President Trump: Why are we having all these people from shithole countries come here?

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

Fair, but this statement

A country's ability to integrate people from other countries is critical to both its own growth and its reputation with other countries. That said, there's a balance to be struck when it comes to how many people are allowed in, and immigrants from countries that are especially fundamentally different are going to be harder to integrate. I'm for a certain amount of immigration, but when it's en masse from a very different country then there's that much more to integrate which makes the integration that much more difficult for all parties involved including the migrants. 

 is false 

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

It's because of Japan's xenophobic brand of isolationism that they had more in common with the other Axis powers than anywhere else. This of course led to their defeat punctuated by the atomic bomb, and now they depend on bartering with the very nation that bombed them and are forbidden from deploying forces abroad. I'd hardly call that a resounding success.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

It's because of Japan's xenophobic brand of isolationism that they had more in common with the other Axis powers than anywhere else. This of course led to their defeat punctuated by the atomic bomb, and now they depend on bartering with the very nation that bombed them and are forbidden from deploying forces abroad. I'd hardly call that a resounding success.

Japan’s economy currently ranks third in terms of nominal GDP

 

I'd call that a success. They've caught up despite all the blows they faced as you noted

[VCR_CAT]

First, I do feel the need to explain the racist nature of the statement, mostly because it hasn't come up before and the discussion seemed to just move onto semantics and other stuff.

 

To ask why they keep accepting people from "Shithole" countries isn't so much a statement on the country's economic state, but it's a statement on its people. If those people are immigrating over, the person is immigrating, not the country. To ask why America keeps accepting people from those countries very, very, very heavily implies that there is no perceived worth in anyone immigrating from that country, that there is nothing of value that they can bring to the table that makes them worth accepting into the nation. Of course, the statement would be limited to only this, if it wasn't for the fact that Trump only referred to African nations and Haiti.

 

Nations of predominantly black citizens, while simultaneously saying that they should be accepting immigrants from a nation of predominantly white people regardless of how completely opposite that nation is in political ideology. This sort of discourse is incredibly similar to the same narrative that's said when a company hires a more diverse base of employees. People will say "But why would you hire these women for just diversity instead of qualification?" I mean, the hidden narrative right there is that they don't believe women could be more qualified than the men who were competing for the same job. In the same way, Trump is suggesting that he believes literally anyone from Norway is more qualified to be a US citizen than anyone from all of Africa or Haiti. That's problematic.

 

Now, do I think he meant it in a racist manner? Ultimately, I don't know. I'm not Trump, I don't know his intentions and it's entirely possible that he meant it purely in a manner of speaking about the nation itself, as others in this thread have suggested. However, that doesn't discount what he said, and what he said was really, really not good.

 

There's a lot of weight in what he said, and to suggest that nobody from any nation of those sorts has anything of value to bring is, frankly, a prejudiced thing to say. It's discounting and devaluing people over something that actually has no effect on their value as a person. There should be no defending what he said. Even as Zai said, there are better ways to phrase it that don't come across as hateful, but honestly the same message is there. Even if you paint it gold and encrust it in jewels, a piece of sheet is still a piece of sheet (referring to the statement, not the person).

 

Regarding the issue of immigration itself, no your country does not have an obligation to accept immigrants from, well, anywhere. But there should be good reasoning behind that, not just blind prejudice. Also, I don't know how much everyone here knows about the process of immigration, but it's not as simple as people just being accepted willy nilly easily. Nor should it be. There should be vetting for qualifications, financial position and potential job placement (it'd probably be worse for someone to let them put everything they had to move overseas just to become almost immediately homeless because they weren't prepared), criminal record, etc. And this process does exist; place of origin should have no meaning in the face of this process. If a person qualifies to immigrate, they should be able to immigrate.

 

People are people. We are all capable of the same potential, to do the same amount of good, and the same amount of wrong. Discrimination from anyone, against anyone, is not right, ESPECIALLY coming from a world leader. If a person is going to go through the effort and the process to become the face of your nation, to be its leader and represent it to the world, then a high standard should be placed upon them. What Trump said was unacceptable, and regardless if you support him or not I would strongly suggest you think about what it is that he said and what's going on. A nation's leader should always be under scrutiny, by its supporters and opponents alike. That's part of how a nation grows and becomes a better place, when its people hold its leader accountable for their words and their actions.

