General Diversity vs. Minority friendly (enemy, parade, lawyers, March)
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.
Really how? I guess you don't know the difference between being a nationalist and a supremacist? Why just make this only about white Americans anyway? There are plenty of brown and black supremacists also and that's not a good thing either but being a nationalist of any race is akin to patriotism.
Here's the definition of a nationalist. Where in this description does it include white supremacy or racism against Americans of other races?
na·tion·al·ist
[ˈnaSH(ə)nələst]
NOUN
a person who strongly identifies with their own nation and vigorously supports its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations:
synonyms:
loyalist · lover of one's country · flag-waver
If you had just said "nationalist" rather than "white nationalist," you'd have a case to make, but you knew this was the word game you intended to play when you said it.
I am certainly opposed to illegal immigration. If one wants to come here, they need to come the right way.
This is OT for the thread, but I think most Americans, even those who could be called "soft on illegal immigration," are too. The faction that is in favor of open borders is really tiny. It's just that when weighing the moral scales are balanced up some people place more weight on things like keeping families together, or having sympathy for people fleeing poverty and violence, than they do with following the law/procedures as currently written. Me, I'm in favor of making it easier/faster for people to immigrate (or get work permits) the right way, so those who are currently in difficult circumstances are less tempted to skip steps. If my grandparents had had to jump through all the hoops and meet all the requirements a legal immigrant does nowadays, they never would have been let into the country, even though they were salt-of-the-earth types who contributed positively to their communities once they got here, and that coming to the US when they did quite possibly saved their lives, given where and when they emigrated from.
Quote:
I also have this mindset. I have lived outside of the South. I have family from the northern USA. This is where I am getting at. This country has 50 states. Why would I want to limit myself to a few places? Why not live wherever I want, and chase my peace? Why not just go out there?
Agreed. I mean, people like to bang on about Constitutional rights when it comes to guns and whatnot...free interstate movement is also a constitutional right!
Quote:
This whole "stick with your own kind" thing doesn't always work.
Yup. Plus, as I believe RK pointed out, "your own kind" in many circumstances is not defined by race or ethnicity.
If you had just said "nationalist" rather than "white nationalist," you'd have a case to make, but you knew this was the word game you intended to play when you said it.
You're not clever.
No. Just no.
I am constantly amazed at some of the content this site allows to proliferate. It's not like these posters (and bots, I think some are bots) are being subtle about it.
If you had just said "nationalist" rather than "white nationalist," you'd have a case to make, but you knew this was the word game you intended to play when you said it.
You're not clever.
No. Just no.
A nationalist can be of any race. I made my case by providing you with the definition of a nationalist. What word game? Clever about what?
You say no, even though I provided you with the definition of a nationalist? Boy, that's some deep denial there.
This is OT for the thread, but I think most Americans, even those who could be called "soft on illegal immigration," are too. The faction that is in favor of open borders is really tiny. It's just that when weighing the moral scales are balanced up some people place more weight on things like keeping families together, or having sympathy for people fleeing poverty and violence, than they do with following the law/procedures as currently written. Me, I'm in favor of making it easier/faster for people to immigrate (or get work permits) the right way, so those who are currently in difficult circumstances are less tempted to skip steps. If my grandparents had had to jump through all the hoops and meet all the requirements a legal immigrant does nowadays, they never would have been let into the country, even though they were salt-of-the-earth types who contributed positively to their communities once they got here, and that coming to the US when they did quite possibly saved their lives, given where and when they emigrated from.
Agreed. I mean, people like to bang on about Constitutional rights when it comes to guns and whatnot...free interstate movement is also a constitutional right!
Yup. Plus, as I believe RK pointed out, "your own kind" in many circumstances is not defined by race or ethnicity.
What you aren't getting is that we already allow in 1 million legal immigrants a year in keeping with our ability to provide them with jobs and resources without it negatively impacting our own citizens. Now that's sane immigration policy!
What kind of insane policy would allow for more immigrants that we can't provide jobs at a liveable wage and resources for because they are the poor, uneducated and unskilled that would be a burden to our society? How immoral would that be to the American people?
We don't and should not be allowing in immigrants just because they want a low waged job. As for fleeing violence that isn't the case for most of them. Why do they always flee to the U.S. for their needs? Why don't they accept asylum in the first country that offers it to them? Hint.....American handouts! We have laws on the books that these people can't just pass through many countries that offer asylum and jobs and refuse them just to make it up to our country instead.
You bleeding hearts are going to be the death of our country. It's always about the so-called immigrants with no compassion for the American citizens who have been negatively impacted by these illegal aliens and bogus asylum seekers. You are pushing for cheap, foreign labor that hurts our own citizens while the rich just get richer off of them. Why is that?
CRT is fighting "last generation's war." It does not have the tools to fight the kind of racism that may be generated spontaneously in the Millennial or Y-generations. Those are generating from completely different sources and need different tools to deal with them.
But that would not be "CRT" which explicitly deals with racism as it is embedded in laws and policies of the nation.
There are certainly plenty of things such as redlining and blockbusting, which still have lingering effects. It's not legal to do those things today. However, they had their effects. I have to wonder if CRT has any solutions for how to deal with its lingering effects.
I also think about this. Someone posted on Facebook that some people fear CRT because people who did bad things back in the 50s and 60s would see themselves exposed for it today. I'm only now starting to look into it. However, there is something I've thought about. Some people merely pass their own prejudice down to their children, albeit in a more covert way.
I am constantly amazed at some of the content this site allows to proliferate. It's not like these posters (and bots, I think some are bots) are being subtle about it.
I'm no longer amazed. I've been on the site for 15 years. I frequently expect certain things in this forum. I've seen in it all.
These two concepts seem to be at odds. First, striving for a goal of a nation in which all communities have good representation of all identifiable minorities, such as Muslim, LGBTQ, mixed-race couples, etc.. But then, members of those same minorities are asking in a relocation forum, where can they settle in communities friendly to their particular persuasion.
How can it be both? (Please don't answer if all you want to do is cut-paste your usual mindless political-labeled bashing. There is no agenda here -- just wondering if anybody has any thoughtful ideas of how these two trends might play out.)
There has to be a balance where they can establish some level of being represented by others who share their attributes, but where not everyone has to be the same but where no group can make another feel disenfranchised. Balanced diversity allows for minorities to find themselves and the majority to be tolerant. Nobody isn’t a minority in some category. If not race, if not religion, if not your height or weight, something else strikes you in a minority maybe it’s a hobby or a rare personal opinion most others don’t have …. If that is part of you it makes sense you might be happier in a diverse community though one that makes room for your oddities.
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.
You are pushing for cheap, foreign labor that hurts our own citizens while the rich just get richer off of them. Why is that?