 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
....
> In, this and several other post by you, you mention the immigrants as a
> problem. There is no counter post that shows interest in or friendship
> for them. In view of the discussion I though it useful to point out that
> this is exactly why immigrants don't feel welcome. It was not meant as a
> personal attack, merely as as meta-observation.
Although not specifically a "counter post", I did, in my reply, state
specifically that racism is destructive and irrational. Your general point,
however, that immigrants receive too little in the way of specific welcome and
acceptance, I grant as correct. I thank you for suggesting (by implication) a
specific constructive action that an individual might take in opposition to
racism.
For the record, to anyone who has recently immigrated to my country (the U.S):
Welcome.
Also for the record, to any and all who insist on saying: "I'm not a racist, I
just don't like immigrants.":
Oh Puhleeeeeeeeeeeez! Who do you think you're kidding?
Best Regards,
Mike C.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Also for the record, to any and all who insist on saying: "I'm not a racist, I
> just don't like immigrants.":
> Oh Puhleeeeeeeeeeeez! Who do you think you're kidding?
That should, of course, be: WHOM do you think you're kidding?
(grins with embarrassment)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> I answered a question in a reply to you that was intended for me. After
> that I answered a question to you that belonged in another subthread. I
> see no reason for confusion ;)
> Ah a proof by reductio ad absurdum, conclusion: Dutch papers are
> different from Swedish.
> So all losers go to Scandinavia and we keep the slightly better lot,
> interesting.
As always, there just is no discussing with you. So I'll stop.
Conversation implies trying to understand what the other is saying,
not trying to constantly undermine every single point he is presenting.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike the Elder <zer### [at] wyanorg> wrote:
> Also for the record, to any and all who insist on saying: "I'm not a racist, I
> just don't like immigrants.":
> Oh Puhleeeeeeeeeeeez! Who do you think you're kidding?
That's exactly the multiculturalist brainwashing: Criticizing immigration
and immigration policies always implies racism. It's simply impossible for
someone to not to be racist and criticize immigration at the same time.
Anyone who is not racist must have a completely positive attitude towards
immigration.
It's a strong weapon at shutting up people, really. They have successfully
implanted the notion that criticizing immigration and/or immigration policies
is racism. Nobody wants to be racist. Thus nobody dares to criticize anything
related to immigration, not even in their minds.
Why is it so hard to accept the notion that racism and immigration
critique don't necessarily have to go hand in hand? Why is it so hard to
accept the notion that someone can be completely non-racist, and still
criticize immigration policies? Is it really so hard to even consider the
possibility that automatically equalling immigration critique with racism
is just false propaganda?
I am not a racist. I don't even oppose immigration. I welcome immigration.
The kind of immigration which makes the society better for all, the people
of the country and the immigrants themselves.
I oppose immigration policies which result in segregation and animosity
between groups. Careless immigration policies just do that, and the worst
thing is that the people who pass those immigration policies can't see it.
The worst thing is that people refuse to see it. They just close their
eyes and ears and repeat the mantra that everything is well. They repeat
all the mantras taught to them by the multiculturalist fanatics: There is
no problem. The only problem is that western white males are racist.
But hey. Don't listen to me. After all, I oppose immigration and ergo
I'm automatically a racist, and nobody wants to listen to racist people.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
>> I answered a question in a reply to you that was intended for me. After
>> that I answered a question to you that belonged in another subthread. I
>> see no reason for confusion ;)
>
>> Ah a proof by reductio ad absurdum, conclusion: Dutch papers are
>> different from Swedish.
>
>> So all losers go to Scandinavia and we keep the slightly better lot,
>> interesting.
>
> As always, there just is no discussing with you. So I'll stop.
>
> Conversation implies trying to understand what the other is saying,
> not trying to constantly undermine every single point he is presenting.
>
The first citation has a ;), the other don't. And there is a reason for
that, viz. that I mean it. It might really be possible that the asylum
seekers and economic migrants that go to Scandinavia have a different
composition. It might also be very possible that for some reason the
papers in Sweden present their analysis different from the Dutch. So we
end up here with the funny situation that I acknowledge your point and
you think that I try to 'undermine every single point' you make.
Interesting (note the absent emoticon).
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> So we
> end up here with the funny situation that I acknowledge your point and
> you think that I try to 'undermine every single point' you make.
And then people accuse me of posting obscure posts which can be (perhaps
intentionally) easily misinterpreted.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Mike the Elder <zer### [at] wyanorg> wrote:
>> Also for the record, to any and all who insist on saying: "I'm not a racist, I
>> just don't like immigrants.":
>> Oh Puhleeeeeeeeeeeez! Who do you think you're kidding?
