Carl Benjamin / Sargon of Akkad / Akkad Daily / The Thinkery / @not_sargon / @WarPlanPurple - Leader of the "Liberalists" & Droning Pseudo-Intellectual Boomer anti-SJW Activist, Applebees Waiter, Mass Shooter Whiteknight

[Lysol]

Yeah, that Reagan cuck was a real soy faggot now that I'm thinking about it...

It's almost like he was supposed to get something in return for amnesty, like some kind of physical divider along the demarcation between the U.S. and Mexico...

 

[Doctor Stan]

I watched a stream of Carl where someone asked something like "What are you going to do about the people that want a civil war" and Sargon replied something like "We shoot them". Truly a political genius, shoot the people that supposedly want a civil war to prevent a civil war - what if it's 10% of your population, his solution is just to kill 10% of a population? 20% 30%?

He's trying a new solution to civil disobedience. I think it's the final solution he's going to try

 

[Grand Lunar]

For a while they were making considerable inroads with Hispanics, Dubya got like 44% of it in 04 and they've just been dropping the ball ever since.

I identify as a Republican but The Donald is fucking up hardcore. IMO a blanket amnesty for people who have been here roughly a decade or 15 years with a clean record seems fair enough. Latinos work hard and assimilate more than people give them credit for, but border security is an undeniable issue. Can't just have coyotes and drug runners marching back and forth as they please. I would set up a much larger manned border security.

Little Marco should've won

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to one time amnesty on the condition that a nearly 100% secure border from that point onward is guaranteed, as that is realistically the easiest solution when we already have 11 million plus illegal immigrants already here, but I feel like this is another thing that's never going to happen. People have been demanding border security since the 80s, but the establishment has never really been interested in getting it done despite promises. Dems in particular appear to be secretly opposed to it despite giving lip service (only because they would look insane if they didn't at least try to deny being open borders). Even Republicans seem to be unreliable on this, since we've had several Republican presidencies since this became an issue and while I'm sure the results would have been worse without some of their efforts, they've clearly dropped the ball since millions have gotten in any way. Trump is probably the best chance we've had on this, but people from both parties are so vehemently in opposition to him that it seems unlikely he'll accomplish the goal of permanent border security.

As a Mexican man who lives in a heavily Hispanic county in the United States, It doesn't help that the GOP's political base and platform is often very openly hostile to Hispanics and represents them in basically zero issues that they're interested in.

That's not to say that the Democrats are at any good at reaching out or connecting to Hispanic people, its just that theres not much an option when the GOP basically wants your existence to be erased from the country,will never consider you to be fully part of the United States and will often deny the issues the Hispanic community faces or turn it around and place the blame on them to avoid any policy decisions that may alienate their political base that doesn't care for Hispanic people.

Okay, this just sounds like identity politics. No, the GOP does not want Hispanics to be "erased from the country" (ftr, I'm not a Republican and usually consider them to be just as bad as Dems in different ways, but this is simply untrue). The idea that they do is a SJW talking point designed to dismiss all opposition as "racist" and call it a day. The thing that you have to understand is that it is fairly true that most white people don't have a distinct racial identity, and thus don't think about this in racial terms. Outside of the alt right, most whites don't really care about having more of "their" people in the country, and opposition to mass immigration is almost entirely due to the economic effects it has on the lower class, as well as the fact the inability for most illegal immigrants to speak English coming in creates an obvious burden. If there's anything about this that I don't understand feel free to give your perspective and correct me, but it seems that the majority of Hispanics that sympathize with illegal immigration simply blatantly ignore its economic impact and support it purely out of racial preference for "their" people, which is an attitude that I'd like to see dropped by all people. Maybe I'm too much of an idealist on this, but I think the world would be better if people in general became truly "colorblind" and stopped thinking about everything in racial terms.

 

[KillThemCrackasBabies]

It's almost like he was supposed to get something in return for amnesty, like some kind of physical divider along the demarcation between the U.S. and Mexico...

What the actual fuck are you talking about? Simpson-Mazzoli had nothing to do with a plan or promise for a border fence.

 

[Lysol]

What the actual fuck are you talking about? Simpson-Mazzoli had nothing to do with a plan or promise for a border fence.

You're right, I was a bit drunk when I made that post and forgot that the actual, physical, border fence that we got didn't come along until the early 90s.

That doesn't change at all the fact that the entire reason that Reagan gave amnesty was because of promises to do a shitload more for border security though, promises that were obviously left unfulfilled.

 

[IAmNotAlpharius]

I see where you’re coming from if you’re a nonwhite immigrant yourself, so I probably need to clarify that I sometimes make bold political statements without thinking about possible consequences these ideas would have on individual people. Personally, sure, I don’t have a problem with people able and willing to assimilate.

It’s good that we have common ground on that it’s desirable to preserve cultural hegenomy, because that is where the biggest problem is. White people in western Europe and the USA to a large degree simply have no racial or even cultural awareness, while Jews, Blacks, Muslims, basically any other ethnic/ethnoreligious group still do. This is Sargons biggest Achilles heel because his strategy is NOT about trying to make white people rediscover their own identity but to make all others lose their identity. It won’t work.

