This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The RPGPundit's Own Forum Rules
This part of the site is controlled by the RPGPundit. This is where he discusses topics that he finds interesting. You may post here, but understand that there are limits. The RPGPundit can shut down any thread, topic of discussion, or user in a thread at his pleasure. This part of the site is essentially his house, so keep that in mind. Note that this is the only part of the site where political discussion is permitted, but is regulated by the RPGPundit.

Author Topic: Biden's Presidency, all hail the Taliban!  (Read 31228 times)

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11749
Re: Biden's Presidency, all hail the Taliban!
« Reply #165 on: August 20, 2021, 06:14:17 PM »
Specifically in the case of the U.S. accepting non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants, I think historically, the U.S. has proven it to be a success. When I grew up in the 1970s and 1980s, the diversity of the U.S. was widely taken as a traditional value - where we celebrated how the U.S. was a land of opportunity that welcomed immigrants and was a melting pot of different peoples. My father is a non-Anglo-Saxon immigrant who came to the U.S. after the Korean War.

I think that if the U.S. had only accepted Anglo-Saxon immigrants from its founding, that it never would have had the success that it has had.

   I am not arguing that.  I am saying there is a point where diversity for its own sake, and going to a point where some common national bonds are no longer evident is a negative.   When you grew up, immigration quotas from the 3rd world were being filled.  Before 1965 Europe was where the massive flow of immigration was accepted.   Your thoughts on success have absolutely zero means to be proven.  Do you have some evidence the USA was struggling somehow before 1965?    I think you could be right, but it is only a feeling, there is zero proof.  Changing immigration from massively predominantly european to developing world quotas via the Hart-Seller act may have made the USA better, I just know it can not be proven one way or the other.

I agree that it can't be proven - especially since what makes the USA "better" is completely subjective. What I'm pushing back against is the idea that immigration of non-Europeans makes the USA worse. Specifically:

(1) Even if one disagrees with it, the positive ideal of the USA as a diverse melting pot isn't a new-fangled SJW thing. It's been a mainstream traditional idea for a long time. The Hart-Celler Act of 1965 passed with a strong majority from both parties (ref).

(2) Lacking proof either way, I'm certainly going to side with my being able to exist. If my father had been barred from immigrating to the U.S. for being non-European, I wouldn't have been born.


   All that sort of behavior is unnerving to people who wonder why, when under color of LAW it is perfectly legal to NOT hire a white person due solely to race alone and hire another person.

In the U.S.? The federal Civil Rights act is race-neutral, and equally blocks against hiring discrimination because of being white or black. (Though there are limits to where it applies.) There have been a bunch of successful lawsuits over discrimination because of being white.

https://newsone.com/165891/many-whites-filing-reverse-discrimination-lawsuits/

https://www.buckleybeal.com/blog/2011/july/the-buckley-law-firm-victorious-in-reverse-race-/

As far as I know, that's true of most states as well - including liberal ones. California amended its constitution to ban racial affirmative action in employment and education in 1996. There was a 2020 proposition (Prop 16) to make it legal again, and it failed to pass by a wider margin than the original ban passed in 1996.

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4009
Re: Biden's Presidency, all hail the Taliban!
« Reply #166 on: August 20, 2021, 06:45:19 PM »
Specifically in the case of the U.S. accepting non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants, I think historically, the U.S. has proven it to be a success. When I grew up in the 1970s and 1980s, the diversity of the U.S. was widely taken as a traditional value - where we celebrated how the U.S. was a land of opportunity that welcomed immigrants and was a melting pot of different peoples. My father is a non-Anglo-Saxon immigrant who came to the U.S. after the Korean War.

I think that if the U.S. had only accepted Anglo-Saxon immigrants from its founding, that it never would have had the success that it has had.

   I am not arguing that.  I am saying there is a point where diversity for its own sake, and going to a point where some common national bonds are no longer evident is a negative.   When you grew up, immigration quotas from the 3rd world were being filled.  Before 1965 Europe was where the massive flow of immigration was accepted.   Your thoughts on success have absolutely zero means to be proven.  Do you have some evidence the USA was struggling somehow before 1965?    I think you could be right, but it is only a feeling, there is zero proof.  Changing immigration from massively predominantly european to developing world quotas via the Hart-Seller act may have made the USA better, I just know it can not be proven one way or the other.

