But it's a fact that the voting public in a democracy has influence over the government and can decide who comes in so I don't understand why you would use the phrase, "to *think* you get to decide". Is it racist to *think* you get to vote? I find that way of talking bizarre.

So you think all judgement of humans is racist/bigoted, including like in sports and the arts? I would say that's really extreme but not necessarily wrong and leave you to your views.

I guess if I asked you what would be better for a country, accept 1 million 80 year old immigrants or 1 million 20 year old immigrants, you would refuse to answer because that would be bigoted but you know the answer, right?

the first paragraph is nonsense. PEOPLE thinking they get to decide who comes in is racist, whether it be you or trump, your both racist in that case. just saying someone else represents your racist belief doesn't put a wall between you and the conduct.

the second paragraph is also nonsense.

the third paragraph that has a question can only be answered by accepting the people that apply. if your limit is 1 million then its simply who applied first. unlike you, apparently, im not actively hiding my real motives, so its hard to "gotcha!" me..

i do love how you think there isn't some racist bias involved in your picking of immigrants, the president already said the quiet part out loud, he wants the WHITE ones..

Racist is probably not the right word for the above, but at the very least I think it's good to qualify that by better one means "more economically advantageous" to oneself. But I think people should be at least a little uncomfortable reducing the value of humans to their expected economic productivity.

I think there are probably morally permissible practical justifications for immigration restrictions, but I'm not sure "I only want to admit people who will make me richer" is a good one.

But, this is also too abstract of a hypothetical. In fact, research suggests that a lot of what motivates opposition to immigration is anxiety over demographic change and cultural change, not anxiety about the economics of immigration. That anxiety is pretty closely connected with racial prejudices. This is one of the primary topics of the recent book Whiteshift, for example. The author of that book is hardly a leftist, in case you're worried that the argument the author makes is just in service of calling people racist. In fact, he would probably be called racist himself by a lot of regular posters in this forum given his views. But, nevertheless, the book provides a pretty comprehensive view of the available data and history, both in the US and Europe. So I think when folks on the left suspect that a lot of anti-immigration sentiment is about ethnicity and culture and not economics, they are right.

it's almost always based on the fourteen words... they just try to dress it up in "well what if we took only 20 yr olds", or "what if we put this random limit on it, or that random limit"..

It's hard to know quite why 2+2 have made this decision but this is correct. It's been quite open that very bad tactics have to be adopted to fight back - bad political mistake both in principle and practice.


I think you have this wrong and for a reason that's closer to the real problem. P defended itself from criticism by expert use of the tactic of blaming a few posters like Bundy. Great for winning the argument but not so good when it comes to honest self-reflection.(Not having a go at you over this btw but I think you've been a bit taken in by the success of the argument - they are very good at it)

No, "better" is not just to ones self but to the whole country, to poor, to rich, to everyone in the country. This is why I said at first it's a potential view of someone who believes that nation states are good/should exist, etc. If one doesn't believe that and thinks that all national borders are bad, that's a whole different conversation and we're just talking past each other here.

I think it's good to feel uncomfortable about judging people in this way but we aren't reducing anyone's value like we're about to turn them into their base minerals and sell them. We're trying to assess their likely economic impact on the country. This is important if the world is a competitive place, no?

I kind of think what you're written here is all nonsense too. Anyway, have a nice day.

the world is also a cooperative place. Of course we're getting more into philosophy, or anthropology, but I think understanding social cooperation is equally important to understanding competition where people are concerned. It is the extent to which we cooperate and even empathize and sympathize with each other that distinguishes us from other primates, rather than competitiveness.

Anyway, I don't think economic productivity is not valuable. I just think it's not the only value that should matter. But really the last paragraph I wrote is the most important as far as understanding how conversations tended to go in this forum on the topic of immigration. Although that said, I also largely agree with some of grizy's previous comments.

It's not unreasonable in itself. However if you subscribe to it then you should support a high level of immigration if (as appears to be the case) a high level of immigration is better for the economy than a lower level.

The devil is in your phrase 'better for the country' which can easily and quickly become racist.

you think its good to feel uncomfortable about judging people but you're all ready to do it? you shouldnt be judging immigrants at all. you should be letting them in, because immigration is positive thing for the country as a whole, since your so concerned with "better". isn't there a whole thing on the statue of liberty about it, or maybe it says "give me your economically beneficial to zica people, let those other ones stay in their ****tier situation because zica was born on this soil and if anyone wants to join him they need to better his situation.."

if these are your actual beliefs they are racist/bigoted. you should reflect on that, until the day you do, hopefully people like me calling you out on it will eventually make you uncomfortable, because you deserve to be at the least, uncomfortable.

it always comes down to those fourteen words.

eta- just so we're all clear, i'm saying that "merit" based immigration leads to inherently racist outcomes, and if someone believes in it and champions it, then they also are racist.

Last no-go zone convo I had on 2p2 was with mongodig when he said some area in San Diego was a no-go zone. I went there with my daughter and found the best tacos I've ever had at Las Cuatro Milpas. I might be going there on Thursday. Road trip?

grizy was one of the people I PMd about doing something and keeping in touch if the forum was closed - before the new site started.

He didn't respond though.

I am still undecided.

That was fairly clear. To be clear I don't believe in it at all and I don't agree with your conclusion. I'd agree many are racist but the reduction to 'all are' is absurd.

You seem to me to be semi-coherent and a child so don't be surprise if I don't take your advice and if I don't have much regard for your views.

its ignorant to think a program like he's describing wouldn't lead to the racist outcome of giving preferential treatment to predominately white immigrants from developed countries over those from less developed areas. if you actually don't believe that's what would happen in a "merit" based policy like that, then i guess i have a bridge to sell you, if you're interested, i just need the cash upfront..


calling people that believe in racist policies racists isn't absurd. to believe in those types of policies where the bottom line is so clearly racism/bigotry is to either be racist or ignorant.

this is the dumbest ****ing **** i've read in a long time

sorry my style of talking on an internet forum isn't good enough for you, it clearly means you must not actually be racist for believe in that racist policy you were pushing..

does my law degree not meet your "better" for the country standards? im sorry if i don't believe that even the one policy you cherry-picked to use against my racist policy agenda argument was in fact at its heart ALSO racist..

Well Named what am I not allowed to say?

2/5 of the posts you deleted in that other thread were benign.

Suzzer has me on ignore but I want to point out that UC/pv8.8 didn't turn into Stormfront necessarily. Stormfront doesn't let you join and dunk all over them. It's a distinction worth making.

You've been on fire.

Slighted,


Why do you automatically assume being racist is racist? Wouldn't that make you the real racist?

it might 6ix, it might..

There's no bridge to sell me. Depends on the view on merits, personally I believe immigration from non-developed countries has a huge amount of value to the UK.

but the argument is far worse than that. I'm a fanatical remainer over brexit but I have to accept that it most likely has more racist outcomes on immigration than if we leave (so far that has been the case as EU immigration has been displaced with non-EU immigration) . Yet the same people who would call merit based immigration supporters racist, call the leavers racist. Once the outcomes argument don't work (even works against them), they quickly realise it wasn't about outcomes in the first place.