[Trisagion]

I was just writing this to myself to see what I had to say about all this, but I figured I might as well post it here.

 

Trump’s “shithole countries” comment is… interesting, to say the least. I’ve honestly used similar language before, though to call it “similar” would be a disservice to myself. I’ve said things like, “What business do I have going to a third world country?” in response to my parents and others asking me if I’d want to visit Ecuador again, with me obviously meaning to say that I have nothing to truly gain from going to and staying in a lesser developed country. I don’t mean this in a necessarily disparaging way, I just mean to say that a lesser developed country will not have much to offer me in place of a more developed and successful one like the US or Germany.

 

I don’t think Trump’s comment is “racist” as a result, though I’ll admit it’s definitely inflammatory even if the description used it… accurate considering the state of those countries. When reading and thinking about that comment, I take it like this: countries such as Haiti and other African countries are obviously third world countries. They’re less developed, and the countries’ people live in poverty and usually have inferior education and therefore little to no potential for more professional positions or creations (businesses). Poverty and lesser education tend to produce unsavory and/or unproductive people that wouldn’t be good in any kind of society, so accepting a large amount of such people would be anything but beneficial. It’s then better to seek to look to accept people from more developed places like Norway or parts of Asia, since these people would be more likely to possess skills and an upbringing more useful to society.

 

Also, to clarify, I don’t believe that ALL people from lesser developed countries are unsavory and unbeneficial, and they aren’t bound to be such either. I believe they, like any other person, can possess the drive necessary to get ahead in life and to improve themselves, obviously being decent folk that work hard and who just want a better lot in life. In fact, because their places of origin are “shitholes”, it’s only natural that they would want to come to a better country for a better life with more opportunities to improve themselves and the lives of their families and (future) children. For that reason, it would be wrong to deny them that chance and bar them from coming to the US, and it’s why we should have a functional merit-based immigration system in place so that we can accept the good people from these places while leaving the bad kind behind.

 

As for Trump’s language, I do think he should learn to take a few moments to think about what he says before saying it, or to at least qualify and explain what he says to avoid heaping more coal upon his own head. I’m also of the opinion that people should shut up about “racism” and being “racist”, because at this point those are just buzzwords used to try and aggravate people and buzzwords only used when the “poor, defenseless people of color” are (supposedly) being “offended”. No one seems to care when white people are at the end of a racial joke or remark, but God forbid you talk about nonwhite folk, particularly black people.

[VCR_CAT]

As for Trump’s language, I do think he should learn to take a few moments to think about what he says before saying it, or to at least qualify and explain what he says to avoid heaping more coal upon his own head. I’m also of the opinion that people should shut up about “racism” and being “racist”, because at this point those are just buzzwords used to try and aggravate people and buzzwords only used when the “poor, defenseless people of color” are (supposedly) being “offended”. No one seems to care when white people are at the end of a racial joke or remark, but God forbid you talk about nonwhite folk, particularly black people.

 

So what should the alternative be? There's some pretty decent ground to see prejudice in the comment made, and the problem isn't just about "being offended". Institutional racism is very really, and it goes beyond people just being offended. Those sorts of narratives, about people having no worth because of where they are from, do real harm against people. People who hear those words, and buy into them, or hear them coming from the president, can affect how those people are able to get jobs, earn a living, and be productive members of society.

 

No, it's not just about "Being offended", it's not as nice as you may think. If you were, say, the top of your class in Highschool and weren't told by the administration that you're better off pursuing trades than anything academic in post-secondary schooling because they didn't think you would ever be smart enough purely on the basis of your heritage, then that's good. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who have to deal with that sort of crap at young ages, and that's REALLY not cool. That sort of stuff messes you up for a long time.

 

Speaking out against statements like this isn't about being offended, it's about trying to make the country better for everyone and heading off these kinds of stances at the pass.

 

So no, I don't think people should shut up about "racism". I think it should be brought to people's attention and people should be made aware of it. Because just pretending it's not there isn't going to make it go away.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

First, I do feel the need to explain the racist nature of the statement, mostly because it hasn't come up before and the discussion seemed to just move onto semantics and other stuff.