I agree that it can't be proven - especially since what makes the USA "better" is completely subjective. What I'm pushing back against is the idea that immigration of non-Europeans makes the USA worse. Specifically:

(1) Even if one disagrees with it, the positive ideal of the USA as a diverse melting pot isn't a new-fangled SJW thing. It's been a mainstream traditional idea for a long time. The Hart-Celler Act of 1965 passed with a strong majority from both parties (ref).

(2) Lacking proof either way, I'm certainly going to side with my being able to exist. If my father had been barred from immigrating to the U.S. for being non-European, I wouldn't have been born.


   All that sort of behavior is unnerving to people who wonder why, when under color of LAW it is perfectly legal to NOT hire a white person due solely to race alone and hire another person.

In the U.S.? The federal Civil Rights act is race-neutral, and equally blocks against hiring discrimination because of being white or black. (Though there are limits to where it applies.) There have been a bunch of successful lawsuits over discrimination because of being white.

https://newsone.com/165891/many-whites-filing-reverse-discrimination-lawsuits/

https://www.buckleybeal.com/blog/2011/july/the-buckley-law-firm-victorious-in-reverse-race-/

As far as I know, that's true of most states as well - including liberal ones. California amended its constitution to ban racial affirmative action in employment and education in 1996. There was a 2020 proposition (Prop 16) to make it legal again, and it failed to pass by a wider margin than the original ban passed in 1996.

     Hey man, my phone rang.  10 years ago called and said it was for you.

Mistwell

  • Smarter than Arduin
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 5289
Re: Biden's Presidency, all hail the Taliban!
« Reply #167 on: August 20, 2021, 07:15:34 PM »
Specifically in the case of the U.S. accepting non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants, I think historically, the U.S. has proven it to be a success. When I grew up in the 1970s and 1980s, the diversity of the U.S. was widely taken as a traditional value - where we celebrated how the U.S. was a land of opportunity that welcomed immigrants and was a melting pot of different peoples. My father is a non-Anglo-Saxon immigrant who came to the U.S. after the Korean War.

I think that if the U.S. had only accepted Anglo-Saxon immigrants from its founding, that it never would have had the success that it has had.

   I am not arguing that.  I am saying there is a point where diversity for its own sake, and going to a point where some common national bonds are no longer evident is a negative.   When you grew up, immigration quotas from the 3rd world were being filled.  Before 1965 Europe was where the massive flow of immigration was accepted.   Your thoughts on success have absolutely zero means to be proven.  Do you have some evidence the USA was struggling somehow before 1965?    I think you could be right, but it is only a feeling, there is zero proof.  Changing immigration from massively predominantly european to developing world quotas via the Hart-Seller act may have made the USA better, I just know it can not be proven one way or the other.

I agree that it can't be proven - especially since what makes the USA "better" is completely subjective. What I'm pushing back against is the idea that immigration of non-Europeans makes the USA worse. Specifically:

(1) Even if one disagrees with it, the positive ideal of the USA as a diverse melting pot isn't a new-fangled SJW thing. It's been a mainstream traditional idea for a long time. The Hart-Celler Act of 1965 passed with a strong majority from both parties (ref).

(2) Lacking proof either way, I'm certainly going to side with my being able to exist. If my father had been barred from immigrating to the U.S. for being non-European, I wouldn't have been born.


   All that sort of behavior is unnerving to people who wonder why, when under color of LAW it is perfectly legal to NOT hire a white person due solely to race alone and hire another person.

In the U.S.? The federal Civil Rights act is race-neutral, and equally blocks against hiring discrimination because of being white or black. (Though there are limits to where it applies.) There have been a bunch of successful lawsuits over discrimination because of being white.

https://newsone.com/165891/many-whites-filing-reverse-discrimination-lawsuits/

https://www.buckleybeal.com/blog/2011/july/the-buckley-law-firm-victorious-in-reverse-race-/

As far as I know, that's true of most states as well - including liberal ones. California amended its constitution to ban racial affirmative action in employment and education in 1996. There was a 2020 proposition (Prop 16) to make it legal again, and it failed to pass by a wider margin than the original ban passed in 1996.

