Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Donald Trump has suggested policies regarding Muslims and Mexican immigrants that might seem racist. I don't think they are though.
It is clear that terrorism directed at the US and other Western nations is a Muslim phenomenon. Halting Muslim immigration is an approach to reducing the exposure of American citizens to this risk. Practically it might be necessary to redirect the restriction to inhabitants of Syria, Iraq, Yemen, etc. to avoid freedom of religion issues. But it is clear the threat itself is Muslim even if the solution cannot be couched in that term.
Regarding Mexicans, Trump did say that immigrants are not typically the best Mexicans. They include criminals, gang members, etc. He also said they include many good people. All of this is true. The issue he had with Judge Gonzalo Curiel was not principally that he is Mexican but that he is a member of or is associated with La Raza, The Race. La Raza has said that California, New Mexico and Arizona are parts of Mexico that the US stole. And should give back. In Judge Gonzalo Curiel's support of this group, Trump was justifiably concerned about getting a fair trial in front of him.
By relying on wobbly examples like these Marcus's article argument is weakened. The rest of it, detente vs. consensus and so on, is just plowing a field that has been plowed many times already. Trump's election may have refreshed concerns that some people have held a long time anyway. But these feeling are refreshed with every cop shooting of a black man or FBI sting of a Muslim terrorist operation anyway.
The bold is a xenophobic comment. All Muslims in the entire world are not terrorist nor involved in terroristic activities. That is proof that your statement is false and is the perpetuation of xenophobia. And FWIW, I am an atheist and I view all the world's major religions poorly and feel that religion itself is the cause of lots of terror and suffering and oppression around the globe, but Islam itself does not tell all Muslims to terrorized the Western world.
Regarding "Mexicans" as stated, one can have an immigration conversation without even bringing up Mexicans or Hispanics. What about the Asians and their anchor babies. What about the people from African nations who come here on student visas and overstay those visas. Immigration issues are ones that do need to be addressed but to address them only speaking of Mexicans is not necessary. To do so is used only to stir up the racist, xenophobic fears in the American public. We should not allow ourselves to so easily be swept up by these generalizations.
And again, the judge was not a member of "La Raza" he was a member of a lawyer's association with attorneys who were of Latino ethnicity. Read the fact check above.
The bold is a xenophobic comment. All Muslims in the entire world are not terrorist nor involved in terroristic activities. That is proof that your statement is false and is the perpetuation of xenophobia. And FWIW, I am an atheist and I view all the world's major religions poorly and feel that religion itself is the cause of lots of terror and suffering and oppression around the globe, but Islam itself does not tell all Muslims to terrorized the Western world.
All we need to know about whether the west should accept greater Islamization can be garnered from looking at examples in the world where Muslim religion is adopted by a majority of residents in any particular country.
Can YOU point to anywhere in the world where a majority Muslim country is as free as even the most backwards European country? Where women and minorities (ethnic, racial and RELIGIOUS) have as much freedom as any other country in the west? THAT is why Americans should be worried. Especially atheists. There is NO example of a country that has "gotten better" for minorities, for women, for gays, as it's embraced greater Islamization.
Obviously in the US at least we can't prevent or outlaw the religion. But we sure as all hell don't have to EMBRACE it, make excuses for it and celebrate it as if it's "just another option in the wonderful buffet of life!"
It is hypocritical for liberals to stick up for that religion when it is one step shy from fascism and LITERALLY is governed by a book that was the Mein Kampf of 7th Century Arabia.
(And indeed, it's no secret or surprise that the ACTUAL Mein Kampf is a perennial best seller in tons of Muslim countries). It's fascism. And just like you're average white supremacist with supremacist views can be lovely people otherwise - doctors, lawyers, artists - so too the fallacy of the "I know TONS of nice Muslims!" It's not about the nice ones. It's about the outcomes when the IDEOLOGY is put into play. I'm sure there were lots of nice, non-violent Nazi Germans in 1939 too. All it took was a small minority of them to get the power necessary to take their ideology to the extreme.
If that's "xenophobia," so be it. Not all cultures and religions are equal and need to be embraced.
All we need to know about whether the west should accept greater Islamization can be garnered from looking at examples in the world where Muslim religion is adopted by a majority of residents in any particular country.
Can YOU point to anywhere in the world where a majority Muslim country is as free as even the most backwards European country? Where women and minorities (ethnic, racial and RELIGIOUS) have as much freedom as any other country in the west? THAT is why Americans should be worried. Especially atheists. There is NO example of a country that has "gotten better" for minorities, for women, for gays, as it's embraced greater Islamization.
