Diamondeye wrote:
RangerDave wrote:
The amount of resentment you seem to harbor, DE, is really amazing. By any measure, you're a successful guy in a successful country, but you're so pissed off about smug liberals being smug on TV that you're willing to support and doggedly justify/defend a man that you yourself have admitted is unqualified to be President and CINC. I just don't get it.
I didn't say anything about "liberals on TV" in the post you seem to be responding to, so I have no idea what you're talking about beyond an obvious attempt to play the "DE is being resentful, therefore I can make the conversation about him rather than the issue we were ostensibly discussing."
The reason you don't get it is because you don't recognize what's going on here. Let me help you out - when (for example) Xeq talks about "anti gay measures", the fact is that it is not a given that some measure is "anti gay" because Xeq thinks it is. It isn't even "anti gay" if gay people think it is. The same applies to anti- (insert favorite leftist cause here). "Anti gay" has zero credibility coming from Xeq because what's "anti gay" to him is informed by his personal hostility towards religion. What's "racist" means nothing coming from, say, Van Jones because of his obvious hostility on racial issues.
What the left - including both those here AND the larger left in this country - is failing to get is that the question-begging is done. You do not get to simply slap a label on something as hateful and then have the conversation continue from there. You have to demonstrate that it is, to the satisfaction of (at the least) a typical center right person - according to them, not your assurances that they would agree and an assumption that anyone else is "far right".
So what you perceive as resentment is me trying to get across to you why you're not only out of the white house, but not in control of either house of Congress or most states - people are tired of that bullshit, especially when its used to dismiss the issues they think are important. But I'm not saying that in any expectation that it will change your mind. Oh no. I;m saying it because I know it gets people like TR, and Xeq, and Farsky (not specifically them, but people like them) spun up, and keeps ignorant celebrities screaming nonsense at angry crowds of fat women.
Because people see this nonsense and realize, for all Trump's faults, these people were OK with an angry middle school vice principle who thought her vagina mattered for the Presidency and was willing to have an armed confrontation over Russia. This nonsense - this condescension and rage from people from people who are really just armchair quarterbacking - just makes the Left look ever more ridiculous.
By all means though, keep it up. I look forward the the results in 2018. I'm sure screaming about nazis will give you a majority.
The problem is that "don't discriminate against (minority group)" is purely a moral argument at heart. Practically speaking, pretty much every protected class we have functions as a very, very useful and easily identifiable statistical indicator. The left's reaction towards Trump is so negative because he represents an extreme right shift in this area - according to him, it's OK to use race and religion as statistical indicators and discriminate based on them. As recently as six months ago, even the Republican Party disavowed this concept. Now, the new narrative is, "well, liberals are going to have to get used to the fact that this kind of discrimination is OK now." To be sure, Trump has only targeted foreigners for discrimination and not citizens, but since all the arguments against discrimination are moral ones to begin with, that distinction doesn't mean much. You can't claim it's morally wrong to be racist against citizens but not morally wrong to be racist against foreigners. Political boundaries are implemented for practical reasons, not moral ones.
According to you, "You're a bigot if you support/don't support this" is not a credible argument. However, we have tons of policies and laws in place today where that is basically the only argument supporting their existence. I mean, today over 33% of all violent crimes in the US are committed by approximately 2% of the population - black males between the ages of 18 and 34. Practically speaking, we should be racial and gender profiling the absolute **** out of them. We only refrain from doing so for moral reasons - it's "not fair" to the members of that population who
aren't criminals for us to simply assume they are and treat them as such. Well, Trump just banned literally everyone from the Middle East from entering the country -
even lawful permanent residents. Practically speaking, that's a very good idea, as the Middle East is a giant dumpster fire in general. But it has the exact same moral baggage as racial profiling - not
everyone from the Middle East is the criminal, and simply assuming they are for practical reasons is no more morally correct than it is to do it to black people here.
This trend does not bode well for any minority group here, and the smaller your numbers the worse it is for you.
The problem with this entire argument is that there are all kinds of practical arguments against all of those things. "Racial profiling" is a simplistic and ineffective way of approaching enforcement. It wastes resources and time, in a large part because while (to limit it just to blacks and whites for discussion) while blacks commit wildly disproportionate amounts of crime, it's still a minority of all crime in the absolute sense. You'd be disproportionately focusing on 1/3 of the criminals if you did that. Basic math tells us this is not a good idea.
As for foreigners, you aren't being "racist" by telling them that they can't enter the country. Political boundaries may not exist for moral reasons, but they have moral implications - a government's duty is to its people, not anyone else's, by definition. It is morally OK to discriminate against people you do not have a duty to in favor of those you do. Even if political boundaries were eliminated tomorrow, moreover, you'd still see de facto geographic discrimination because not all cultures work the same way and not all geographies are created equal. Political boundaries exist to protect the moral interests of particular regions - even if, as a practical matter, they are often less than effective.
Also, Trump did not ban "everyone from the middle east" and it was clarified that it does not apply to LAPRs. Try to get the facts straight.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