     Hey man, my phone rang.  10 years ago called and said it was for you.

Did you tell them to buy BitCoin? Real Estate? Uber stock?

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4009
Re: Biden's Presidency, all hail the Taliban!
« Reply #168 on: August 20, 2021, 07:39:53 PM »
Specifically in the case of the U.S. accepting non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants, I think historically, the U.S. has proven it to be a success. When I grew up in the 1970s and 1980s, the diversity of the U.S. was widely taken as a traditional value - where we celebrated how the U.S. was a land of opportunity that welcomed immigrants and was a melting pot of different peoples. My father is a non-Anglo-Saxon immigrant who came to the U.S. after the Korean War.

I think that if the U.S. had only accepted Anglo-Saxon immigrants from its founding, that it never would have had the success that it has had.

   I am not arguing that.  I am saying there is a point where diversity for its own sake, and going to a point where some common national bonds are no longer evident is a negative.   When you grew up, immigration quotas from the 3rd world were being filled.  Before 1965 Europe was where the massive flow of immigration was accepted.   Your thoughts on success have absolutely zero means to be proven.  Do you have some evidence the USA was struggling somehow before 1965?    I think you could be right, but it is only a feeling, there is zero proof.  Changing immigration from massively predominantly european to developing world quotas via the Hart-Seller act may have made the USA better, I just know it can not be proven one way or the other.

I agree that it can't be proven - especially since what makes the USA "better" is completely subjective. What I'm pushing back against is the idea that immigration of non-Europeans makes the USA worse. Specifically:

(1) Even if one disagrees with it, the positive ideal of the USA as a diverse melting pot isn't a new-fangled SJW thing. It's been a mainstream traditional idea for a long time. The Hart-Celler Act of 1965 passed with a strong majority from both parties (ref).

(2) Lacking proof either way, I'm certainly going to side with my being able to exist. If my father had been barred from immigrating to the U.S. for being non-European, I wouldn't have been born.


   All that sort of behavior is unnerving to people who wonder why, when under color of LAW it is perfectly legal to NOT hire a white person due solely to race alone and hire another person.

In the U.S.? The federal Civil Rights act is race-neutral, and equally blocks against hiring discrimination because of being white or black. (Though there are limits to where it applies.) There have been a bunch of successful lawsuits over discrimination because of being white.

https://newsone.com/165891/many-whites-filing-reverse-discrimination-lawsuits/

https://www.buckleybeal.com/blog/2011/july/the-buckley-law-firm-victorious-in-reverse-race-/

As far as I know, that's true of most states as well - including liberal ones. California amended its constitution to ban racial affirmative action in employment and education in 1996. There was a 2020 proposition (Prop 16) to make it legal again, and it failed to pass by a wider margin than the original ban passed in 1996.

     Hey man, my phone rang.  10 years ago called and said it was for you.

Did you tell them to buy BitCoin? Real Estate? Uber stock?

   I told em to call 20 years back and tell em NO to invading Iraq and afghanistan.

Pat
BANNED

  • BANNED
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • ?
  • Posts: 5252
  • Rats do 0 damage
Re: Biden's Presidency, all hail the Taliban!
« Reply #169 on: August 20, 2021, 07:44:21 PM »
   I told em to call 20 years back and tell em NO to invading Iraq and afghanistan.
20 years back said you're un-American, and support terrorists.

Opposing the right things before everyone else does usually doesn't go over very well.

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4009
Re: Biden's Presidency, all hail the Taliban!
« Reply #170 on: August 20, 2021, 07:55:13 PM »
   I told em to call 20 years back and tell em NO to invading Iraq and afghanistan.
20 years back said you're un-American, and support terrorists.

Opposing the right things before everyone else does usually doesn't go over very well.

  Well, I said this back then to people, and made my point (how many saudis were on board, terrorist camps should be the priority, if the Taliban was connected in a CLEAR evidence supported way, bomb the shit out of them for punitive action) and most people did not have that point of view.   But I do remember Bill Mahr getting kicked off network TV for saying something that IMO was simple honesty about the whole thing.  So you could be right, I would likely have been cancelled had their been some social media platform to discuss it on.

