SJWists are by no means "decent folks" in my opinion. — Terrapin Station

You were the one to bring up "SJWists", not me. I don't use that silly terminology. I was simply talking about decent folk.

And I have good reason to distrust your opinion.

Glad you agree, but there's nothing in your example that entails racism. — Terrapin Station

Yes, there is, but going back and forth like this wouldn't be productive, so perhaps we should end this discussion.

You were the one to bring up "SJWists", not me. I don't use that silly terminology. I was simply talking about decent folk. — Sapientia

SJWism is what makes such things "racist" etc.

but going back and forth like this wouldn't be productive, so perhaps we should end this discussion. — Sapientia

I don't mind doing it, but if you don't want to continue it, you don't have to respond.

You again? In another thread about racism.

Okay.

Aren't there other forums out there for that?

SJWism is what makes such things "racist" etc. — Terrapin Station

Racism is what makes things racist. I don't care about your views on what you call "SJWism".

Racism is what makes things racist. — Sapientia

That we agree on. And when we find it, we can point it out maybe. In this case, we haven't found it.

That we agree on. And when we find it, we can point it out maybe. In this case, we haven't found it. — Terrapin Station

No, but some of us have found comments which strongly indicate it. Others are in denial.

You again? In another thread about <insert topic that you post about here>.

Okay.

Aren't there other forums out there for that?

You could say that to almost absolutely anyone on absolutely any forum. Why me in particular?

No, but some of us have found comments which strongly indicate it. — Sapientia

Yes, based on SJW-fueled idiocy.

, based on SJW-fueled idiocy — Terrapin Station

Oh, come now. There's no need to call opinions idiotic just because you disagree with them.

You don't post very often, and you've spent much of your time here defending your stance regarding racism. I just find that a bit odd. Perhaps a little suspicious, even.

Mind taking a look at my comments and basing your view on facts like a rational person?

Oh, come now. There's no need to call opinions idiotic just because you disagree with them. — Ovaloid

No disagreement there. But I think there's a need to call them idiotic when they're idiotic.

No disagreement there. But I think there's a need to call them idiotic when they're idiotic. — Terrapin Station

So, you don't disagree with the views but you think they're idiotic. How does that make any sense?

What I quoted from you was this:

"There's no need to call opinions idiotic just because you disagree with them."

I do not disagree with that statement within quotation marks.

What the heck is SJW?

Social Justice Warrior

Mind taking a look at my comments and basing your view on facts like a rational person? — Ovaloid

I have already done so. Out of a current total of 42 comments, many of them involve you defending your stance regarding racism. But I'm not willing to count them all.

I thought you meant since I came back

I thought you meant since I came back. — Ovaloid

Since you came back three days ago, eight out of twelve comments have been related to racism or related to talking about racism.

Maybe not eight, actually. Maybe I was thinking about eight out of ten cats, which is a reference you might not get without looking it up unless you're British.

Yeah, and I know Willow will be the PC Gestapo officer who arrests me.

Fuck Breitbart, though.

Look at the brief list I provided of things Israelis can be proud of and then note the distinct absence of and even hostility toward them in Palestine.

Take a gander at how Israel treats refugees and migrants, especially from African countries. It's a complete breakdown of Israel's supposedly "democratic" justice system. — Heister Eggcart

These refugees have chosen Israel for a reason, presumably, and it wasn't because they felt they would be living in worse conditions compared to where they came from. It's hard to have high standards, because it can be difficult to live up to them. However, it is better to live in a society in which the expectation is that they will be lived up to and where the failure to do so produces shame and political opposition than one in which such standards are rejected, as one sees in the neighboring countries these migrants didn't choose to come to.

Israel is the only one? — Heister Eggcart

Yep.