Now to come back to my immigration statement, I think we also agree that there has to be a point where we need to say that we simply cannot take anymore immigrants without harming our cultural hegemony. But where is this point? Again, Sargon offers no solution. I think he proposed the idea in some debate that people should just check on an individual basis if someone is liberalist enough to become a citizen of Liberalistopia. Which sounds nice until you realize that, again, it’s impossible.

I also agree with you that alt-right leaders tend to be a bit exceptional, this is also why I made it clear that I don’t endorse the alt-right even if I’m not necessarily ideologically opposed to them in many aspects. However I think that people like Sean Last and to a lesser degree AltHype and even Spencer aren’t *that* bad at debating. People like Anglin, yeah. Although Spencer is obviously an edgelord so I can see why you wouldn’t take him seriously. On the liberalist side there’s really just Arch I can think of who managed to make a few good points, but he ultimately failed where Sargon failed too, just without making an ass out of himself.

If this is too off-topic then you may give me an applicable rating and I’ll stop. I think that this thread sometimes produces pretty interesting political arguments though.

It's an interesting topic.

Imo African-Americans are more unified than either Caucasians or Latinos. Although they often see themselves as part of a larger African identity they really don't have that much in common with Africa unlike say Afro-Brazilians or Haitains. They became a distinct identity because they were isolated and not as many slaves were imported into the South compared to Caribbean or Northern Brazil, so they didn't get a constant infusion of African culture. Still, southern blacks are more united than whites because they had a common interest/enemy. Jews often have a shared identity for similar reasons.

There are several reasons that whites aren't unified in the US imo. For one, they didn't have a common cause or interest to unite them. For another Caucasian-Americans came in multiple waves from distinct countries, at different time periods, and for varying reasons. This would influence the culture of the communities that formed and impedes a shared identity.

In the northern coasts, they've always been uptight and idealistic because the first immigrants were zealots. Before SJWs rrreeedd about videogames, Puritans believed violins were the devil's instrument. They liked to pass moral laws and often would try to force their values onto others.

The North-East contrasts sharply with the South. Many of the first to envision the colonization of the South were conservatives that wanted to bring back serfdom, but couldn't find many that were willing to sign on and stay on. Eventually they adopted slavery. This resulted in a culture that was conservative, valued chivalry, and jealously defended their freedom because they knew what slavery looked like.

Not surprisingly, the cultural norms put the North and South at odds, even without considering their different economic models that still exist to this day.

Later waves of immigrants are considered white now but were outsiders in the past. Irish and Italians were disliked and kept on the outside and often worked dangerous jobs no one else wanted (policing, mining, etc). Even Germans were hated and subjugated to KKK attacks. In fact, the KKK supported prohibition in part because drinking was associated with immigrants. Today, many of their descendents still remember, so this impedes a unified identity even though they've largely acculturated.

There are other factors at play too. Due to the size of the US, communities diverge culturally overtime. So, even if everyone was descended from the first British colonists, they'd become distinct.

Latinos are much the same way: Southern Brazilians are much whiter due to immigration from Portugal, Italy, Germany, and a failed Dutch invasion; Northern Brazilians are very African; Argentines culturally are a mix of Spanish and Italian ancestry; Southern Mexicans are a mix of Spanish & the Aztecs. Then their cultures diverged due to isolation, distance, and geography. It's part of the reason Bolivar's revolution resulted in the liberated territories fracturing. Outside of the US the term Latino is rarely invoked and many argue they have nothing in common.

The Latinos that transition the easiest in American society generally are those from the middle and upper classes. This is because culturally they're more European and are more educated. So, they're able to pick up the English language and American norms faster. Hence Cubans, which are often descended from middle and upper class refugees integrated faster than Southern Mexican peons that are illiterate and culturally more indigenous. (Some good examples of this are Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio; also the most fervent supporters of immigration law are Latinos that immigrated legally or were born here).

The US generally assimilates people in 3 generations. Imo this is because we have a culture of assimilation due to our history with immigration. Although llegal immigrants likely won't assimilate their grandchildren will. Many of their grandkids and great-grandchild will even look white. We also have a history of being skeptical of first generation of immigrants, even if they're white. So, I don't think distrust of Latino immigrants is an exceptional new phenomenon. Nor do I think it makes people evil.

Imo assimilation is important. If anyone moves to another country, they should adapt even if it's for just a few years. Every country has its mannerisms, customs, culture, and language. Not picking up on those makes it hard to communicate and can create tensions, unease, unrest, etc. It's difficult to transition when living abroad but it's necessary if one wants to socialize.

The problem with the EU is they want to emulate the US, but they are more nationalistic (which also prevents a pan-european identity), lack a history of immigration, and don't have the same cultural tools to assimilate immigrants. Adopting such policies in Eastern European countries is even more foolhardy because they've been invaded so many times that they're warier of outsiders regardless of their origins.

