MagicMush123 said:

XUL said:

koods said:

XUL said:

Which instantly dismantles the white privilege argument or any argument blaming today's white people for slavery that existed when we weren't alive.

---

Nobody is seriously blaming modern white people for slavery.

---

I call bullshit.

I can find many people saying, "your ancestors stole this land, you bigot!"

Like you said, we shouldn't blame each other for our parents' sins, which means the above statement is dismantled.

Do you agree that whites today have no responsibility for the slavery that took place?

I just want you on record saying it.

---

---

shivas.wisdom said:

The most militarized borders are still permeable. This can be seen in defectors escaping over the Berlin Wall and the Korean DMZ. This can also been seen in smuggling operations at supermax prisons.

We should ask ourselves exactly how far down this authoritarian path we want to go down. What is the appropriate trade-off between reducing illegal immigration and enabling a police state? How can we ensure that we won't plunge into a prison society in the process?

Remember that any power you grant a government over others, it also has over you. Remember that walls can keep you in just as easily as keep others out.

The drug war offers a good parallel. Attempting to make human behaviour illegal (intoxication and/or migration) will never work, and usually makes the situation worse. Legalize drugs: end black market violence, fentanyl adulteration, misinformation and taboo leading to unnecessary harm. Open the borders: end human trafficking, injury or death from dangerous crossings, and allow open participation in their knew home.

It's also important to note that many studies agree that restrictive border control measures focused on deterrence do not have a lasting impact on the number of arrivals but rather result in changes to the ways in which migration occurs (I can only find pdf downloads of studies to link but I can suggest some search terms if you want). This is because migration is a complex social process that extends well beyond the reach of domestic border control policies.

One major study compared asylum seeker numbers against key restrictive migration policies in 20 industrialised countries over a 14-year period. It found asylum seekers’ destinations are determined largely by historical, economic and reputational factors that cannot be influenced by immigration policy makers (Thielemann, 2004). The only domestic policy found to have any statistically significant impact on arrival numbers in more than one study was a reduction in the refugee recognition rate. However, this impact was small scale, of short duration and undermined the Refugee Convention (Havinga and Bocker, 1999; Neumayer, 2004; Thielemann, 2004). 

So once again, we need to ask ourselves if border control is an appropriate response, or one driven by emotion.

Instead, I suggest governments should facilitate and increase legal pathways so that they can monitor and more effectively manage flows of refugees and migrants. This will also lead to increased engagement by migrant populations in integration services, in the same way that legalization increases drug users engaging with harm reduction services.

We would also benefit from ending interference and exploitation of poorer countries, because this always leads to destabilization and emigration in the region. The historical actions of the USA in Latin America are a shining example of this.

Both of these would do vastly more to solve the problems associated with illegal immigration, unless your problem is with the ethnicity of immigrants.

Borders are just arbitrary and imaginary lines, and I fully believe they do more harm than good. Humans have freely wandered the globe for hundreds of thousands of years - this is the natural order of things, and this is how things will always be. No border will ever stop humans in our wandering, so why try to stop the inevitable - causing more harm in the process. Things might get complicated right off the bat (or maybe not) but there is every reason to expect an equilibrium to be reached. The only reason to support borders is from a desire to perpetuate a global caste system, or from fear of the other.


Fuck your imprisonment, fuck the government, fuck your class war, fuck the parliament, fuck your laws, fuck your order, fuck your walls and fuck your borders!

---

koods said:

XUL said:

Which instantly dismantles the white privilege argument or any argument blaming today's white people for slavery that existed when we weren't alive.

---

Despite the concept being explained to you over and over, you still don’t seem to understand what it is.

---

No kidding. 

XUL, I'll try again, but I doubt you'll understand because it's been explained many to you many dozens of times already with evidenece.

White privilege simply means that on average, you're more likely to get treated better as a white guy throughout your life.

It doesn't mean you'll always get treated better.  It doesn't have anything to do with our ancestors (other than possibly explaining why it exists).

It just means that on average, your life is a little better than an equivalent person with dark skin.

XUL said:

"It doesn't mean you'll always get treated better.  It doesn't have anything to do with our ancestors (other than possibly explaining why it exists)."

Yeah, that's bullshit.

There is no rationalization for that.

Then we have mixed people somewhere in the middle.

"Defines privilege based on skin color and claims democrats aren't racists."

---

XUL said:

Then we have mixed people somewhere in the middle.

---

Falcon91Wolvrn03 said:

koods said:

XUL said:

Which instantly dismantles the white privilege argument or any argument blaming today's white people for slavery that existed when we weren't alive.

---

Despite the concept being explained to you over and over, you still don’t seem to understand what it is.

---

No kidding. 

XUL, I'll try again, but I doubt you'll understand because it's been explained many to you many dozens of times already with evidenece.

White privilege simply means that on average, you're more likely to get treated better as a white guy throughout your life.

It doesn't mean you'll always get treated better.  It doesn't have anything to do with our ancestors (other than possibly explaining why it exists).

It just means that on average, your life is a little better than an equivalent person with dark skin.

---

koods said:

XUL said:

Then we have mixed people somewhere in the middle.

---

Absolutely. If anything the best example of this is the difference between how light skinned black people are treated compared to dark skinned.

---

Quote:

Let's find out who has the most white in their family and claim they have privilege. Everyone will fall into a parameter and be labeled by whiteness.

This is Racist garbage that the left has been pushing since they fought to keep slavery.

---

XUL said:

Then Warren falls in somewhere at 1/10101834637

Let's find out who has the most white in their family and claim they have privilege. Everyone will fall into a parameter and be labeled by whiteness.

This is Racist garbage that the left has been pushing since they fought to keep slavery.

It's Orwellian garbage that needs to be openly rejected.

---

XUL said:

"It doesn't mean you'll always get treated better.  It doesn't have anything to do with our ancestors (other than possibly explaining why it exists)."

---

XUL said:

Then we have mixed people somewhere in the middle.

---

XUL said:

"Defines privilege based on skin color and claims democrats aren't racists."

---

vault123 said:

Alright I watched your videos. The second one says absolutely nothing about race so I don’t see how that contributes to your point about “the whiter you are the better you are treated on average.” It just says that some people are more advantaged than others. Which I don’t think anyone would disagree with. That certainly does prove your point about “white privilege either though.

---

vault123 said:

As far as the first one goes, I’ve seen it before. The MSM is always trying to find some way of demonizing and vilifying white males it’s like their thing. Seen the Gillette commercial recently?

So just because they have a motive while they’re making it that doesn’t necessarily mean that their claim is wrong or isn’t supported by any evidence, it just says they have an agenda.

The video itself though is anecdotal. That doesnt prove any “average” or trend, and you can find anecdotal videos like that all over the internet.

---

vault123 said:

Remember this gem?

Is that “proof” of systemic misogynistic gender based oppression? Or is it propaganda explicitly created with with a very specific result in mind?

---