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11749
Re: Biden's Presidency, all hail the Taliban!
« Reply #171 on: August 20, 2021, 08:02:00 PM »
The federal Civil Rights act is race-neutral, and equally blocks against hiring discrimination because of being white or black. (Though there are limits to where it applies.) There have been a bunch of successful lawsuits over discrimination because of being white.

https://newsone.com/165891/many-whites-filing-reverse-discrimination-lawsuits/

https://www.buckleybeal.com/blog/2011/july/the-buckley-law-firm-victorious-in-reverse-race-/

As far as I know, that's true of most states as well - including liberal ones. California amended its constitution to ban racial affirmative action in employment and education in 1996. There was a 2020 proposition (Prop 16) to make it legal again, and it failed to pass by a wider margin than the original ban passed in 1996.

     Hey man, my phone rang.  10 years ago called and said it was for you.

Prop 16 was defeated just last November. OK, fine my lawsuit examples were from non-time-based Internet search and were from ten years ago. Here are some more recent successful white discrimination lawsuits:

Quote
A Pennsylvania federal jury said The Geo Group Inc. should pay $3.6 million to a couple who claimed they lost their jobs with the private prison operator because one of them complained about anti-white racial discrimination and harassment.

After a five-day trial, the jury found the company, which ran the Moshannon Valley Correctional Center, should cough up about $2.6 million to Brandy Norfolk and more than $900,000 to Stephen Norfolk, according to a verdict issued July 30 and made public Tuesday.

Stephen Norfolk, who is white, said he faced racial discrimination and a hostile work environment, as well as retaliation for reporting his concerns. He was awarded $275,000 in back pay, $250,000 in compensatory damages and $400,000 in punitive damages, according to the verdict.
Source: https://www.law360.com/employment-authority/articles/1409498/jury-awards-prison-workers-3-6m-in-reverse-race-bias-case

Quote
A federal judge has ruled that Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division must rehire Mike Goza, the technician who was fired after a public backlash over offensive Facebook statements he made about African Americans and violence in Charlottesville, Virginia.
...
The judge ruled MLGW must also give Goza $160,000 in back pay and benefits, plus $30,000 in compensatory damages.
...
Goza, who is white, had also claimed racial discrimination, arguing the utility had acted differently in the case of a black MLGW worker who went on a Facebook rant in which he advocated violence, including killing Asian store owners. That worker got a three-day suspension.

The judge cited the case of that other worker and agreed with Goza's racial discrimination argument.
Source: https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/news/2019/06/18/mike-goza-case-judge-rules-favor-mlgw-worker-memphis-offensive-remarks-facebook/1482185001/

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4009
Re: Biden's Presidency, all hail the Taliban!
« Reply #172 on: August 20, 2021, 08:11:02 PM »
The federal Civil Rights act is race-neutral, and equally blocks against hiring discrimination because of being white or black. (Though there are limits to where it applies.) There have been a bunch of successful lawsuits over discrimination because of being white.

https://newsone.com/165891/many-whites-filing-reverse-discrimination-lawsuits/

https://www.buckleybeal.com/blog/2011/july/the-buckley-law-firm-victorious-in-reverse-race-/

As far as I know, that's true of most states as well - including liberal ones. California amended its constitution to ban racial affirmative action in employment and education in 1996. There was a 2020 proposition (Prop 16) to make it legal again, and it failed to pass by a wider margin than the original ban passed in 1996.

     Hey man, my phone rang.  10 years ago called and said it was for you.

Prop 16 was defeated just last November. OK, fine my lawsuit examples were from non-time-based Internet search and were from ten years ago. Here are some more recent successful white discrimination lawsuits:

Quote
A Pennsylvania federal jury said The Geo Group Inc. should pay $3.6 million to a couple who claimed they lost their jobs with the private prison operator because one of them complained about anti-white racial discrimination and harassment.

After a five-day trial, the jury found the company, which ran the Moshannon Valley Correctional Center, should cough up about $2.6 million to Brandy Norfolk and more than $900,000 to Stephen Norfolk, according to a verdict issued July 30 and made public Tuesday.