 

To ask why they keep accepting people from "Shithole" countries isn't so much a statement on the country's economic state, but it's a statement on its people. If those people are immigrating over, the person is immigrating, not the country. To ask why America keeps accepting people from those countries very, very, very heavily implies that there is no perceived worth in anyone immigrating from that country, that there is nothing of value that they can bring to the table that makes them worth accepting into the nation. Of course, the statement would be limited to only this, if it wasn't for the fact that Trump only referred to African nations and Haiti.

 

Nations of predominantly black citizens, while simultaneously saying that they should be accepting immigrants from a nation of predominantly white people regardless of how completely opposite that nation is in political ideology. This sort of discourse is incredibly similar to the same narrative that's said when a company hires a more diverse base of employees. People will say "But why would you hire these women for just diversity instead of qualification?" I mean, the hidden narrative right there is that they don't believe women could be more qualified than the men who were competing for the same job. In the same way, Trump is suggesting that he believes literally anyone from Norway is more qualified to be a US citizen than anyone from all of Africa or Haiti. That's problematic.

 

Now, do I think he meant it in a racist manner? Ultimately, I don't know. I'm not Trump, I don't know his intentions and it's entirely possible that he meant it purely in a manner of speaking about the nation itself, as others in this thread have suggested. However, that doesn't discount what he said, and what he said was really, really not good.

 

There's a lot of weight in what he said, and to suggest that nobody from any nation of those sorts has anything of value to bring is, frankly, a prejudiced thing to say. It's discounting and devaluing people over something that actually has no effect on their value as a person. There should be no defending what he said. Even as Zai said, there are better ways to phrase it that don't come across as hateful, but honestly the same message is there. Even if you paint it gold and encrust it in jewels, a piece of sheet is still a piece of sheet (referring to the statement, not the person).

 

Regarding the issue of immigration itself, no your country does not have an obligation to accept immigrants from, well, anywhere. But there should be good reasoning behind that, not just blind prejudice. Also, I don't know how much everyone here knows about the process of immigration, but it's not as simple as people just being accepted willy nilly easily. Nor should it be. There should be vetting for qualifications, financial position and potential job placement (it'd probably be worse for someone to let them put everything they had to move overseas just to become almost immediately homeless because they weren't prepared), criminal record, etc. And this process does exist; place of origin should have no meaning in the face of this process. If a person qualifies to immigrate, they should be able to immigrate.

 

People are people. We are all capable of the same potential, to do the same amount of good, and the same amount of wrong. Discrimination from anyone, against anyone, is not right, ESPECIALLY coming from a world leader. If a person is going to go through the effort and the process to become the face of your nation, to be its leader and represent it to the world, then a high standard should be placed upon them. What Trump said was unacceptable, and regardless if you support him or not I would strongly suggest you think about what it is that he said and what's going on. A nation's leader should always be under scrutiny, by its supporters and opponents alike. That's part of how a nation grows and becomes a better place, when its people hold its leader accountable for their words and their actions.

Your claim that "To ask why America keeps accepting people from those countries very, very, very heavily implies that there is no perceived worth in anyone immigrating from that country" is false

 

The statement means on average, there a better places to accept people from. The US has an immigration quota, and more importantly it has a domestic population with both economic and cultural needs. 

 

You don't want to accept low skilled workers that might drive down wages, and you don't want to accept people who are culturally incompatible (I'd argue Norway, which the president praised, violates the latter). 

 

The president also has the full authority to control immigration into the country:

 

“The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty … inherent in the executive power,” the Supreme Court said in 1950. And lest there be doubt, Congress adopted a provision in 1952 saying the president “may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens and any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants” whenever he thinks it “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States

 

He can ban individuals from a certain nation for any reason really (SCOTUS has temp upheld the travel ban, and will issue ruling on it soon)

 

7-1 btw

 

He has also stopped people from entering this country from state sponsors of Terrorism, like Iran. Terrorist nations like North Korea. etc. 

 

It's not saying literally anyone from Norway is more qualified, but on average Norway is more qualified. They show higher happiness, are more educated (debatable if a liberal arts degree actually makes you worth more), earn more, have a longer life expectancy. So on. 

