thumper

I'd like the second one to be focused on the most. Thanks Mod

IsItJustMe

Substance, thumper. Substance. Not one liners. You promised you'd try to put some substance in.

What's your view on sovereignity? What's your view on housing discrimination? Coherent. A paragraph on each. No smileys.

thumper

I think the secession thing is a bit of a side topic, so let's bring it down to earth.

Here's something that you've never answered to my satisfaction: Why are you against a group of people living in their own communities, who by your own admission you want nothing to do with?

thumper

I think that everyone should be allowed the right to discriminate. Are you an all inclusive person when it comes to what friends you'll make? Or who you give rides to in your car? Why should it be any different in other private spheres? Done and done

IsItJustMe

Let's bring it more down to earth than that. I'm not necessarily. That is, I don't care for it because I think it's a breeding ground for violent extremism, but I don't say that it necessarily should be banned outright. All depends how it's done. I've said this before.

Racial discrimination laws were not passed to interfere with the operation of the Aryan Nations compound. They were passed to interfere with the operation of racially-closed cliques that controlled virtually all power in many U.S. cities and even states. Can you understand why I would be opposed to a single racial group having a lock on power in an entire state?

But your white supremacist types don't seem to be capable of moving behind one large farm. Let's take instead an example of a group which, while fringe, is more successful: The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. These people control entire towns in some parts of the country... Utah, Arizona, in there. They elect the mayor, city council and school board, and control the police.

Do you think that they should have a right to discriminate in policing based on membership in their faith? That is, should they have a right to arrest people for assault only when the victim of the assault is a member of their church? Of course not.

That action on their part is not too far removed from refusing to give a job to a person because they are not a member of the FCJCLDS, or refusing to rent an apartment to such a person.

Now, this isn't a major issue in most of the country because this is a small area and not a wealthy one, so most people don't really care that much. But people who grew up in those areas, many of whom were in that church and then left, are often effectively forced to leave their home towns or even home counties because they can't make a living because they aren't in that church. That's unfair.

IsItJustMe

You'll probably find that in matters of race I don't do too badly here... My friends are definitely a mixed bunch. But certainly I don't think the government should order you to be friends with someone, or tell you who you should marry, for instance.

Because employment and housing relationships are not as private. You have the most right to control the things that are closest to you and the things that least affect other people. The less central they are to your individuality and the more important they are to other people, the more say other people get over the things that you do.

thumper

Why is it an automatic supposition that self-determination = violent extremism. Can the same be said about the "Tibetan Supremacists"?

Yes, this is certainly the problem with democracy politics. Which is why I state again, why I support self-determination for ALL GROUPS, so that way minorities don't have to live under the thumb of the ruling mob.

Just look at how Mario Obledo openly states that California will be a "hispanic state" and that whites should go back to Europe. This is what democracy is. Tipping the scales just enough to force everyone to live by a particular way.If you don't like it, form your own community :huh:Well there's a gulf of difference between "fairness" and "freedom". I'm not really in favor of regulating anyone's actions. Hell, I've been discriminated against plenty of times in terms of dating opportunities on the basis of my haircut, looks, car, lack of money, beliefs, personality, etc. and while it may seem unfair, by what moral authority can I force people to like me and to give me every possible opportunity :huh:

thumper

Again, you make it almost sound like white folks have the monopoly over these things. They don't. In a free society everyone should have the opportunity to set up a business and own property. Are you saying that minorites are incapable of doing this

IsItJustMe

I haven't made such a supposition. But Tibet is a nation, not a race. Tibet has geographic boundaries. Tibet has a history. Tibet has a language. Tibet has a culture. White people have no geographical boundary. White people have many diverging histories, and white people in the U.S. share their history with non-white people, as they do their language and their culture.

I use extremists as an example because they are the ones usually trying to set up their own government without having boundaries, culture, language, etc., in favor of it.

But this is a practical impossibility. You would have intersecting and overlapping sovereign governments. It can't possibly work.

I konw almost nothing about Mario Obledo, but assuming, for the sake of argument, that he is saying what you claim he is, then he is wrong, in the same way that you are. Certainly white people are not going to be forced to go back to Europe in California, any more than they have been in Mexico, Cuba, Panama, etc. This is a very unrealistic fear that you have.

Why should I have to get out of a given area just because I'm in a minority in it? What about my property rights? What if I'm a fundamentalist Mormon who deconverts, and I have a house in one of these FLDS towns. Why should I have to give up my property, or sell my house at less than value? Why should I have to leave my home town just to be able to make a living?

It's a form of ethnic cleansing is what it is, not all that different from what happened in Israel in 1949.

The two are certainly in tension. The trick is to balance them as well as possible.

I don't think you really mean that. Surely you believe in having a law against rape, don't you?

No one can or should force someone to date someone they don't want to date. But that's a different kettle of fish from renting housing or hiring an employee. You have rented an apartment at some point, I assume. Did you have a personal relationship with the person you were renting from? I doubt it. Jobs are to a considerable extent the same way. And no one can or will force you to be friends with your neighbors if you don't want to be.

IsItJustMe

Have you ever been in business? Do you know, one of the most important elements to setting up a successful small business is connections, specifically connections to people who have money to spend. In a racially segregated society, people from the race that is on the outs will have a very hard time doing this.

And in this country the wealthy and powerful are still disproportionately white. That's a simple fact.

You have complained that you've been denied your god-given right to live in a ghetto. First of all, I think you exaggerate. Many white people live in ghettos pretty much unmolested. But even if you are not exaggerating, so what? Why do you want to live in a ghetto so bad anyway? It's like me complaining I can't move to some little town in Utah cause I'm not a fundamentalist Mormon. I wouldn't dream of moving to rural Utah anyway.

People mainly care about discrimination when the thing they can't get due to discrimination is valuable, and that's only sensible. So discrimination against minorities in the U.S. is still important partly because so much of the things that are important are in the hands of white people.

Beyond that there is another quite distinct problem with segregation and that is that it fundamentally leads to intercommunal tensions. People who grow up in mixed neighborhoods don't have to worry nearly as much about crossing the line over to the other ethnic group's side of the neighborhood and getting a beating for it, and that's for the best.