Obviously in the US at least we can't prevent or outlaw the religion. But we sure as all hell don't have to EMBRACE it, make excuses for it and celebrate it as if it's "just another option in the wonderful buffet of life!"
It is hypocritical for liberals to stick up for that religion when it is one step shy from fascism and LITERALLY is governed by a book that was the Mein Kampf of 7th Century Arabia.
(And indeed, it's no secret or surprise that the ACTUAL Mein Kampf is a perennial best seller in tons of Muslim countries).
If that's "xenophobia," so be it. Not all cultures and religions are equal and need to be embraced.
I can point out no country in the world whose minorities and women have all the opportunities of the majority and men in that society.
Can you?
Again, you are speaking in xenophobic tones. You should just accept you are a xenophobic person. Not sure why you are even trying to reason away this fact based on your post above.
The bold is a xenophobic comment. All Muslims in the entire world are not terrorist nor involved in terroristic activities. That is proof that your statement is false and is the perpetuation of xenophobia.
"Xenophobia" is a made up term of the Left that absolutely no one is mandated to cater to.
The Left uses "Xenophobia" merely to accuse others of blocking minority group incursions that assist the Left.
The term "xenophobia" is not used evenly across nations nor groups even by the groups who like to accuse with it, and thus it lacks a moral foundation.
There are plenty of reason to be cautious of certain groups. "Not all" Ku Klux Klan members are violent either, and yet all Ku Klux Klan members are socially guarded against to prevent the violence from those who are.
Similarly, just because "not all" Muslims are violent does not mean that guarding against the group and its ideology, for the statistical increase in terrorism that it brings, is not justified.
Last: in case you haven't received the memo, the age of shaming people into political submission to the Left is over. You'll have to argue your positions from here on out, instead of merely calling people names. You can attempt the other tactic, but no one will care.
I can point out no country in the world whose minorities and women have all the opportunities of the majority and men in that society.
Can you?
Again, you are speaking in xenophobic tones. You should just accept you are a xenophobic person. Not sure why you are even trying to reason away this fact based on your post above.
I get it - you are afraid of Muslims.
I get it - you're incapable of articulating an argument.
I can point out no country in the world whose minorities and women have all the opportunities of the majority and men in that society.
Can you?
Yes, actually. In the Scandinavian countries, largely secular, women have all the opportunities of the majority of men in that society. As close as you'll probably ever get ignoring biological differences.
Also, EVERY SINGLE country in the EU, the US and Canada are very close to sex egalitarianism.
But that wasn't the question:
WHERE has Islam led to anything even CLOSE? Go ahead. Take your time. If you cannot judge a political ideology or a religion (which is politics + god) on it's ACTUAL, EMPIRICAL outcomes, then HOW DO YOU JUDGE IT?
Is your moral compass that broken, or is logical consistency just not in the cards you're trying to deal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007
Again, you are speaking in xenophobic tones. You should just accept you are a xenophobic person. Not sure why you are even trying to reason away this fact based on your post above.
I get it - you are afraid of Muslims.
Nice try, but your labels don't work with me. I have rational basis for my opinions and you have done nothing to refute my points.
You see, I look at Islam the way people like you look at "white supremacy". So maybe I should say to you, "I get it, you're afraid of white people. (In fact, was it not you who said you "look at white people differently" after this election?)"
Just accept that you are an anti-white person, based on the tones of your posts.
"Xenophobia" is a made up term of the Left that absolutely no one is mandated to cater to.
The Left uses "Xenophobia" merely to accuse others of blocking minority group incursions that assist the Left.
The term "xenophobia" is not used evenly across nations nor groups even by the groups who like to accuse with it, and thus it lacks a moral foundation.
There are plenty of reason to be cautious of certain groups. "Not all" Ku Klux Klan members are violent either, and yet all Ku Klux Klan members are socially guarded against to prevent the violence from those who are.
Similarly, just because "not all" Muslims are violent does not mean that guarding against the group and its ideology, for the statistical increase in terrorism that it brings, is not justified.
Last: in case you haven't received the memo, the age of shaming people into political submission to the Left is over. You'll have to argue your positions from here on out, instead of merely calling people names. You can attempt the other tactic, but no one will care.
I am not a liberal nor on the left. Also am not trying to shame you, just trying to get you to accept the facts about yourself, and especially you as you are probably the most white nationalistic poster in the thread taking up for the KKK and all lol.
Since you don't think "xenophobia" is a real word I'll give you its definition from Merriam Webster:
fear or hatred of strangers or foreigners
Also the history of the word:
Quote:
Did You Know?