 

Your point on diversity is also flawed. Some people think like that sure, but Affirmative action diversity policies will actually focus on getting a woman or minority into a slot focused on quotas instead of qualifications. Like they could discriminate against an asian or white male with a higher score to get the black woman in. 

 

What inherent value does diversity in and of itself possess?

 

Quantify "bad" some of the people who are attacking him politically have said similar things- "hellhole' was used a fair bit

 

He said it bluntly, instead of the nice way Zai rephrased it. But that's about it.

 

Countries share immigration information. On some levels it'll consist of this is how much I made last year, this is my education level, etc. But countries also share the average information like income of quartiles. Life expectancy. That kind of information. Looking at those, show that norway is superior in those regards to the nations he mentioned. 

 

No we're not. A cripple without thumbs is not capable of the same things a person who does have thumbs is capable of. A person who is culturally unsuitable with the US would not be as productive as someone who can integrate easier. It matters what you want out of the immigrant. It's perfectly valid reason to critique multiculturalism and prefer nations that are similar to the US. Norway wouldn't work there, you'd be better off with Eastern Europe or East Asia in that manner

 

Lotta assumptions in here VCR with little justification. Do better

[Dad]

You keep bringing up affirmative action like black kids didn't once need to be escorted by the military.

 

The fact that we need affirmative action despite putting out high grades is a problem with the education system.

[~ P O L A R I S ~]

Japan’s economy currently ranks third in terms of nominal GDP

 

I'd call that a success. They've caught up despite all the blows they faced as you noted

 

Yeah, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_Japan

 

People are people. We are all capable of the same potential, to do the same amount of good, and the same amount of wrong.

 

How you define good and wrong is your business, but in the worldly sense that concerns politicians this has never been true. Some people are born with disabilities so severe and into circumstances so harsh they die before they reach their first birthday, and some people are born as the son of Pierre Trudeau, and by their very surname have immediate recognition to say nothing of growing up at 24 Sussex Drive. Others are born on a fentanyl-infested reserve while we were born into comfortable enough circumstances to be posting here now.  

 

Race is a real issue in the United States as it is everywhere else, to pretend it isn't doesn't make you any less racist. Every man to ever be elected as President of the United States of America has had to confront race, and has had to do so in such a way as to be voted in by a historically racist country. 

 

Likewise, the average Haitian and the average Norwegian are probably born into and tempered by radically different circumstances, I guess, but who cares? It ain't where you're from it's where you're at. 

 

Discrimination from anyone, against anyone, is not right, ESPECIALLY coming from a world leader.

 

Every world leader has discriminated, including racially and otherwise. They have to, both to placate their tribal rabble on the road to becoming a world leader and in making decisions as a world leader. That's the way of worldly affairs, as it always has been. If you don't like it, as I certainly don't, then there's the otherworldly and the unworldly, there's myth, religion, escapism, sex, Coca-Cola, vibrant anime, card games, sports, drugs, "music", first-person shooters, and walls of utopian drivel.

 

Pick your delusions, God knows you'll need them! God knows you already have, just as Donald Trump's picked his and I've picked mine. Who am I to judge? It'll all be sorted out in the end as it's meant to be, I have faith in that much.

[Trisagion]

So what should the alternative be? There's some pretty decent ground to see prejudice in the comment made, and the problem isn't just about "being offended". Institutional racism is very really, and it goes beyond people just being offended. Those sorts of narratives, about people having no worth because of where they are from, do real harm against people. People who hear those words, and buy into them, or hear them coming from the president, can affect how those people are able to get jobs, earn a living, and be productive members of society.

 

No, it's not just about "Being offended", it's not as nice as you may think. If you were, say, the top of your class in Highschool and weren't told by the administration that you're better off pursuing trades than anything academic in post-secondary schooling because they didn't think you would ever be smart enough purely on the basis of your heritage, then that's good. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who have to deal with that sort of crap at young ages, and that's REALLY not cool. That sort of stuff messes you up for a long time.

 

Speaking out against statements like this isn't about being offended, it's about trying to make the country better for everyone and heading off these kinds of stances at the pass.

 

So no, I don't think people should shut up about "racism". I think it should be brought to people's attention and people should be made aware of it. Because just pretending it's not there isn't going to make it go away.