Stephen Norfolk, who is white, said he faced racial discrimination and a hostile work environment, as well as retaliation for reporting his concerns. He was awarded $275,000 in back pay, $250,000 in compensatory damages and $400,000 in punitive damages, according to the verdict.
Source: https://www.law360.com/employment-authority/articles/1409498/jury-awards-prison-workers-3-6m-in-reverse-race-bias-case

Quote
A federal judge has ruled that Memphis Light, Gas and Water Division must rehire Mike Goza, the technician who was fired after a public backlash over offensive Facebook statements he made about African Americans and violence in Charlottesville, Virginia.
...
The judge ruled MLGW must also give Goza $160,000 in back pay and benefits, plus $30,000 in compensatory damages.
...
Goza, who is white, had also claimed racial discrimination, arguing the utility had acted differently in the case of a black MLGW worker who went on a Facebook rant in which he advocated violence, including killing Asian store owners. That worker got a three-day suspension.

The judge cited the case of that other worker and agreed with Goza's racial discrimination argument.
Source: https://www.commercialappeal.com/story/news/2019/06/18/mike-goza-case-judge-rules-favor-mlgw-worker-memphis-offensive-remarks-facebook/1482185001/

  Not a one has a thing to do with me saying hiring preferences using race are allowed.  You have lists of people being fired.  I am not sure if you understood what I said, because you seem to be answering a different question.    Do you work for snopes?  They love to answer questions no one asked too.

oggsmash

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4009
Re: Biden's Presidency, all hail the Taliban!
« Reply #173 on: August 20, 2021, 08:21:32 PM »
  Let me save you a bit of time.  Affirmative action is alive and well, and overtly racist, at least by the definition we have always used.  As to your earlier suggestion that I implied a more euro USA was better, I did not.  I simply made the point that it being more diverse may not have made it better either.  I also clearly laid out where I have issue with diversity and where the breaking points start to show up.  My main point around european immigration, was to counter the idea the USA has always been very diverse, especially with regard to modern usage of the word.  That is simply untrue, it was a nation of white and black people, and other populations were miniscule. 

   So for some reason you approach this as if I am attempting to say that was better (much whiter I guess), which I did not.  I simply said I missed the problems that diversity solved, or if there was some measureable problem the hart sellar act was there to fix (also remember the people who presented that act made LOTS OF PROMISES as to how it would not in any way alter the demographics of the USA, which was a lie, or they are the biggest retards to ever walk the earth).   Is it better or worse now?  It is not for me to say, as I already made it VERY CLEAR to anyone who is reading what I say, that I do not think ethnic diversity creates some negative impact.  Cultural diversity, when the diverse starts to look more like divided....well then some problems can come about, this is common sense.   

   You have capitulated that there is no way to prove the nation is better due to diversity, I agree.  You said you are ok with it anyway, because you would not exist without it.  I also agree with this (my wife would not be here either, as she is half Lebanese) as well.  So I miss where you are going on about this european thing.  Ethnicity/race has no play to me when I discuss diversity.

SonTodoGato
BANNED

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
  • BANNED
Re: Biden's Presidency, all hail the Taliban!
« Reply #174 on: August 21, 2021, 12:19:55 AM »
And I agree, immigrants like Italian-Americans didn't leave their identity behind the moment they crossed the border. The differing identities of them and other immigrants changed the culture of the U.S. But culture always changes. That's going to happen regardless of immigration.

Different =/= Better.

Regardless, anything can be bad if taken to a stupid extreme. And diversity as I have mentioned many times before is viewed as a VIRTUE in it of itself when at best its a neutral trait.
Diversity can bring new perspectives, or it could rip apart existing sociatal sctructures. Its not a superpower or an inherent strength.

There are way too many variables and way too many criteria to say whether diversity as a whole is objectively good or bad or neutral. It's too broad and nebulous a question to answer objectively. But it seems to me that SonTodoGato, deathknight4044, and oggsmash are arguing that diversity is an inherent weakness.

Specifically in the case of the U.S. accepting non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants, I think historically, the U.S. has proven it to be a success. When I grew up in the 1970s and 1980s, the diversity of the U.S. was widely taken as a traditional value - where we celebrated how the U.S. was a land of opportunity that welcomed immigrants and was a melting pot of different peoples. My father is a non-Anglo-Saxon immigrant who came to the U.S. after the Korean War.