Even though I empathize with immigrants regardless of their legal status, I also am not bothered by people being wary of immigrants.

Conservatives typically are concerned with cleanliness, organization, order, and are wary of shaking things up. So, it's not surprising when they're skeptical of people that don't share the same mannerisms, language, or physical characteristics because they represent potential disorder, they're an unknown to them.

This isn't evil and imo has roots in evolution. Back in the day, outsiders brought trade goods, technology, and new ideas, but outsiders also killed, pillaged, and carried diseases. Also, imo humans are hardwired to protect their tribe and historically other humans were threats because they could intentionally or unintentionally bring death. What people define as their tribe may vary, but it shouldn't be shocking that some people will define their tribe by physical features.

Also, I always laugh when people think that only white Americans can be racist, commit genocide, and have crazy religious customs. Every group has its radicals that have at least attempted mass murder and there are plenty of non-Western religions that had nutty practices, like cutting out beating human hearts and eating human flesh.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

It's an interesting topic.

Imo African-Americans are more unified than either Caucasians or Latinos. Although they often see themselves as part of a larger African identity they really don't have that much in common with Africa unlike say Afro-Brazilians or Haitains. They became a distinct identity because they were isolated and not as many slaves were imported into the South compared to Caribbean or Northern Brazil, so they didn't get a constant infusion of African culture. Still, southern blacks are more united than whites because they had a common interest/enemy. Jews often have a shared identity for similar reasons.

There are several reasons that whites aren't unified in the US imo. For one, they didn't have a common cause or interest to unite them. For another Caucasian-Americans came in multiple waves from distinct countries, at different time periods, and for varying reasons. This would influence the culture of the communities that formed and impedes a shared identity.

In the northern coasts, they've always been uptight and idealistic because the first immigrants were zealots. Before SJWs rrreeedd about videogames, Puritans believed violins were the devil's instrument. They liked to pass moral laws and often would try to force their values onto others.

The North-East contrasts sharply with the South. Many of the first to envision the colonization of the South were conservatives that wanted to bring back serfdom, but couldn't find many that were willing to sign on and stay on. Eventually they adopted slavery. This resulted in a culture that was conservative, valued chivalry, and jealously defended their freedom because they knew what slavery looked like.

Not surprisingly, the cultural norms put the North and South at odds, even without considering their different economic models that still exist to this day.

Later waves of immigrants are considered white now but were outsiders in the past. Irish and Italians were disliked and kept on the outside and often worked dangerous jobs no one else wanted (policing, mining, etc). Even Germans were hated and subjugated to KKK attacks. In fact, the KKK supported prohibition in part because drinking was associated with immigrants. Today, many of their descendents still remember, so this impedes a unified identity even though they've largely acculturated.

There are other factors at play too. Due to the size of the US, communities diverge culturally overtime. So, even if everyone was descended from the first British colonists, they'd become distinct.

Latinos are much the same way: Southern Brazilians are much whiter due to immigration from Portugal, Italy, Germany, and a failed Dutch invasion; Northern Brazilians are very African; Argentines culturally are a mix of Spanish and Italian ancestry; Southern Mexicans are a mix of Spanish & the Aztecs. Then their cultures diverged due to isolation, distance, and geography. It's part of the reason Bolivar's revolution resulted in the liberated territories fracturing. Outside of the US the term Latino is rarely invoked and many argue they have nothing in common.

The Latinos that transition the easiest in American society generally are those from the middle and upper classes. This is because culturally they're more European and are more educated. So, they're able to pick up the English language and American norms faster. Hence Cubans, which are often descended from middle and upper class refugees integrated faster than Southern Mexican peons that are illiterate and culturally more indigenous. (Some good examples of this are Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio; also the most fervent supporters of immigration law are Latinos that immigrated legally or were born here).

The US generally assimilates people in 3 generations. Imo this is because we have a culture of assimilation due to our history with immigration. Although llegal immigrants likely won't assimilate their grandchildren will. Many of their grandkids and great-grandchild will even look white. We also have a history of being skeptical of first generation of immigrants, even if they're white. So, I don't think distrust of Latino immigrants is an exceptional new phenomenon. Nor do I think it makes people evil.

Imo assimilation is important. If anyone moves to another country, they should adapt even if it's for just a few years. Every country has its mannerisms, customs, culture, and language. Not picking up on those makes it hard to communicate and can create tensions, unease, unrest, etc. It's difficult to transition when living abroad but it's necessary if one wants to socialize.

The problem with the EU is they want to emulate the US, but they are more nationalistic (which also prevents a pan-european identity), lack a history of immigration, and don't have the same cultural tools to assimilate immigrants. Adopting such policies in Eastern European countries is even more foolhardy because they've been invaded so many times that they're warier of outsiders regardless of their origins.

Even though I empathize with immigrants regardless of their legal status, I also am not bothered by people being wary of immigrants.