Rogue states like Iran? What does that even mean? The only part of the Israeli military that concerns itself with Iran directly is information and investigation. If by Israel's "military bulwark" you mean "we have nukes, sit down" then sure, I guess. You must, of course, admit this intimidation is one reason why Iran has become so worrisome for those in the West (who have nuclear weapons), because Iran wants them too. — Heister Eggcart

Yes, Iran is a rogue state. And no, the Israeli military is not sitting on its hands. It has been actively bombing Iranian nuclear sites for decades. Israel has nukes for reasons of self-defense. Iran wants to procure them for reasons of destroying Israel, as its leaders have unequivocally and consistently admitted. That is no small difference.

One could argue an outlier like North Korea embodies a purely homogeneous ethnic, (non)religious, and cultural nation state, yet I wouldn't see very many people say that NK is working as intended. — Heister Eggcart

It's not culturally homogeneous, though. The state has attempted to impose a certain culture onto its citizens by force, the result of which is not culture at all, but the obliteration of it, since culture is something that develops naturally and freely by the interaction of humans. That being said, my position is willing to accommodate exceptions, as I'm making deliberately general claims.

I think you make the mistake of thinking that the more homogeneous a community is, there lessens then the possibility for division within said community. I don't think that follows very well. — Heister Eggcart

Well, if it's a mistake, then you need to show why it's a mistake, instead of merely declaring it to be as you have done here.

I wouldn't see the US as overcoming its divisions particularly well, now or in the past. — Heister Eggcart

I was making a comparative claim. Point me to another multi-ethnic, multi-religious, and multicultural society that is as populous, safe, prosperous, and free as the US. Historically speaking, the US is quite unique in overcoming the challenges associated with such a society. This is undeniable and part of what goes under the umbrella of American exceptionalism.

If it's a Western value to tear down instead of build up, then perhaps this is why the West is so in love with Israel. — Heister Eggcart

To build up a society, one must first be confident that the beneficiaries of said building will actually appreciate and reciprocate it. That cannot be said of Palestinians, whose airwaves and political factions are filled with ethnic hatreds, religious bigotry, and injunctions to violence.

Slowly shove them deeper into the desert, thus making them even madder, just as Israel is doing right now? — Heister Eggcart

I would encourage them to live in the plenitude of countries around Israel whose populations are comprised of their fellow Arab Muslims. Failing that, I would shut down their schools, reopen ones that aren't training future terrorists and their sympathizers, destroy Hamas and make them illegal, and enforce international rights laws.

These refugees have chosen Israel for a reason, presumably, and it wasn't because they felt they would be living in worse conditions compared to where they came from. — Thorongil

This is true. Although I'd argue simple geography plays a big part as well. With respect to African migrants, African countries don't much want them - say the Somalians - nor does Egypt, as a more Middle-eastern country. This leaves Israel, who is thought to be a democratic state, and at the very least one that has a functioning government.

It's hard to have high standards, because it can be difficult to live up to them. However, it is better to live in a society in which the expectation is that they will be lived up to and where the failure to do so produces shame and political opposition than one in which such standards are rejected, as one sees in the neighboring countries these migrants didn't choose to come to.

Just because it's hard to have high standards doesn't excuse a government from actively embracing low standards when it works politically to the government's advantage. The fact remains that migrants pick Israel first, sure, but then leave as fast as they can, if they can, because it becomes immediately apparent how poor Israel will in fact treat them. South Africa is also a good example of this - being a supposedly stalwart and strong democratic institution that, nonetheless, has zero patience for both migrants and refugees, preferring to throw them into concentration camps, just as the Israeli government does.

It's not culturally homogeneous, though. The state has attempted to impose a certain culture onto its citizens by force, the result of which is not culture at all, but the obliteration of it, since culture is something that develops naturally and freely by the interaction of humans. — Thorongil

Does the Israeli government not impose certain cultural mores that all must obey, regardless of whether one is still Jewish?