I think that if the U.S. had only accepted Anglo-Saxon immigrants from its founding, that it never would have had the success that it has had.

That was the policy of the US for most of its history; immigration restricted to "white men of good character" or qualified non-whites who were expected to assimilate. Quite restrictive, not that diverse. It was only in 1965, shortly after the victory of the forces of internationalism and socialism and the defeat of nationalism that the US decided to change its policy for reasons I ignore. Ever since then, diversity started to mean something else.

Just to clarify, migration benefitted the US largely and there is nothing wrong about there being a variety of cultures and identities who coexist in peace. The problem is the forced diversity which serves a political purpose. It's diversity for the sake of it and the benefit of politicians.

My questions are:

1) How/Why does diversity improve a society? What is the ideal ratio of ethnicities?

2) If migrants don't leave their identity behind... How can you expect them to agree on fundamental values and see past race?

3) How did the US manage to be great before 1965? How did any other country with less diversity?

4) Would you like to live in a very diverse place? Or would you rather stay in a community of people with a similar background to yours?

5) Would you want Korea to be diversified to the point where ethnic Koreans become a minority? (this one was meant for JHkim specifically, but it can apply to anyone. I do not ask this in a demeaning way, and I have no animosity against anyone. I'm just illustrating a point; ethnicity matters to people)
« Last Edit: August 21, 2021, 12:25:20 AM by SonTodoGato »

S'mon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13315
Re: Biden's Presidency, all hail the Taliban!
« Reply #175 on: August 21, 2021, 06:10:50 AM »
(2) Lacking proof either way, I'm certainly going to side with my being able to exist. If my father had been barred from immigrating to the U.S. for being non-European, I wouldn't have been born.

What's good for you isn't necessarily good for the natives. OTOH my experience in the USA was that the East-Asians I met were clearly full Americans in every way that mattered, and made a lot of positive contributions (and few negative - East-Asian violent crime rates are ca 1/3 that of white Americans, ca 1/30 that of African-Americans); if I were American I'd be in favour of (some, limited) east-Asian immigration. Some other groups are more marginal, and some like Somalis are a huge net negative for everyone else. Afghans seem a lot closer to Somalis than Koreans. https://www.unz.com/isteve/new-dutch-study-of-cost-of-refugees/

SonTodoGato
BANNED

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
  • BANNED
Re: Biden's Presidency, all hail the Taliban!
« Reply #176 on: August 21, 2021, 11:17:39 AM »
(2) Lacking proof either way, I'm certainly going to side with my being able to exist. If my father had been barred from immigrating to the U.S. for being non-European, I wouldn't have been born.

What's good for you isn't necessarily good for the natives. OTOH my experience in the USA was that the East-Asians I met were clearly full Americans in every way that mattered, and made a lot of positive contributions (and few negative - East-Asian violent crime rates are ca 1/3 that of white Americans, ca 1/30 that of African-Americans); if I were American I'd be in favour of (some, limited) east-Asian immigration. Some other groups are more marginal, and some like Somalis are a huge net negative for everyone else. Afghans seem a lot closer to Somalis than Koreans. https://www.unz.com/isteve/new-dutch-study-of-cost-of-refugees/

Asians tend to perform better than Americans academically and professionally; so much for systemic racism. That's why they had to be considered to benefit from "white privilege", because otherwise the narrative of blacks being kept down by racism would fall apart.

https://nypost.com/2019/05/26/doe-may-have-claimed-asian-students-benefit-from-white-supremacy/

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11749
Re: Biden's Presidency, all hail the Taliban!
« Reply #177 on: August 21, 2021, 06:48:51 PM »
I think that if the U.S. had only accepted Anglo-Saxon immigrants from its founding, that it never would have had the success that it has had.

That was the policy of the US for most of its history; immigration restricted to "white men of good character" or qualified non-whites who were expected to assimilate. Quite restrictive, not that diverse. It was only in 1965, shortly after the victory of the forces of internationalism and socialism and the defeat of nationalism that the US decided to change its policy for reasons I ignore. Ever since then, diversity started to mean something else.