Conservatives typically are concerned with cleanliness, organization, order, and are wary of shaking things up. So, it's not surprising when they're skeptical of people that don't share the same mannerisms, language, or physical characteristics because they represent potential disorder, they're an unknown to them.

This isn't evil and imo has roots in evolution. Back in the day, outsiders brought trade goods, technology, and new ideas, but outsiders also killed, pillaged, and carried diseases. Also, imo humans are hardwired to protect their tribe and historically other humans were threats because they could intentionally or unintentionally bring death. What people define as their tribe may vary, but it shouldn't be shocking that some people will define their tribe by physical features.

Also, I always laugh when people think that only white Americans can be racist, commit genocide, and have crazy religious customs. Every group has its radicals that have at least attempted mass murder and there are plenty of non-Western religions that had nutty practices, like cutting out beating human hearts and eating human flesh.

While I agree with the basic statement, I would like to addendum this sentiment. Illegal immigrants won't likely assimilate, but their grandchildren MAY, but won't necessarily will. The issue I see is, assimilation has historically been relatively easy in the U.S. because there was intense pressure on minority groups from natives to "get with the program" and most (Europeans especially) got the message and learned to bleed red white and blue. Meanwhile, African Americans have been disenfranchised and pushed to the margins of society for well over a century, hobbling their assimilation, and causing them to instead create their own culture, which many fail to realize is distinct from the American overculture and even from other "Black cultures" both in Africa and the rest of the Americas. This is why Blacks from Africa, and what many people in the USA would consider Blacks who come from other American countries find it hard to relate or integrate here; whites treat them like any other black person, while they tend to stand apart from or even deride America's black culture. This is especially bad when people immigrate from Latin America, because the one-drop rule is a uniquely American phenomenon, and many "blacks" who come to America from Latin America may not be considered "black" in their home country or consider themselves "black". Thus they are attacked by Whites on one side who see them as just another negro, and blacks on the other, who deride them for "denying their blackness". Native Americans faced racial prejudice and aren't assimilated by any means, but they are largely confined to reservations at this point, and those that aren't learn to live on the fringes of society or assimilate. Asians faced much of the same discrimination as blacks, especially in California, but they have no history of slavery or strong state segregation (though they faced it informally or in limited official situations in the West) and they came much later. Their baggage is lighter. Consequently, they assimilated well into American culture, since, outside Cali, they were never really considered threatening to the white natives (WWII excepted) and their numbers were limited by those who were just paranoid "enough" to act to keep them from coming in to the country in large numbers and "making a nuisance" of themselves. That and maybe the basic cultural undercurrents of "group over self", group assimilation, subordination to authority and industriousness that already exist in many East Asian cultures allow them assimilate well regardless. The Arabs at least learn to sell cheap jewelry and run gas stations, alongside those Indians not smart enough to become scientists and the like.

However, the problem with the illegal immigrants is they are coming in large, uncontrolled numbers. They are uneducated and poor, and many have no intention of integrating into our culture. The problem is, they are coming in such large numbers that they are quickly becoming a plurality or even a majority of large swathes of the country. This stifles the historic pressure to assimilate that white immigrants (and to a lesser extent, Asian immigrants and Native Americans) have felt, as more and more of American society is made to cater to the immigrant population, rather than the other way around. Many Latinos aren't illegals, and in fact some have families that have been here since the U.S. annexed the territory they now live in. But Latinos have faced historical prejudices just like blacks (but it may not be as sharp for them as it is for blacks), and this has also, to an extent, stymied integration. But a constant influx of illegal immigrants with no real loyalty to the country they live in is threatening to upset the balance that has existed for decades in regards to immigration, whereby the U.S. opened itself to the world, in a limited fashion, while expecting those who came here to obey the rules, and contribute to society. By coming here illegally or overstaying their visa, they've already shown a disrespect for the rules. And the contributions of most to society is working minimum wage jobs...below minimum wage, undercutting legitimate workers and businesses.

 

[Pikimon]

I don't have time to respond to everyone, but I'll just respond to Lunar's post (which covered most of everyone's points) so as not to derail the conversation. I'm not here to debate I just want to share what I know and my experience as someone in the Hispanic community.

Okay, this just sounds like identity politics.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you on this point, but I just want to point out that calling something "identity politics" isn't necessarily something to discredit a concern or movement. the Civil Rights movement is identity politics, as was the 1970s wave for Women's Rights, the Christian revivalism of the 1980s. People experience the world very differently depending on who they were born as, and face different privileges and struggles as a result.

The thing that you have to understand is that it is fairly true that most white people don't have a distinct racial identity, and thus don't think about this in racial terms.

And unfortunately for a lot of non-white people theres constant reminders of our "non-white" status that kinda set us apart form the rest of the United States and makes it really hard to prosper and thrive. Whether its people remarking about our ability to speak English despite living in the country for decades or being denied job and housing opportunities because of prejudice from people who don't particularly like us. It's a reality a lot of non-white people just gotta deal with that honestly Caucasian people never will understand.