Well, if it's a mistake, then you need to show why it's a mistake, instead of merely declaring it to be as you have done here. — Thorongil

I'm not convinced that the more alike a group of people is that divisiveness ceases to be particularly important. Unless you're looking at a monastery, I can't see your original point as being very conclusive or encompassing as a position.

was making a comparative claim. Point me to another multi-ethnic, multi-religious, and multicultural society that is as populous, safe, prosperous, and free as the US. — Thorongil

China would be one, actually, although only comparably, not exactly. Australia is more in line, especially given the fact that cities dominate its population centers. That all the minorities get along fairly well is impressive. Perhaps Spain could be included, but I'm less inclined to use them as a direct example.

To build up a society, one must first be confident that the beneficiaries of said building will actually appreciate and reciprocate it. That cannot be said of Palestinians, whose airwaves and political factions are filled with ethnic hatreds, religious bigotry, and injunctions to violence. — Thorongil

Are Palestinians mad, to the extent that they are now, simply "because"? There are very clear reasons that will tell anyone why there are conflicts between Palestinians and Israelis in the current era. And to your first point, most migrants want to help benefit and build up Israeli society through working and stimulating the economy. It is not these peoples' agendas to throw down Jewish culture. Groups like Hamas do, which is why Israel bombs them. But Israel also bomb innocents and bystanders simply because they're not Israeli, which is not the right thing to do.

To put it more simply, if the typical migrant or refugee wants only to disparage and destroy, then why are they moving from countries like Libya or Somalia where nothing but destruction is occurring? Like with the Palestinians on the borders of Israel, most just want to stay in their homes, as their families have done so for centuries. I'm still not seeing how telling these people to fuck off and move because there is similar culture "over there" solves the fundamentally basic problem of another government forcibly uprooting people when they're doing little wrong. This problem reminds me of the US and its dealings with Native Americans. One excuse given, by both the populace at large and the government, for forcing Indians to move from their homes to someplace else, is because "there are Indians over here, too!" This failed, as it fails in Israel nowadays, to take into proper account the more intricate cultural differences people have, even if they're "Indian" or "Arab" or even "Jewish", for not even all Jews are in agreement on a great many issues. But do I really have to clarify that..?

China would be one, actually, although only comparably, not exactly. Australia is more in line, especially given the fact that cities dominate its population centers. That all the minorities get along fairly well is impressive. Perhaps Spain could be included, but I'm less inclined to use them as a direct example. — Heister Eggcart

Ask Tibetans or Uighurs how well multiculturalism works in China. Australia? Australia has been quite choosy about who is admitted as immigrants. How about the various boat people who end up on very small island "concentration camps", rather than being allowed to set foot on Aussie soil?

Cities dominate population centers all over the world. Actually, that's what a city is.

You might have mentioned Russia, which is quite multicultural -- thanks to czarist expansionism in centuries past.

nor does Egypt, as a more Middle-eastern country. — Heister Eggcart

Egypt is an African country, as is Somalia.

most migrants want to help benefit and build up Israeli society through working and stimulating the economy. — Heister Eggcart

I'd be surprised if most African immigrants have much interest in building up and stimulating the economy of an explicitly JEWISH state. They might have absolutely nothing against Jews, but let's face it, Africans are not Jews, and Israel hasn't hung up a "multicultural state" shingle over it's door. Israel has enough difficulty coping with the demands of Jews who range from secular atheists to the militantly ultra orthodox.

I would guess, just off hand, that most immigrants -- especially economic immigrants -- want to make money for themselves so they can live in the manner they want to live.

One excuse given, by both the populace at large and the government, for forcing Indians to move from their homes to someplace else, is because "there are Indians over here, too!" — Heister Eggcart

That seems remarkable unconvincing and lame, even for American genocidalistas. I hadn't heard that rationale before. I think it was much more likely the rationale was plainer: We want your land, you are going to move, and that's that."

