fundamentally, the wall is an immigration issue, but YOU chose to turn it into a racial issue. At a certain point, when someone quacks like a white-supremacist, I start to think they're a white-supremacist. A typical conservative would have kept the discussion racially neutral, but YOU chose to turn it into a race issue. If you want me to think of you differently, choose your words more wisely.
- seabta 9y ago
  Your solipsism is preventing you from understanding my point. It does not matter what policies you support. It does not matter who you give a middle finger to. You are not the supreme emperor. What you support does not become law. Laws come about through a process involving great numbers of humans who are acting as a consequence of their biases. >The world isn't perfect, and I don't expect perfect policy decisions to be made all the time. That's, again, not the point. The point is that policy decisions which affect all races equally are not available in many cases, no matter who you give the finger to. >And that's where the power of fair governance comes into play. What power? Who decides what constitutes fair governance? Who makes sure fair governance is what happens? Please do not reply by saying you give a middle finger to everyone who doesn't support fair governance. That is not an answer. >You said the wall is a racial issue It's an issue which affects the racial demographics of the United States, which over the past 50 years have been changing dramatically. Those are not controversial facts. This discussion has been racial since the comment I initially replied to which suggested Donald Trump has a "solid pulse on scared white men".
  - dragontamer 9y ago
    > What power? Who decides what constitutes fair governance? This is a democracy. You and I do. The only question therefore, is if you support policies that I support. If you do not, then we do not work together and instead we work against each other in the system that has been created. Just as "Black Power" advocates get a say, you and I get a say in the governance system of this country. As do "White Supremacists". But MY ideal is a system where no race is superior to any other race. That's really all I'm trying to convince you of, that working on the ideal of equality for all is worth fighting for. > It's an issue which affects the racial demographics of the United States, which over the past 50 years have been changing dramatically. I can tell you aren't an idiot either. But come on, I know what you're going for. > This discussion has been racial since the comment I initially replied to which suggested Donald Trump has a "solid pulse on scared white men". Well congrats then, you've been played and trolled. Some would call this effect "getting triggered". And you've continued to keep it racial instead of diverting it to more important, universal issues. For example, when I discuss the wall its typically about immigration policy, the needs of the labor force, and projections of the number of jobs we need. "Racial Demographics" is very, very, very low on the list of shit I care about. I don't see why anyone should give an F about a 45% White population vs a 55% white population. But maybe you can explain to me why this is an important issue for you? Or is that REALLY what you want to be talking about? ----------------------- Look, I understand the cause of propagating a US Culture where people speak English. I'm actually more conservative on this issue than most people are. For example: there are plenty of examples of non-English speaking people getting in trouble in the local Bay in my State. Locals have issues communicating with them that a storm is coming in, and next thing we know, a few non-English speakers are lost in the stormy waters. So I do have a belief that standardizing on English speaking in this country would be beneficial, especially in local / rural areas where its impossible to find a translator. There are truly cultural issues at hand to talk about that can benefit society as a whole. --------------- Now that I've given you an example of my perspective, I expect you to be able to "sell" this "protecting racial demographics" thing to me. What the hell are you talking about?