 

My last paragraph was mostly a kind of vent made in response to all the comments being made about derogatory name slinging since that reminded me of the double standard I mentioned at the end of my post: “No one seems to care when white people are at the end of some racial joke or remark, but God forbid you talk about nonwhite folk, particularly black people.” (I think I’ll also just add in “discrimination against white people” here since I just now saw affirmative action is being talked about). That in turn reminded me of how people nowadays are so quick to call out racism and people as racists… even though there might not be any real kind of racism or racists involved. I don’t disagree with you that such things should be called out and ended, but first people should make sure that what they think is there is actually there instead of just immediately grabbing the torches and pitchforks; acting like something is there when it isn’t is not going to help anything or anyone, nor will it prevent a problem from happening.

 

 

Should the problem actually exist in a particular situation, it should also be confined to that particular situation. What I mean by that is to not universally condemn everyone, in this case white people, which seems to be a popular thing nowadays. I know this kind of thing doesn’t have much to do with the issue at hand (though I guess it kind of does), but again, my mention of all this was kind of a vent on the topic.

 

 

Also, since I brought up the topic of universally condemning people, I expect to be reminded how Trump's comment seems to universally condemn everyone from the countries he was referring to. Keep in mind that I did basically say how universally condemning and barring people from these places would be wrong, and how instead we should seek to sift and accept the good people from the bad.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

You keep bringing up affirmative action like black kids didn't once need to be escorted by the military.

 

The fact that we need affirmative action despite putting out high grades is a problem with the education system.

You don't (on avg)

 

The mean score on the math section of the SAT for all test-takers is 511 out of 800, the average scores for blacks (428) and Latinos (457) are significantly below those of whites (534) and Asians (598). The scores of black and Latino students are clustered towards the bottom of the distribution, while white scores are relatively normally distributed, and Asians are clustered at the top

 

On avg people like me are being pushed aside for someone who objectively scores worse than us for diversity sake. 

 

I actually got an 800 on my Math score, is it fair for me to not get accepted to a school because they wanted that one black kid with a 700 score instead of one of thousands of asians with an 800?

 

 

(No, that's honestly likely not why I didn't get into Yale, but it might be why they waitlisted me and dragged my ass over the summer before offering me a spot at U chicago)

 

Affirmative action is incredibly racist and sexist

[Trisagion]

You don't (on avg)

 

The mean score on the math section of the SAT for all test-takers is 511 out of 800, the average scores for blacks (428) and Latinos (457) are significantly below those of whites (534) and Asians (598). The scores of black and Latino students are clustered towards the bottom of the distribution, while white scores are relatively normally distributed, and Asians are clustered at the top

 

On avg people like me are being pushed aside for someone who objectively scores worse than us for diversity sake. 

 

I actually got an 800 on my Math score, is it fair for me to not get accepted to a school because they wanted that one black kid with a 700 score instead of one of thousands of asians with an 800?

 

 

(No, that's honestly likely not why I didn't get into Yale, but it might be why they waitlisted me and dragged my ass over the summer before offering me a spot at U chicago)

 

Affirmative action is incredibly racist and sexist

Getting into "bell curve semantics" to try and determine the worth and usefulness of people is a foolish thing to do, in my opinion. I scored pretty low on my Math portion of the SAT, but scored significantly higher on the Reading and Writing portions. I expected this to be the case since I was always much more comfortable and better with rhetorical subjects. In the same vein, people have their strengths and weaknesses, which naturally contribute to how well they perform in particular test sections or even tests in general (some people don't do well on tests not because they don't know the material, but simply because they really don't like tests).

 

I'd write more, but I just feel like posting the gist of my thoughts on your post.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

That's the way of worldly affairs, as it always has been. If you don't like it, as I certainly don't, then there's the otherworldly and the unworldly, there's myth, religion, escapism, sex, Coca-Cola, vibrant anime, card games, sports, drugs, "music", first-person shooters, and walls of utopian drivel.

I liked this post not because I necessarily agree but because reading this part was one of the most trippy experience I've had even with that one time I uh...had some questionable chocolate.

I just have to make sure this isn't lost in what I find a really unusual discussion because holy hell that string of words is beautiful in its own way.