If you knowingly provide a place for racists, xenophobes, anti-semites and sexists to loudly proclaim their views to a large audience, and express no remorse over those views, and profit from them - well, yes, it's possible that you may share none of their passionate hatreds. But, if you don't, and still publish, that makes you one deeply cynical son of a bitch. And someone that cynical isn't likely to balk at anything, should it serve him. (Tho Bannon almost certainly is racist and antisemitic and the rest. And @Hanover is, I'd wager, simply standing behind his man/party. Which I get - liberals have done that with Obama and his drone strikes and national surveillance and the expansion of presidential power etc. But personally, it's always irked me when either side does it. Hanover said, in another thread, that he voted Trump bc Trump was concerned about the centrality of the constitution rather than personal views on social issues, w/r/t to the question of supreme court nomination. But now Trump, in his 60 minutes interview, has explicitly stated he'd select a pro-choice nominee. What does Hanover think of this? It doesn't really matter because it doesn't really matter to him. It was always an opportunistic rhetorical point. Like the claim that if Bannon's anti semitic that's ok bc everyone hates each other anyway! lol)

Yeah, you can't really understand anything about political discourse in America if you think people have principles, IMO.

Yeah, I guess the silver lining is that that maybe that at least gives us a bit of defense against fascism? Hitler felt deeply about certain things, but I don't think Trump cares at all about anything but keeping the show going? But then most of us not having principles also means someone who does can easily sway people (provided he has charisma). It's confusing.

I like that Trump is somewhat flippant – he strikes me as someone looking to win, and looking to have the biggest and best legacy he can. What that means is that where there is public outcry against a suggestion, he'll wheel it around and give people what they want. I don't mind it, I love this country and am repulsed by those who can't take the joke and can't take the show.

The tears at this point may qualify as mass delusion and hysteria, or maybe it's just weaponized crying. Whether Trump is actually racist etc. doesn't matter, as evidenced by the fact that there are literally genocidal ethnostates (real ones, not imagined ones) in existence at this very moment that no one cares about and even applauds whenever convenient. What matters is that people say that he is racist etc.

The revolving door is moving in several ways right now, and the Democrats have apparently decided 'I guess we're the Cold War panic party now,' and nobody seems to have noticed. It's like a Eurasia-Eastasia switch sort of thing, I guess. There is a flicker of intelligence behind a Trump's eyes in that he has some awareness he's playing a game, which his detractors may be too socially retarded to realize – they think they have principles.

Hanover: everyone hates each other anyway — csalisbury

One deficiency in Hanover's statement is that we don't know most people (like, 99.9%) well enough to actually hate them. They are abstractions, so it is easy to say we love or hate them, because... well, they are not up-close and personal; not real. In actuality, we don't know enough about most people to work up so much as a low grade snit toward these abstractions, let alone a red hot hatred.

One might add that a merciful and loving God has seen fit to arrange the world so that we DO NOT know each other too well, thus increasing the likelihood of Peace On Earth, Good Will among Abstractions.

I don't think most of us want to make room for strangers. We would just as soon they remain abstractions, rather than forcing upon us the horrid, warm smelly details of their particularity. So, we say to the strangers in our midst, "Keep moving, buddy. Don't stop here."

Is there something wrong with us, then? No. I think this is a 'normal' attitude.

The many waves of immigrants to the United States have generally been met with chilly acceptance (which is a tight-lipped narrowed eye acknowledgment that they got off the boat and are now walking around on OUR streets). The first generation often made little progress, beyond surviving. It was their children who made progress, and maybe by the 3rd generation, became integrated and American.

That's the normal, time-consuming progression of events. The skids do not need to be greased by militant advocacy demanding acceptance IMMEDIATELY, or tyrant SJWs guilt tripping everyone for being sexist, racist, homophobic, islamophobic, etc-phobic--what ever is convenient to guilt trip people for at the moment.

I like that Trump is somewhat flippant – he strikes me as someone looking to win, and looking to have the biggest and best legacy he can. What that means is that where there is public outcry against a suggestion, he'll wheel it around and give people what they want. — The Great Whatever

What Trump will run into, though, that he's never had to deal with previously, is that he needs Congress to do what he wants, and can't fire then when they don't give it. They have their own game, and their own political survival via re-election trumps Trump. Government is like business in some ways, but is an entirely different animal in others.