You're equating "Anglo-Saxon" with "white" here, but they mean different things. Compared to its rivals at the time, the U.S. from its founding through 1925 was more open and diverse. It restricted naturalization to mostly white people - but at the time, "white" included a wide range of non-Anglo-Saxon ethnicities from Irish to Mexicans to Italians to Jews to Russians and more. Also, the initial population of the colonies was only around 80% white. These made it significantly more diverse than its European rivals.

From 1925 to 1965, there was a much more restricted immigration policy - especially as a pushback against non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants like Irish, Italians, and Jews. However, that was a limited period and immigration opened up further after that.

Our diversity has never been perfect - but it gave us gospel and jazz and rock 'n roll. It made us the leader in atomic energy thanks to Jewish and other non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants. It has generated much of our uniquely American cultures and traditions.


Just to clarify, migration benefitted the US largely and there is nothing wrong about there being a variety of cultures and identities who coexist in peace. The problem is the forced diversity which serves a political purpose. It's diversity for the sake of it and the benefit of politicians.

The question is, what is considered "forced" in terms of immigration? For example, I would say that the whites-only naturalization is just as forced and political as any other immigration laws. I don't think there is a neutral choice. Immigration will always reflect our values and politics. The Immigration Act of 1965 was voted in by a strong majority of both parties who were democratically elected. The changeover from whites-only naturalization to modern immigration reflected the will of the American people as a whole, not just politicians.


My questions are:

1) How/Why does diversity improve a society? What is the ideal ratio of ethnicities?

2) If migrants don't leave their identity behind... How can you expect them to agree on fundamental values and see past race?

3) How did the US manage to be great before 1965? How did any other country with less diversity?

4) Would you like to live in a very diverse place? Or would you rather stay in a community of people with a similar background to yours?

5) Would you want Korea to be diversified to the point where ethnic Koreans become a minority? (this one was meant for JHkim specifically, but it can apply to anyone. I do not ask this in a demeaning way, and I have no animosity against anyone. I'm just illustrating a point; ethnicity matters to people)

(1) There is no ideal ratio. There are countries that are more diverse and countries that are less diverse, and both make it work.

(2) Migrants have never left their identity behind, nor has there ever been perfect agreement between Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, and English-Americans. They can still live in peace and cooperate despite their differences, though.

(3) Diversity isn't required as I said, but America became great - among other things - by being more diverse than its rivals in Europe.

(4) I like to have some people of similar background, but it doesn't need to be a majority. I like the diversity of most of the places I've lived - all within the U.S. but in mixed communities. Currently, my church is mostly white and I'm fine with that. My workplace is mostly Asian, and I'm fine with that as well.

(5) I don't see a problem with that if it happens peacefully from democratic will. My father married my mother, who is white. I have one cousin who married a Chinese woman, and another who adopted Chinese children. It has worked out well for us, and I would be fine if the rest of Korea were to have similar experiences as my family.

SonTodoGato
BANNED

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 120
  • BANNED
Re: Biden's Presidency, all hail the Taliban!
« Reply #178 on: August 21, 2021, 08:00:24 PM »

You're equating "Anglo-Saxon" with "white" here, but they mean different things. Compared to its rivals at the time, the U.S. from its founding through 1925 was more open and diverse. It restricted naturalization to mostly white people - but at the time, "white" included a wide range of non-Anglo-Saxon ethnicities from Irish to Mexicans to Italians to Jews to Russians and more. Also, the initial population of the colonies was only around 80% white. These made it significantly more diverse than its European rivals. From 1925 to 1965, there was a much more restricted immigration policy - especially as a pushback against non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants like Irish, Italians, and Jews. However, that was a limited period and immigration opened up further after that.

Our diversity has never been perfect - but it gave us gospel and jazz and rock 'n roll. It made us the leader in atomic energy thanks to Jewish and other non-Anglo-Saxon immigrants. It has generated much of our uniquely American cultures and traditions.

It also gave them slavery, riots, segregation, affirmative action, no child left behind, gangs & mafias, BLM, statues torn down... I think it's just cherrypicking. When diversity works out, it's great and civic nationalism gets credit. When it doesn't, everybody looks the other way and blame it on the left. And even then, jazz and gospel are distinctly black; they come from mostly black artists who gathered in black communities. They formed subcultures; not diverse at all. Throughout history, they had hundreds of ghettos and hyphenated Americans; how is that unity?