by seabta 9y ago

dragontamer 9y ago

> What matters is that people in general are biased. It is unreasonable to anticipate that they will act otherwise. Do you agree with that? Yes. So whenever people start discussing policies which benefit one race over another, I give them the finger. Whether they're "Black Power" or "White Supremacists", its all the same to me. Unfair advantages towards one race will always be met with skepticism from me. I'm not an idiot. There will always be selfish people who want to advance their own race above all others. And my response to them, whether they're Black, White, Yellow, Brown, Red or Purple, is the same. A giant middle finger. My political aim is for equality for all. > 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? Of course. The world isn't perfect, and I don't expect perfect policy decisions to be made all the time. Take for example the current opioid epidemic. By and large, Opioid deaths have shown a great correlation to rural white women deaths. So any Opioid related legislation will naturally benefit rural white women more than other races and subgroups. (See here: https://wire.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/women-bear-greater-burden-opioid-epidemic https://wire.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/women-bear-greater...) However, the Opioid epidemic affects us all. So I would support any fair legislation that deals with Opioids across the country (even if disproportionally, rural white women would get the primary benefit). So even if "one race" or subgroup gets an unbalanced benefit (and in this case rural white women), the general cause of destroying the Opioid epidemic is a cause I can rally behind. Some issues affect us all, even if they affect some of us unequally. And that's where the power of fair governance comes into play. Problems in our culture generally for some reason only plague one race or subculture at a time. Its the result of an imperfect world. So I understand that. > I certainly haven't given you any reason to believe I care about the dominance of my race above all else. "Stop the tide of changing racial demographics." You said it, not me. You said the wall is a racial issue. Fundamentally, the wall is an immigration issue, but YOU chose to turn it into a racial issue. At a certain point, when someone quacks like a white-supremacist, I start to think they're a white-supremacist. A typical conservative would have kept the discussion racially neutral, but YOU chose to turn it into a race issue. If you want me to think of you differently, choose your words more wisely.

seabta 9y ago
Your solipsism is preventing you from understanding my point. It does not matter what policies you support. It does not matter who you give a middle finger to. You are not the supreme emperor. What you support does not become law. Laws come about through a process involving great numbers of humans who are acting as a consequence of their biases. >The world isn't perfect, and I don't expect perfect policy decisions to be made all the time. That's, again, not the point. The point is that policy decisions which affect all races equally are not available in many cases, no matter who you give the finger to. >And that's where the power of fair governance comes into play. What power? Who decides what constitutes fair governance? Who makes sure fair governance is what happens? Please do not reply by saying you give a middle finger to everyone who doesn't support fair governance. That is not an answer. >You said the wall is a racial issue It's an issue which affects the racial demographics of the United States, which over the past 50 years have been changing dramatically. Those are not controversial facts. This discussion has been racial since the comment I initially replied to which suggested Donald Trump has a "solid pulse on scared white men".
- dragontamer 9y ago
  > What power? Who decides what constitutes fair governance? This is a democracy. You and I do. The only question therefore, is if you support policies that I support. If you do not, then we do not work together and instead we work against each other in the system that has been created. Just as "Black Power" advocates get a say, you and I get a say in the governance system of this country. As do "White Supremacists". But MY ideal is a system where no race is superior to any other race. That's really all I'm trying to convince you of, that working on the ideal of equality for all is worth fighting for. > It's an issue which affects the racial demographics of the United States, which over the past 50 years have been changing dramatically. I can tell you aren't an idiot either. But come on, I know what you're going for. > This discussion has been racial since the comment I initially replied to which suggested Donald Trump has a "solid pulse on scared white men". Well congrats then, you've been played and trolled. Some would call this effect "getting triggered". And you've continued to keep it racial instead of diverting it to more important, universal issues. For example, when I discuss the wall its typically about immigration policy, the needs of the labor force, and projections of the number of jobs we need. "Racial Demographics" is very, very, very low on the list of shit I care about. I don't see why anyone should give an F about a 45% White population vs a 55% white population. But maybe you can explain to me why this is an important issue for you? Or is that REALLY what you want to be talking about? ----------------------- Look, I understand the cause of propagating a US Culture where people speak English. I'm actually more conservative on this issue than most people are. For example: there are plenty of examples of non-English speaking people getting in trouble in the local Bay in my State. Locals have issues communicating with them that a storm is coming in, and next thing we know, a few non-English speakers are lost in the stormy waters. So I do have a belief that standardizing on English speaking in this country would be beneficial, especially in local / rural areas where its impossible to find a translator. There are truly cultural issues at hand to talk about that can benefit society as a whole. --------------- Now that I've given you an example of my perspective, I expect you to be able to "sell" this "protecting racial demographics" thing to me. What the hell are you talking about?