Outside of the alt right, most whites don't really care about having more of ...If there's anything about this that I don't understand feel free to give your perspective and correct me, but it seems that the majority of Hispanics that sympathize with illegal immigration simply blatantly ignore its economic impact and support it purely out of racial preference for "their" people, which is an attitude that I'd like to see dropped by all people.

Hispanics have a mixed attitude towards illegal immigration to an extent, its not because of racial preference, and this is not an attitude I've never encountered in real life with any of my clients of a lower socio-economic status or any of my fellow professionals of high-economic status. For the most parts Hispanics do not have much love for the other groups within their community. Mexicans hate Salvadorians, Salvadorians hate Nicaraguans, Nicaraguans hate Columbians etc. Even within the Mexican community there is a lot of animosity with people from specific regions of Mexico with people from the Yucatan peninsula bearing the brunt of racial hatred in Mexico which carries over a lot into the United States (if youre interested PM me).

Now if you want to know why Hispanics are more sympathetic to illegal immigrants...its because a lot of Hispanics personally have a friend or a family member that came in illegally. At a very deep personal level they have a basic understanding of what made a lot of people leave their homelands for greener pastures and sympathize with them (to an extent). Now that isn't to say that the Hispanic community is 100% on board with illegal immigration, even with former illegal immigrants that eventually became residents there are people who want to "pull up the ladder" after they've entered the country.

Maybe I'm too much of an idealist on this, but I think the world would be better if people in general became truly "colorblind" and stopped thinking about everything in racial terms.

It's a lovely sentiment to try to be as colorblind as possible, but unfortunately sometimes people confuse ignoring the real struggles of people who face unique situations in order to stop thinking about the racial inequalities that exist in this country because of historical events that most of us had no participation in, with colorblindness.

The best way to approach these kinds of issues is to acknowledge that we're not all perfect human beings and that we all have prejudice to an extent because of the way we grew up and were raised, and then work towards improving our outlook towards people and not let those prejudices taint our individual interactions with people.

 

[BobManly]

The problem with the EU is they want to emulate the US, but they are more nationalistic (which also prevents a pan-european identity), lack a history of immigration, and don't have the same cultural tools to assimilate immigrants. Adopting such policies in Eastern European countries is even more foolhardy because they've been invaded so many times that they're warier of outsiders regardless of their origins.

That's not quite correct.
Historically, the idea of nationalism doesn't make much sense. Europe developed several different cultures and languages in a very small area. These are very closely related because of historical events: for example the Roman Empire spread the use of Latin which was used as lingua franca for centuries after and influenced most of western European languages. The same goes with Christianity.
But for these reasons, there's been quite a lot of movement of people both due to the usual war, persecution, etc. (there's historical instances of Europeans taking in refugees) but all this happened over a very small areas with populations that are already quite similar. Even the families governing these states were related between themselves to the point of developing genetic illnesses (why do you think they're all marrying out now?). European aristocracy has a long history of sending their spawn to study abroad and aristocratic women were expected to be fluent in several languages by their teens to be able to marry (Marie Antoinette notoriously got in trouble for not being very good at this).
The problem is that now refugees are coming in from other parts of the world entirely and in very large numbers. Moreover, the terms on which this people have been taken in are rather sketchy not just from the point of view of voters or tax payers but the refugees themselves.
You also have a lot of migrants being brought in for cheap labor, and again similar considerations about number and similarity apply.

The difference between Europe and America is that America was colonized at a later point in history (mostly by people who had an hate-boner for authority in common). Also, Blacks didn't just find their way to America, they were brought there as slaves (something that didn't happen in Europe since Roman times). That's going to have repercussions at least in terms of socio-economical class (fatherlessness, drug use and crime, as bad as they might be in black communities, are a common problem with low income communities).

TL;DR: apples and oranges

 

[Grand Lunar]

I don't have time to respond to everyone, but I'll just respond to Lunar's post (which covered most of everyone's points) so as not to derail the conversation. I'm not here to debate I just want to share what I know and my experience as someone in the Hispanic community.



I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you on this point, but I just want to point out that calling something "identity politics" isn't necessarily something to discredit a concern or movement. the Civil Rights movement is identity politics, as was the 1970s wave for Women's Rights, the Christian revivalism of the 1980s. People experience the world very differently depending on who they were born as, and face different privileges and struggles as a result.



And unfortunately for a lot of non-white people theres constant reminders of our "non-white" status that kinda set us apart form the rest of the United States and makes it really hard to prosper and thrive. Whether its people remarking about our ability to speak English despite living in the country for decades or being denied job and housing opportunities because of prejudice from people who don't particularly like us. It's a reality a lot of non-white people just gotta deal with that honestly Caucasian people never will understand.



Hispanics have a mixed attitude towards illegal immigration to an extent, its not because of racial preference, and this is not an attitude I've never encountered in real life with any of my clients of a lower socio-economic status or any of my fellow professionals of high-economic status. For the most parts Hispanics do not have much love for the other groups within their community. Mexicans hate Salvadorians, Salvadorians hate Nicaraguans, Nicaraguans hate Columbians etc. Even within the Mexican community there is a lot of animosity with people from specific regions of Mexico with people from the Yucatan peninsula bearing the brunt of racial hatred in Mexico which carries over a lot into the United States (if youre interested PM me).