 

Uh...as to not spam I guess I'll also mention that I appreciate one of my Pro-Trump friends who put it quite well. Idk the words for sure but it was something about being able to like some of the things he's done while disagreeing with how he's kinda a shitty person about a lot of things. That's a pretty healthy way of thinking imo.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

790 on reading, and 770 on writing. I basically missed 3-4 questions on whole exam. Yet a black student who missed 10-15 gets my spot cause my skin color isn't right. If that's not racist, idk what is

 

I get your point on test taking. But a bad test taking Asian is hurt more than a bad test taking Black or Hispanic

 

Change one variable and you'll get the same discriminating result I mentioned

[Halubaris Maphotika]

Uh...as to not spam I guess I'll also mention that I appreciate one of my Pro-Trump friends who put it quite well. Idk the words for sure but it was something about being able to like some of the things he's done while disagreeing with how he's kinda a shitty person about a lot of things. That's a pretty healthy way of thinking imo.

Same.

 

I find Trump to be a shitty president and a genuinely poor human being, but I heavily support his rebuttals against North Korea's blatant threats and his decision to move the embassy to Jerusalem to establish it as Israel's capital.

[Trisagion]

790 on reading, and 770 on writing. I basically missed 3-4 questions on whole exam. Yet a black student who missed 10-15 gets my spot cause my skin color isn't right. If that's not racist, idk what is

I get your point on test taking. But a bad test taking Asian is hurt more than a bad test taking Black or Hispanic

Change one variable and you'll get the same discriminating result I mentioned

Isn't there more to the admissions process than just the SAT score, though? Entrance essays, interviews, GPA, awards won, current skills and accomplishments, extracurricular activities, etc.; I believe all these things contribute to your chances of getting accepted into schools and perhaps even hold more weight than a score alone since they can attest to your efforts and potential. Perhaps a black kid who scored lower got accepted not because of affirmative action, but because they had other things going for them that distinguished them from others. Stuff like that also holds weight outside of school, mind you.

 

On the note of affirmative action... I'm still not too sure about it myself, honestly. I can see the benefits of it as something that works to give financially disadvantaged people a chance for higher education, but I can also see the harm in it as something that just makes people set dumb diversity quotas and accept people based on that quota as opposed to genuine qualification. I would hope that its the former that's being accomplished overall, and I would also hope that people who actually have potential but who didn't manage to score high on a test are being given a chance as well. You would need to determine that on a case by case basis, since merit can still be earned through other factors.

[VCR_CAT]

Your claim that "To ask why America keeps accepting people from those countries very, very, very heavily implies that there is no perceived worth in anyone immigrating from that country" is false

 

The statement means on average, there a better places to accept people from. The US has an immigration quota, and more importantly it has a domestic population with both economic and cultural needs. 

 

You don't want to accept low skilled workers that might drive down wages, and you don't want to accept people who are culturally incompatible (I'd argue Norway, which the president praised, violates the latter). 

 

So what you're telling me is that it isn't about believing that nobody from that nation has anything of value or worth to give, but that's about the people from that nation having very little of value or worth to provide? I mean, did you read the part where I said there is/and should be a system for immigration to vet and look into anyone that wants to move and become a citizen? Because it sounds like you think that anyone can just legally walk into the country regardless of anything and become a citizen? Please note I said LEGALLY.

 

 

The president also has the full authority to control immigration into the country:

 

“The exclusion of aliens is a fundamental act of sovereignty … inherent in the executive power,” the Supreme Court said in 1950. And lest there be doubt, Congress adopted a provision in 1952 saying the president “may by proclamation and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens and any class of aliens as immigrants or non-immigrants” whenever he thinks it “would be detrimental to the interests of the United States

 

He can ban individuals from a certain nation for any reason really (SCOTUS has temp upheld the travel ban, and will issue ruling on it soon)

 

Ayyyy did you read the part where I talked about how you country doesn't have an obligation to accept immigrants from any country but should have good reason to bar an entire nation beyond blind prejudice? Because hoo boy that is a thing I said.

 

 

Your point on diversity is also flawed. Some people think like that sure, but Affirmative action diversity policies will actually focus on getting a woman or minority into a slot focused on quotas instead of qualifications. Like they could discriminate against an asian or white male with a higher score to get the black woman in. 