>
> That's exactly the multiculturalist brainwashing: Criticizing immigration
> and immigration policies always implies racism. It's simply impossible for
> someone to not to be racist and criticize immigration at the same time.
> Anyone who is not racist must have a completely positive attitude towards
> immigration.
>
> It's a strong weapon at shutting up people, really. They have successfully
> implanted the notion that criticizing immigration and/or immigration policies
> is racism. Nobody wants to be racist. Thus nobody dares to criticize anything
> related to immigration, not even in their minds.
>
> Why is it so hard to accept the notion that racism and immigration
> critique don't necessarily have to go hand in hand? Why is it so hard to
> accept the notion that someone can be completely non-racist, and still
> criticize immigration policies? Is it really so hard to even consider the
> possibility that automatically equalling immigration critique with racism
> is just false propaganda?
>
> I am not a racist. I don't even oppose immigration. I welcome immigration.
> The kind of immigration which makes the society better for all, the people
> of the country and the immigrants themselves.
>
> I oppose immigration policies which result in segregation and animosity
> between groups. Careless immigration policies just do that, and the worst
> thing is that the people who pass those immigration policies can't see it.
> The worst thing is that people refuse to see it. They just close their
> eyes and ears and repeat the mantra that everything is well. They repeat
> all the mantras taught to them by the multiculturalist fanatics: There is
> no problem. The only problem is that western white males are racist.
>
> But hey. Don't listen to me. After all, I oppose immigration and ergo
> I'm automatically a racist, and nobody wants to listen to racist people.
>
I am afraid that if anyone says he is against immigration without any
nuances, the valid conclusion is that he is a racist* simply because he
is treating people not as individuals but as members of a group. The
problem is of course that the situation is much too complicated to talk
about 'immigration' as if that is a single problem. You do understand
that but you still keep repeating one-liners that suggest otherwise.
Thereby you put yourself in a vulnerable position as people tend to read
and remember only the one-liners.
My advice would be to not bluntly say that you are against immigration,
but always acknowledge that there are also genuine asylum seekers who
have to fear for their lives in their homeland. And that there is a
difference in integration problems in Finland for Russians versus Swedes
versus various western european countries versus for instance the Iraqi
and Afghani. Not to mention the Christian Iraqi versus the Muslim Iraqi
versus the Kurdish Iraqi.
That leaves open the question on how to put that in a few lines to make
your position clear. To which my honest answer is: I don't know.
* racism being used as a shorthand for discrimination based on race,
colour, faith, gender, sexual preference etc.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
andrel <a_l### [at] hotmailcom> wrote:
> * racism being used as a shorthand for discrimination based on race,
> colour, faith, gender, sexual preference etc.
I have never understood why the word "racism" needs to be expanded
beyond its original meaning to mean basically any form of discrimination
or even aversion.
It's a weasel word similar to "terrorism" and "pedophilia". Accurate
definition be damned, let's generalize it, blur its meaning and use it
as a loaded word for political or other reasons.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Mike the Elder <zer### [at] wyanorg> wrote:
>> Also for the record, to any and all who insist on saying: "I'm not a racist, I
>> just don't like immigrants.":
>> Oh Puhleeeeeeeeeeeez! Who do you think you're kidding?
>
> That's exactly the multiculturalist brainwashing: Criticizing immigration
> and immigration policies always implies racism. It's simply impossible for
Mike was not referring to those who criticize immigration or its
policies. You're addressing something Mike did not imply.
--
Aim Low, Reach Your Goals, Avoid Disappointment.
/\ /\ /\ /
/ \/ \ u e e n / \/ a w a z
>>>>>>mue### [at] nawazorg<<<<<<
anl
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mueen Nawaz wrote:
> Community service may be good. Are the training courses what's worrying
> you?
Both worry me. The community service may differ from the training
courses in name only. "Your community service will consist of meeting
with group X and hearing about the xenophobia they've suffered."
In any event, legitimate governments do not punish opinions or the
expression of opinions.
Furthermore, this law will be selectively enforced. The history of
restrictions on free speech give no example of such a law that was
uniformly enforced whether A slandered B or B slandered A; the
government has always taken sides, acting on one group's complaints no
matter how ludicrous they were, and turning a deaf ear to the grievances
of the other.
The groups with friends in Europe's government will use this law to
suppress any statement with which they disagree. They will claim that
their racial, ethnic, or religious group was slandered by the statement.
If the government wants to curry their favor or avoid their disfavor,
it will not bother to check if the claim has any real basis in fact, nor
will it relent if the statement is objectively true.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