Now if you want to know why Hispanics are more sympathetic to illegal immigrants...its because a lot of Hispanics personally have a friend or a family member that came in illegally. At a very deep personal level they have a basic understanding of what made a lot of people leave their homelands for greener pastures and sympathize with them (to an extent). Now that isn't to say that the Hispanic community is 100% on board with illegal immigration, even with former illegal immigrants that eventually became residents there are people who want to "pull up the ladder" after they've entered the country.



It's a lovely sentiment to try to be as colorblind as possible, but unfortunately sometimes people confuse ignoring the real struggles of people who face unique situations in order to stop thinking about the racial inequalities that exist in this country because of historical events that most of us had no participation in, with colorblindness.

The best way to approach these kinds of issues is to acknowledge that we're not all perfect human beings and that we all have prejudice to an extent because of the way we grew up and were raised, and then work towards improving our outlook towards people and not let those prejudices taint our individual interactions with people.

Well, to clarify, I didn't mean to imply that racial discrimination never happens or that subconscious biases don't exist (in fact, this is one of the things that I would like people like Sargon to at least try to be more open about). I might argue about how prevalent these things actually are in present day America, but ultimately I am willing to acknowledge that, being white, I don't really have personal experience with this. I don't doubt you if you say that this has caused problems for you. I can certainly say that, being a gay guy, I've experienced some things that most straight people probably wouldn't think about or understand (not that I think that his makes me "oppressed" or anything, I just acknowledge that it's there). I also won't deny that the GOP definitely has some actual hardcore bigots in it (personally, I find homophobia to be pretty prevalent in it, which is one of the reasons that I'm offput. I'm sure some genuine racists still reside in it, though honestly at this point I would presume them to be much less prevalent than the widespread anti-LGBT standard). My issue only came when you generalized the entire GOP as wanting to "erase (Hispanics) from existence," when in reality I think that the number of actual virulent racists are a minority and that accusing the majority of them of essentially wanting to cleanse an ethnic group is extremely unfair. (For the record, if you had accused them of wanting to make homosexuality illegal/hurt us in a way other than just preventing gay marriage, I would have said the same thing.)

I think that you're right that sympathy for illegal immigration largely comes from having relatives/friends who came illegally (and I in fact said that earlier), but from conversations I've had with other people and from what I've seen in the media it appears that this personal sympathy often evolves into racial identification, and a "we need more latinos to help combat racist white people" attitude.

Though, I'm glad you agree that suggesting that racism is unique to white people or that white people are inherently less tolerant than other groups is dumb. The biggest issue I have with the "privilege" concept is that, even though I know that there are certain experiences that I won't understand due to being born a certain way, very few people ever seem to acknowledge this as a 2-way street. For the record, I don't think that anti-white racism in America is as damaging as other forms, due to us being the majority, but the fact that people are so hostile to others for even acknowledging that it exists is baffling to me, you know? I'm not suggesting that I'm a "victim" of any kind or that I have any sympathy for white identity politics, but the fact remains that being told that my race is inherently crueler/more evil than others (despite this being easily debunked with even a cursory understanding of history outside of just America) is something that has happened to me and is in some cases openly encouraged by the media to a ridiculous extent, and the same logic from before (that nonwhite people don't understand what it's like to be on the receiving end of this) still applies.

Anyway, we should probably continue this with PMs if there's anything else you feel the need to say, since at this rate two full pages of this thread will be filled with off-topic blocks of text. Thanks for sharing your perspective though, I do like talking to people with different perceptions than me.

 

[Pikimon]

Well, to clarify, I didn't mean to imply that racial discrimination never happens or that subconscious biases don't exist (in fact, this is one of the things that I would like people like Sargon to at least try to be more open about). I might argue about how prevalent these things actually are in present day America, but ultimately I am willing to acknowledge that, being white, I don't really have personal experience with this. I don't doubt you if you say that this has caused problems for you. I can certainly say that, being a gay guy, I've experienced some things that most straight people probably wouldn't think about or understand (not that I think that his makes me "oppressed" or anything, I just acknowledge that it's there). I also won't deny that the GOP definitely has some actual hardcore bigots in it (personally, I find homophobia to be pretty prevalent in it, which is one of the reasons that I'm offput. I'm sure some genuine racists still reside in it, though honestly at this point I would presume them to be much less prevalent than the widespread anti-LGBT standard). My issue only came when you generalized the entire GOP as wanting to "erase (Hispanics) from existence," when in reality I think that the number of actual virulent racists are a minority and that accusing the majority of them of essentially wanting to cleanse an ethnic group is extremely unfair. (For the record, if you had accused them of wanting to make homosexuality illegal/hurt us in a way other than just preventing gay marriage, I would have said the same thing.)