 

So you don't think historically people of color or even women have had any difficulty at all with getting jobs or into the workplace, earning the same wages, or even the same respect? If companies are and have been always hiring purely and entirely on the basis of qualifications and there never has been anything even close to "institutional racism" to any degree you would be correct. Oh whoops, but looks like history and even the present kind of disagrees a FAIR bit there. Sounds like you're making a lot of assumptions about the hiring process there.

 

 

No we're not. A cripple without thumbs is not capable of the same things a person who does have thumbs is capable of.

 

Buddy I bet you any day that Stephen Hawking has done more and accomplished more than you or I ever will. Dismissing a person or people because you don't think they have any potential or anything to offer is the kinda messed up attitude that leads to a lot of problems in society. There's nothing wrong with giving them a fair chance, and if they do not succeed then they do not succeed. Yeah, of course people with physical disabilities will not be able to do the same things that those who are perfectly able will be able to, but that doesn't mean they're fully capable at doing something else as well if not better. People have the same potential to just as much good and just as much wrong as anyone else. Saying it has to look like the same thing is a pretty silly and ignorant thing to say, don't you think?

 

 

Lotta assumptions in here VCR with little justification. Do better

 

Lotta lack of reading, once again Winter. Do better.

 

 

My last paragraph was mostly a kind of vent made in response to all the comments being made about derogatory name slinging since that reminded me of the double standard I mentioned at the end of my post: “No one seems to care when white people are at the end of some racial joke or remark, but God forbid you talk about nonwhite folk, particularly black people.” (I think I’ll also just add in “discrimination against white people” here since I just now saw affirmative action is being talked about). That in turn reminded me of how people nowadays are so quick to call out racism and people as racists… even though there might not be any real kind of racism or racists involved. I don’t disagree with you that such things should be called out and ended, but first people should make sure that what they think is there is actually there instead of just immediately grabbing the torches and pitchforks; acting like something is there when it isn’t is not going to help anything or anyone, nor will it prevent a problem from happening.

 

Should the problem actually exist in a particular situation, it should also be confined to that particular situation. What I mean by that is to not universally condemn everyone, in this case white people, which seems to be a popular thing nowadays. I know this kind of thing doesn’t have much to do with the issue at hand (though I guess it kind of does), but again, my mention of all this was kind of a vent on the topic.

 

Also, since I brought up the topic of universally condemning people, I expect to be reminded how Trump's comment seems to universally condemn everyone from the countries he was referring to. Keep in mind that I did basically say how universally condemning and barring people from these places would be wrong, and how instead we should seek to sift and accept the good people from the bad.

 

 

There's always going to people that take a certain cause or point too far. There'll be people that take the idea of feminism and take it to a point where the discriminate men. There'll be people that take supporting LGBQ communities to a point where they discriminate cis straight people. There'll be people that take the idea of supporting POC to a point where the discriminate white people. This sort of thing has happened a lot historically, and it will likely keep happening, but this shouldn't mean that a standard of equality shouldn't be strived for. There'll be bad, dumb people everywhere, but it'll be more important to know what your cause is and stick to doing the right thing. Being the guy that advocates against discrimination by discriminating doesn't accomplish anything.

 

For everything else, I get what you're putting down and I understand that it was venting, so don't worry. I don't think you're some raving racist or something like that. I was mostly just addressing the talking points of the vent itself.

[.Rooster]

I heavily support his decision to move the embassy to Jerusalem to establish it as Israel's capital.

 

pfff 

[Dad]

Since this has blown up, I'm gonna go ahead and move it to debates.  Feel free to continue discussion but be aware of the rules in place.

[Halubaris Maphotika]

pfff 

I going to make a guess you have a problem with that?

[.Rooster]

I going to make a guess you have a problem with that?

 

no i'm zionist #FreeIsrael

[Halubaris Maphotika]

no i'm zionist #FreeIsrael

Okay well now I am genuinely confused. Do you agree with my statement or no?

[.Rooster]

Okay well now I am genuinely confused. Do you agree with my statement or no?

 

Nope. God's chosen people have stolen enough land.

[Halubaris Maphotika]

Nope. God's chosen people have stolen enough land.

Then you aren't a Zionist. A Zionist supports the state of Israel and it's control of the modern area of Palestine.

[.Rooster]

Then you aren't a Zionist

 

sarcasm