6 ms·

At the risk of being downvoted to oblivion, it's simply not possible to maintain a first world civilisation with third world people. Instead of allowing immigr

At the risk of being downvoted to oblivion, it's simply not possible to maintain a first world civilisation with third world people. Instead of allowing immigration and destroying western society why don't we just stop bombing these peoples homes so they don't need to move to start with?

te_chris 8y ago
You deserve to be downvoted to oblivion because your comment is racist nonsense which multiple countries the world over can discredit.
- Rjevski 8y ago
  Where did he mention races? He mentioned third-world people (more specifically their cultures), irrespective of races. Racism is a real problem but bringing it up all the time doesn't solve anything and actually discredits arguments against real racism.
  - brailsafe 8y ago
    I agree, but he didn't specify cultures.
  - te_chris 8y ago
    You’re going to have to explain to me how denying obvious racism doesn’t discredit ‘real’ racism.
    - Rjevski 8y ago
      I don't consider cultures nor religions as races, simple as that. The original comment didn't mention any races, so I interpret his "third-world people" as meaning those people's cultures instead of their skin color.
      - te_chris 8y ago
        How convenient that you get to minimise these people’s lives and experiences in order to make your own more simple, colour-blind
- classicsnoot 8y ago
  And yet you decided not to list any of those countries and instead called the poster racist. I'm not saying you are wrong about there being some definite examples that support your position, but do you think there may also be some counter examples that go against it? Which side, your argument or the opposite, has the preponderance of evidence? This is how an honest and productive argument should proceed: assertion(s) is made, rebuttal is introduced with supporting evidence, back and forth commences until no new evidence can be introduced, contenders stop posting, posterity decides. But that is too dangerous, isn't it? There is always the chance that the unthinkable might just end up being the most plausible. And whenever the status quo is predicated on perfection of specific perception there is no benefit to be gained by entertaining forbidden notions. Because you declined to suppor your own argument coupled with the personal attack ("racist" should be a technical description but thanks to comments like yours that ship has sailed), you have surrendered any technical moral high ground for a breastworks of Virtue Signaling that seems tactically sound at the moment. Pray to the gods you may have abandoned that your enemy doesn't discover ideological "tracked vehicles" before your team does.
Traubenfuchs 8y ago
Your first sentence is completely correct. Immigration that does not benefit us needs to be prevented.
ddnb 8y ago
Are you trying to say the place of birth somehow decides what capabilities you are born with as a human being? Are you saying people born in third world countries are different than people born in first world countries? Because that seems to me to be absolutely ridiculous.
- Rjevski 8y ago
  The people, no. The cultures? I believe so. If you're taught your entire life that X is completely acceptable, and you arrive as an immigrant and don't want to adapt your beliefs/values to your new country's then it is a problem. Replace X with anything that you would find inappropriate in your current country - forced marriages, India's caste system, etc and I think you'll see what I mean.
- BigJono 8y ago
  I didn't get that from his comment at all. Sounds like you're conjuring up a straw man here. 30,000 babies and 30,000 adults with a lifetime of experiences are two very different things. It's perfectly possible to believe that immigrants from heavily-Muslim countries cannot realistically integrate with first world societies without believing racist rubbish like genetic inferiority.
  - foldr 8y ago
    >It's perfectly possible to believe that immigrants from heavily-Muslim countries cannot realistically integrate with first world societies without believing racist rubbish like genetic inferiority. I don't see how it would be possible to believe this at all, given the abundant examples to the contrary.
    - supreme_sublime 8y ago
      Unfortunately there might be an argument for some form of genetic inferiority. Considering how many first cousin marriages there are in certain Muslim communities. [0] >Although British parents of Pakistani origin account for 3.4 per cent of all births nationwide, they also account for around 30 per cent of children born with recessive gene disorders. I'm not really a fan of government force, and don't really care who other people marry, but this is obviously a problem. The risks associated with inbreeding (especially over many generations) are pretty well known. [0] - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/4014743/Warning-over-births-to-first-cousin-marriages.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/4014743/Warn...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
minipci1321 8y ago
Possible, just costly. Seems for the moment people are not ready to agree to pay the expenses. Funny how everybody seem to ignore your second point -- about bombing.
eecc 8y ago
Several "Third World" cultures were doing pretty well and would be still be faring fine if the "First World" hadn't depredated them over the course of the last couple centuries. It's pretty arrogant - colonial - to assume that societies must resemble our own to be credibly successful.
drukenemo 8y ago
Such a simplistic view. No one is bombing Mexico, for example. Illegal immigration in Europe has been often attributed to economic migrants, not refugees.
sctb 8y ago
Please stop trolling. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

te_chris 8y ago

You deserve to be downvoted to oblivion because your comment is racist nonsense which multiple countries the world over can discredit.