I think that you're right that sympathy for illegal immigration largely comes from having relatives/friends who came illegally (and I in fact said that earlier), but from conversations I've had with other people and from what I've seen in the media it appears that this personal sympathy often evolves into racial identification, and a "we need more latinos to help combat racist white people" attitude.

Though, I'm glad you agree that suggesting that racism is unique to white people or that white people are inherently less tolerant than other groups is dumb. The biggest issue I have with the "privilege" concept is that, even though I know that there are certain experiences that I won't understand due to being born a certain way, very few people ever seem to acknowledge this as a 2-way street. For the record, I don't think that anti-white racism in America is as damaging as other forms, due to us being the majority, but the fact that people are so hostile to others for even acknowledging that it exists is baffling to me, you know? I'm not suggesting that I'm a "victim" of any kind or that I have any sympathy for white identity politics, but the fact remains that being told that my race is inherently crueler/more evil than others (despite this being easily debunked with even a cursory understanding of history outside of just America) is something that has happened to me and is in some cases openly encouraged by the media to a ridiculous extent, and the same logic from before (that nonwhite people don't understand what it's like to be on the receiving end of this) still applies.

Anyway, we should probably continue this with PMs if there's anything else you feel the need to say, since at this rate two full pages of this thread will be filled with off-topic blocks of text. Thanks for sharing your perspective though, I do like talking to people with different perceptions than me.

You raise very interesting points and I'm glad we're on common footing on a lot of things, and thanks for the good talk!

 

[Hierophantis]

I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to one time amnesty on the condition that a nearly 100% secure border from that point onward is guaranteed, as that is realistically the easiest solution when we already have 11 million plus illegal immigrants already here, but I feel like this is another thing that's never going to happen. People have been demanding border security since the 80s, but the establishment has never really been interested in getting it done despite promises. Dems in particular appear to be secretly opposed to it despite giving lip service (only because they would look insane if they didn't at least try to deny being open borders). Even Republicans seem to be unreliable on this, since we've had several Republican presidencies since this became an issue and while I'm sure the results would have been worse without some of their efforts, they've clearly dropped the ball since millions have gotten in any way. Trump is probably the best chance we've had on this, but people from both parties are so vehemently in opposition to him that it seems unlikely he'll accomplish the goal of permanent border security.

There are way too many illegals in the country, it would lose the GOP places like Texas since hispanics vote Democrat (and did when Reagan gave them amnesty, California was a Republican Stronghold after all).

It's a terrible deal in the logistics. A promise of later security for a huge political win to the opposition

 

[TheMayorofHerbertville]

Sargon is a great guy, a true intellectual, everyone should say great things about him. Anyone who says otherwise is a uncredible troll ;0)

I think we should shut this forum for him down, hes a good person and doesn't deserve the harassment and daily attacks from you guys.

 

[White Devil's Advocate]

Sargon is a great guy, a true intellectual, everyone should say great things about him. Anyone who says otherwise is a uncredible troll ;0)

I think we should shut this forum for him down, hes a good person and doesn't deserve the harassment and daily attacks from you guys.

I'll do you one better. We just shut down the entire internet permanently. All for him. lol

 

[Iwasamwillbe]

Sargon is a great guy, a true intellectual, everyone should say great things about him. Anyone who says otherwise is a uncredible troll ;0)

I think we should shut this forum for him down, hes a good person and doesn't deserve the harassment and daily attacks from you guys.

What.

As a huge fan of Sargon of Akkad myself, as well as a fan of several Internet personalities who have threads on these forums, I find this to be utterly stupid and unutterably absurd.

No one should be exempt from criticism just because they produce good content. No one. If I myself got a thread on the Kiwi Farms for my words, actions, or work, I would either:

1. Better myself based on those criticisms
2. Address said criticisms rationally and logically.
3. Simply deal with it and move on with my life.

There is no justification for shutting down an entire forum based on so-called "harassment" and "daily attacks" on one man. This is not what Carl Benjamin himself would want, and not what you would should want, if you actually respect him, and his principles and values.

 

[Cocktimus prime]

Idk how late I am but ill just say that Immigration has devasated California. We need a physical border now. No more bullshit laws no more promises. Just a wall and guarantee that if you come illegally you get sent home

 

[SuperDeeDuper]

Okay, this just sounds like identity politics. No, the GOP does not want Hispanics to be "erased from the country" (ftr, I'm not a Republican and usually consider them to be just as bad as Dems in different ways, but this is simply untrue). The idea that they do is a SJW talking point designed to dismiss all opposition as "racist" and call it a day.

all politics are based on some kind of identification with something. the fact that american politics are so heavily correlated with race and ethnicity is just par for the course in a multicultural/multiethnic society. if not explicitly stated, there is always some kind of implicit relationship between people's political positions and their observable interests. even asians will vote democrat to the tune of 90%, and side with "progressive" causes because democrats are the pro-immigration party, and asians like having fewer restrictions on immigration. they do this in spite of the fact that affirmative action policies openly discriminate against them: they are willing to make that sacrifice because they still perform well enough to make securing their immigration interests worth it to them.