If you look back to the ancient Greek terms that underlie the word xenophobia, you'll discover that xenophobic individuals are literally "stranger fearing." Xenophobia, that elegant-sounding name for an aversion to persons unfamiliar, ultimately derives from two Greek terms: xenos, which can be translated as either "stranger" or "guest," and phobos, which means either "fear" or "flight." Phobos is the ultimate source of all English -phobia terms, but many of those were actually coined in English or New Latin using the combining form -phobia (which traces back to phobos). Xenophobia itself came to us by way of New Latin and first appeared in print in English in 1903.
Quote:
Originally Posted by golgi1
I get it - you're incapable of articulating an argument.
LOL, says the person who stated the red above about the KKK
I am not a liberal nor on the left. Also am not trying to shame you, just trying to get you to accept the facts about yourself, and especially you as you are probably the most white nationalistic poster in the thread taking up for the KKK and all lol.
Careful. Your hatred of white people is revealing itself.
BTW, how can you judge the KKK? Are you KKKphobic? Very intolerant of you. It's just their beliefs/religion.
Nice try, but your labels don't work with me. I have rational basis for my opinions and you have done nothing to refute my points.
You see, I look at Islam the way people like you look at "white supremacy". So maybe I should say to you, "I get it, you're afraid of white people. (In fact, was it not you who said you "look at white people differently" after this election?)"
Just accept that you are an anti-white person, based on the tones of your posts.
On the bold, yes I did. I admit that I will have more prejudice and pre-judging of white people here on out, especially new ones that I meet.
I can admit a lot of my prejudices. And I doubt you look at Islam the same way I look at white supremacy. For me white supremacy ideology is something that does not permeate the thought processes of all white people. I also do believe that black people and other non-white persons in our country, also adhere to the concept of "white supremacy" in that they view white people as "better" than themselves and their demographic in some way.
I am not "anti-white." If I were, I would hate white people and align myself with black nationalists. Just as I despise white nationalists and do not understand your and other posters indifference and support of someone who aligns themselves with these sorts of people - I would NEVER align myself with any black nationalistic group as I feel they are just as horrible as a white nationalist. We are all people in my view and prior to so many of you aligning yourselves with indifference/support to racism, I felt that the majority of you felt the same. In my earlier post, I also stated, I still feel the majority of white people are not in support of nor are they indifferent to racism and xenophobia; however, I will do as you bolded above about new white people I meet until I get to know them very well.
LOL on the bold, you honestly believe that the sociologically invented term "white privilege" is a racist phrase? In what way are white inferior/superior as a whole based on someone saying that "white privilege" exist. I am not all that into the sociological concept of "white privilege" but I do know that it does not mean that all white people are "better" than other groups of people just because they are white.
Not all racist phrases connote an inferior/superior status. Some connote a group conspiracy or groups characteristics. See anti-Semitism. That you don't see the moral hazard here means that your political agitation, and those like you, is excessively dangerous to the social fabric of the nation. Perhaps leave the sociopolitical negotiations to minority individuals who are more perceptive than are you.
Quote:
An uneducated means someone without an education. Stupid means someone is without knowledge. One can have knowledge without an education.
Calling the conservative base "uneducated" in relation to the voting patterns of people who have a college education or not is calling the conservative base "stupid." .
How this category is most often used is, indeed, meant to dismiss rural conservative voters because they don't know as much as liberals with college educations.
Quote:
And how is discussing the educational outcomes of specific voting blocks dismissing their interests? And who dismissed them or their issues.
I've never seen their actual interests discussed in an article. Every liberal journalist dismisses them, as their interests are never discussed.
The 'economic man' Marxist theory is inserted as a replacement for discussing their issues. Liberal journalists do not interact with these voters to find out what their interests are, they merely decide what their interests are, mention that there is a decrease in the economy, and move on.
And now you have Trump. You can keep arguing against reality, but I'm not here to argue with you. I'm here to inform you of reality insofar as you are demonstrably and apparently intractably blind to it.
Quote:
The plight of rural and forgotten factory towns was mainstream and their issues were relatable and understandable and made perfect sense. However, those issues also do not have to be supported by racist or xenophobic rhetoric.
And there you go. Telling yourself, or taking the word of a liberal journalist, as to what their interests are. It "made perfect sense".
People like you are wrecking this nation for your own interests; blind to those around you. You're simply to selfish to empathize in a manner that is counter to your own interests.
You don't get to tell another group what their interests are or what they include and do not include, especially when your interests lie along differing lines along which you would hypocritically refuse other groups.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