Quote
The question is, what is considered "forced" in terms of immigration? For example, I would say that the whites-only naturalization is just as forced and political as any other immigration laws. I don't think there is a neutral choice. Immigration will always reflect our values and politics. The Immigration Act of 1965 was voted in by a strong majority of both parties who were democratically elected. The changeover from whites-only naturalization to modern immigration reflected the will of the American people as a whole, not just politicians.

I doubt the 1965 naturalization represented Americans; Why did they change their policy all of a sudden? What prompted them to go from segregated schools and whites-only to opening their country to practically anyone? To this day, people still oppose immigration; it's one of the most controversial issues. Imagine back in the 60's.


Quote
(1) There is no ideal ratio. There are countries that are more diverse and countries that are less diverse, and both make it work.

(2) Migrants have never left their identity behind, nor has there ever been perfect agreement between Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, and English-Americans. They can still live in peace and cooperate despite their differences, though.

(3) Diversity isn't required as I said, but America became great - among other things - by being more diverse than its rivals in Europe.

(4) I like to have some people of similar background, but it doesn't need to be a majority. I like the diversity of most of the places I've lived - all within the U.S. but in mixed communities. Currently, my church is mostly white and I'm fine with that. My workplace is mostly Asian, and I'm fine with that as well.

(5) I don't see a problem with that if it happens peacefully from democratic will. My father married my mother, who is white. I have one cousin who married a Chinese woman, and another who adopted Chinese children. It has worked out well for us, and I would be fine if the rest of Korea were to have similar experiences as my family.

America had a good economic policy, constitutionalist values, immigration of hard-working people, and benefitted from both world wars. Having different ethnicities didn't bring any of those things about. What I don't get is why you go from saying "diversity made us great" to "diversity is not necesary". How would you know if diversity caused the greatness of America? You're now more diverse than ever before, yet people feel discontent because of this. If diversity is such a source of greatness, why do people demand less everywhere it happens; Europe, America, Asia, Middle East, etc.?

Why do you prefer to be around other Asians? I think that proves my point exactly. People still flock to their own, based on cultural background and ethinicities, and there is no such thing as Americans being united by common constitutionalist values.

Eventually, when whites become a minority in America, do you think they will be treated with the same kindness they offered other minorities? Or will they become the scapegoat and denied rights? Will the constitutionalist values remain, or will they be replaced by the values and sensibilities of other demographics who value identity politics more than free speech and fiscal conservatism? Do you think the people who are migrating now to America care about preserving the constitution, free market meritocracy and a republic? Or will they vote in their own personal interest because they don't come from constitutionalist cultures? Will they vote people because they appeal to their identity (Obama, Yang, AOC, Bernie Sanders, Warren, Harris, Stacey Abrahms, Omar, etc.) or will they try to see past race? Will they value Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln, or will history be rewritten? Will it be 1776 or 1619?

Compare the voting patterns of any ethnicity in America and you'll see there is a distinct trend. Conservatism, republicanism and free market are mostly white and middle class. Other groups don't care about those things; they don't mind doing away with a few ammendments, like we're already seeing.
« Last Edit: August 21, 2021, 08:05:50 PM by SonTodoGato »

jhkim

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11749
Re: Biden's Presidency, all hail the Taliban!
« Reply #179 on: August 21, 2021, 10:56:54 PM »
Why do you prefer to be around other Asians? I think that proves my point exactly. People still flock to their own, based on cultural background and ethinicities, and there is no such thing as Americans being united by common constitutionalist values.

I'll have a more detailed answer later, but this completely fails to match what I wrote. My current workplace is predominantly Asian, but that's not my general preference. It also hasn't been true of many of my past workplaces.

In my hobbies - my gaming groups have been predominantly white. Community theater is mixed - white, Latino, and Asian mostly. My local dance studio was mixed, majority Latino. My church is predominantly white. Most of my friends from these communities are white. My serious romantic relationships have been with white or Latino partners. My sisters also married white husbands.

Historically, there is some tendency to self-select by ethnicity - but it's not overwhelming. Without a strong cultural movement towards segregation, different ethnicities often do mix and blend into each other. From ancient times, tribes would often merge or split - becoming different peoples that blended former cultures and civilizations.