the truth about "identity politics" is that you are never going to convince people to stop perceiving themselves as part of groups, whether those groups are on racial/ethnic lines or religious lines or cultural lines or whatever. those things often overlap each other, too... social identity research demonstrates this behavior pretty strongly. "tribalism" is usually seen as something dirty when spoken of in such explicit terms, but everybody is doing it all the time and if those who criticize it intend on making it stop, they have to come up with a viable method of snapping people out of it. which will be very difficult to do when we're talking about it on a scale of tens or hundreds of millions of people. even just thousands of people. we are social animals and crave belonging, so outwardly obvious things like race, religion, cultural practice, language etc are readily identified and grouped up around.

i'm not saying it's necessarily the "correct" behavior or that you have to like it, i am only saying that it is natural and to expected. if humans had not evolved in line with these behavioral characteristics, we would be entirely different animals, and difference would not be so obvious to people.

the naked ape stream from last week in which they argued with sargon on this exact subject really demonstrates my main political issue with him: again, it's not that you have to like or agree with anything i've said here, it's just that it is the way it is and it has to be acknowledged and dealt with. instead it is brushed off by people like sargon and ben shapiro, as though it can simply be ignored.

 

[Cocktimus prime]

all politics are based on some kind of identification with something. the fact that american politics are so heavily correlated with race and ethnicity is just par for the course in a multicultural/multiethnic society. if not explicitly stated, there is always some kind of implicit relationship between people's political positions and their observable interests. even asians will vote democrat to the tune of 90%, and side with "progressive" causes because democrats are the pro-immigration party, and asians like having fewer restrictions on immigration. they do this in spite of the fact that affirmative action policies openly discriminate against them: they are willing to make that sacrifice because they still perform well enough to make securing their immigration interests worth it to them.

the truth about "identity politics" is that you are never going to convince people to stop perceiving themselves as part of groups, whether those groups are on racial/ethnic lines or religious lines or cultural lines or whatever. those things often overlap each other, too... social identity research demonstrates this behavior pretty strongly. "tribalism" is usually seen as something dirty when spoken of in such explicit terms, but everybody is doing it all the time and if those who criticize it intend on making it stop, they have to come up with a viable method of snapping people out of it. which will be very difficult to do when we're talking about it on a scale of tens or hundreds of millions of people. even just thousands of people. we are social animals and crave belonging, so outwardly obvious things like race, religion, cultural practice, language etc are readily identified and grouped up around.

i'm not saying it's necessarily the "correct" behavior or that you have to like it, i am only saying that it is natural and to expected. if humans had not evolved in line with these behavioral characteristics, we would be entirely different animals, and difference would not be so obvious to people.

the naked ape stream from last week in which they argued with sargon on this exact subject really demonstrates my main political issue with him: again, it's not that you have to like or agree with anything i've said here, it's just that it is the way it is and it has to be acknowledged and dealt with. instead it is brushed off by people like sargon and ben shapiro, as though it can simply be ignored.

The most aggravating thing about sargon for me is that he wants a white ethno state but just not explicitly so. He wants "merit based" Immigration from countries that closely align to British values but he won't just admit he means white people. It's so fucking aggravating to hear him talk about a "non racist" racist immigration policy and then try to couch behind "intellectualism"

 

[Hierophantis]

What.

As a huge fan of Sargon of Akkad myself, as well as a fan of several Internet personalities who have threads on these forums, I find this to be utterly stupid and unutterably absurd.

No one should be exempt from criticism just because they produce good content. No one. If I myself got a thread on the Kiwi Farms for my words, actions, or work, I would either:

1. Better myself based on those criticisms
2. Address said criticisms rationally and logically.
3. Simply deal with it and move on with my life.

There is no justification for shutting down an entire forum based on so-called "harassment" and "daily attacks" on one man. This is not what Carl Benjamin himself would want, and not what you would should want, if you actually respect him, and his principles and values.

BESIDES, Sargon and Kraut laundered the Coach Redpill stuff here. So it's fitting they get threads too.

24 minutes

https://youtu.be/dl3jeuZ7Ujs?t=24m

 

[Grand Lunar]

What.

As a huge fan of Sargon of Akkad myself, as well as a fan of several Internet personalities who have threads on these forums, I find this to be utterly stupid and unutterably absurd.

No one should be exempt from criticism just because they produce good content. No one. If I myself got a thread on the Kiwi Farms for my words, actions, or work, I would either:

1. Better myself based on those criticisms
2. Address said criticisms rationally and logically.
3. Simply deal with it and move on with my life.

There is no justification for shutting down an entire forum based on so-called "harassment" and "daily attacks" on one man. This is not what Carl Benjamin himself would want, and not what you would should want, if you actually respect him, and his principles and values.

Not that you're wrong, but you are responding to an obvious troll post. Only thing I found worth responding to is that he doesn't know the difference between a forum and a thread