Rjevski 8y ago
Where did he mention races? He mentioned third-world people (more specifically their cultures), irrespective of races. Racism is a real problem but bringing it up all the time doesn't solve anything and actually discredits arguments against real racism.
- brailsafe 8y ago
  I agree, but he didn't specify cultures.
- te_chris 8y ago
  You’re going to have to explain to me how denying obvious racism doesn’t discredit ‘real’ racism.
  - Rjevski 8y ago
    I don't consider cultures nor religions as races, simple as that. The original comment didn't mention any races, so I interpret his "third-world people" as meaning those people's cultures instead of their skin color.
    - te_chris 8y ago
      How convenient that you get to minimise these people’s lives and experiences in order to make your own more simple, colour-blind
classicsnoot 8y ago
And yet you decided not to list any of those countries and instead called the poster racist. I'm not saying you are wrong about there being some definite examples that support your position, but do you think there may also be some counter examples that go against it? Which side, your argument or the opposite, has the preponderance of evidence? This is how an honest and productive argument should proceed: assertion(s) is made, rebuttal is introduced with supporting evidence, back and forth commences until no new evidence can be introduced, contenders stop posting, posterity decides. But that is too dangerous, isn't it? There is always the chance that the unthinkable might just end up being the most plausible. And whenever the status quo is predicated on perfection of specific perception there is no benefit to be gained by entertaining forbidden notions. Because you declined to suppor your own argument coupled with the personal attack ("racist" should be a technical description but thanks to comments like yours that ship has sailed), you have surrendered any technical moral high ground for a breastworks of Virtue Signaling that seems tactically sound at the moment. Pray to the gods you may have abandoned that your enemy doesn't discover ideological "tracked vehicles" before your team does.

Traubenfuchs 8y ago

Your first sentence is completely correct. Immigration that does not benefit us needs to be prevented.

ddnb 8y ago

Are you trying to say the place of birth somehow decides what capabilities you are born with as a human being? Are you saying people born in third world countries are different than people born in first world countries? Because that seems to me to be absolutely ridiculous.

Rjevski 8y ago
The people, no. The cultures? I believe so. If you're taught your entire life that X is completely acceptable, and you arrive as an immigrant and don't want to adapt your beliefs/values to your new country's then it is a problem. Replace X with anything that you would find inappropriate in your current country - forced marriages, India's caste system, etc and I think you'll see what I mean.
BigJono 8y ago
I didn't get that from his comment at all. Sounds like you're conjuring up a straw man here. 30,000 babies and 30,000 adults with a lifetime of experiences are two very different things. It's perfectly possible to believe that immigrants from heavily-Muslim countries cannot realistically integrate with first world societies without believing racist rubbish like genetic inferiority.
- foldr 8y ago
  >It's perfectly possible to believe that immigrants from heavily-Muslim countries cannot realistically integrate with first world societies without believing racist rubbish like genetic inferiority. I don't see how it would be possible to believe this at all, given the abundant examples to the contrary.
  - supreme_sublime 8y ago
    Unfortunately there might be an argument for some form of genetic inferiority. Considering how many first cousin marriages there are in certain Muslim communities. [0] >Although British parents of Pakistani origin account for 3.4 per cent of all births nationwide, they also account for around 30 per cent of children born with recessive gene disorders. I'm not really a fan of government force, and don't really care who other people marry, but this is obviously a problem. The risks associated with inbreeding (especially over many generations) are pretty well known. [0] - https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/4014743/Warning-over-births-to-first-cousin-marriages.html https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mother-tongue/4014743/Warn...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

minipci1321 8y ago

Possible, just costly. Seems for the moment people are not ready to agree to pay the expenses. Funny how everybody seem to ignore your second point -- about bombing.

eecc 8y ago

Several "Third World" cultures were doing pretty well and would be still be faring fine if the "First World" hadn't depredated them over the course of the last couple centuries. It's pretty arrogant - colonial - to assume that societies must resemble our own to be credibly successful.

drukenemo 8y ago

Such a simplistic view. No one is bombing Mexico, for example. Illegal immigration in Europe has been often attributed to economic migrants, not refugees.

sctb 8y ago

Please stop trolling. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html