MovieChat Forums > David1616 > Replies
David1616's Replies
You are right.
OFC she's dumb, uncharismatic and a bad politician (she got no delegates in the primaries), but that ties to my whole argument. Had Democrats not been so blindly determined to DEI, they would have chosen someone better.
"Governments all over the world are offering incentives for people to start families. How does government just magic wand a cultural shift? "
Incentives could go further if there was political will. And there is no political will because the media doesn't do it's job of informing public about the huge likelihood of racial differences and it's danger to the future of the country.
" People upset over the mass bombing of Palestinians in Gaza doesn't really equate to voting on the basis of wanting an ethno state in your own country".
Palestinians desire to have an ethno state is OK, but for native British people it's not. Nationalism for brown people, multiculturalism for Whites
"you are just spouting baseless conjecture."
What are you talking about?
"are we talking about private companies censoring here or the government"
Right now social media companies can act as both publishers as well as a platform. They have to chose one or the other. Preserving democracy and free speech which is the basis of Western civilization (and potentially even a decline of our countries into third world) is more important than letting people fire others due to their politics. Funny how leftists were the first to want laws against firing someone because they were gay, but now suddenly are worried about free association.
"They aren't. The right, or the 'racial right' (for want of a better term) are free to set up their own parallel media ecosphere. You don't have the right to demand a media outfit air your views."
Ever heard of monopolies? Funny how liberals support government breaking them, but when those monopolies are on their side, suddenly corporations have rights. Free speech which is the basis of democracy is more important than the right of corporations to free association. And they aren't forced to endorse views expressed the content they host. They can easily put disclaimers.
"Because their parents tend to be poorer. And on the cycle goes. "
And why were their parents born in poverty? How come Chinese and Indians were able to escape poverty, but Blacks weren't?
"How many Arabs are coming into the Uk from Qatar, Saudi Arabia, U.A.E?"
Data please? Also again ignoring the IQs of those counties as a whole. They are rich, have good education index, but their IQs are between 79 and 84. But environment, eh?
"How is that not "telling the media what to do"? And the media /DOES/ cover birth rate declines. They do show statistics regarding race-based outcomes of groups."
So the media shouldn't do it's job? They don't properly investigate the cause s of racial differences.
I never said it's "at will". Tell the truth to the public about 1. Current racial differences in behavior and 2. The fact racial equality has never been proven and that it's very likely to be false. It will be a floodgate from that.
So the leftist press does things that prevent the very same culture change needed to increase birth rates while at the same time using low births to convince people to take immigrants. If you are creating a problem, you don't get to complain about it and use it to your advantage.
"Some stupid Comment is Free article from The Guardian does not remotely represent the average position of the wider Uk press"
I's not just one article. It's a pattern that the media is leftist and tends to not encourage high births. If low births are a threat to a country, the media should encourage it.
"Again, no, this does not happen."
So you are saying the media objectively reports about minority crime, welfare use and other negative behavior like grooming gangs? That is fairly reports on the possibility that some racial groups could be inherently prone to worse behavior? This is just pure BS and you know it.
"It's due to population, supply of houses and many other factors. Not just regulation at all (whatever you mean by that)."
Supply of houses is lower because of environmental regulation and demand is higher because of immigration. Both leftist policies.
"All those things are in Jewish ethnic interest.
How so?"
Because Jews feel threatened by strong White ethnic groups given their history. Also, by getting rid of Whites, they are eliminating competition for their power. Other races aren't intellectually challenging to them.
"Jews feel safer the more "diverse" America is because they will "sick out" less
Why would they stick out more in a less diverse America? Most Jews just look like white Americans."
You don't have to distinguish a Jew from a non Jew physically to know that there are Jews.
"What does this mean directly in terms of policy?"
That White safe spaces shouldn't be illegal or demonized just like Blacks aren't. That immigration restriction based on ethnicity shouldn't be illegal and labelled inherently immoral just like it isn't for non White countries.
Can you tell me the lies told about them on "wokeypedia" there please?
I said it's not objective source. You don't have to say falsehoods in order to deceive. Just choosing how to frame the sentence and what to include/exclude is enough.
"And my point regarding Anne is that she hasn't, to my knowledge, ever said anything racist"
Yet she's still called a fascist, Islamophobe and far right.
"There's no right in any society to have any grievance "raised effectively""
Yes there is. In a democratic and fair country, every ethnic group should be allowed to be on their own side and explicitly argue for their interest. Whites are not allowed to be explicitly pro White, while others are. You have never addressed how this double standard isn't unfair.
"Also, people do very much talk about the plight of white working-class men, or sometimes men in general in the UK - and issues with mass migration. It's not framed in the way you want it"
Yes, the most effective arguments (IQ, crime, racial differences) are not allowed because they are the most effective. What you're saying is you're allowed to play football as long as you play poorly.
Any rational and fair society would examine differences between racial groups if it was truly concerned about it's future. The British and other Western societies are deliberately willfully ignorant on this issue.
"The numbers coming from Europe have dropped post-Brexit, if I recall."
Yes that's because of Brexit made it harder for them to come. Since Europeans do better and assimilate better, there should be easier for them to come. Brexit was a mistake. If it really cared about it's future, UK should limit Muslims and Blacks, not Europeans.
"With what magic wand?"
Government incentives and culture shift.
"It was considered stupid."
But it wasn't considered racist
"If he went on a sticker campaign, I think its possible he would."
It's she not, he. And no she wouldn't and you know it. Minority ethnic identity is not considered racist. Stop lying.
"How do you "demand" an end to what you see as cancel culture without infringing on the right to assembly, and free association?"
Free association right to censor people who you disagree with while at the same time claiming to be a democracy and complaining how the right is anti democratic? The left doesn't have a right to get to decide which ideas get to spread in society and which don't. If you think some ideas are wrong, debunk them and address them. Don't cheat
"Because they're born into poverty more commonly than white people."
Ever heard of social mobility? Also why are they born into poverty?
"How does genetics have anything to do with the family you are born into?"
Genetics affects behavior. We know this from twin studies.
Now, I've had enough of this. How the hell did you manage to write such a long post? I always have a very narrow limit of characters. I DEMAND to know. Do you have special privileges on this board?
"Are you genuinely claiming, or suggesting that most people coming to the UK from China happen to be poor people fleeing a conflict, or economic migrants like in Syria? As far as I am aware, most Chinese immigrants to the UK are student immigrants."
Why are you again derailing the argument to only those in the UK? I was talking about China and Arab countries as a whole. And who's talking about Syria? Syria is only one Arab country. Most other Arab countries aren't at war.
"IQ tests challenge the brain in various ways that require some level of education to do well."
Not really. IQ tests are deliberately designed to be simple so you don't require any education. Just ability to distinguish squares and triangles.
"Every western country, including the UK tries to encourage birth rates via incentives. This already happens. And again, the media is free. You cannot tell the media what to do"
Those policies didn't go nearly far enough. There is much more room for birth rate incentives if there was only political will.
It's not asking anything of the media that to do it's job. If the future of the country depends on weather or not immigrants will integrate and become Successful, then it's the medias duty to objectively inform the public weather or not that is happening and weather or not this is likely to happen. (And to investigate all science which could affect this including racial IQ differences). The media doesn't do its job. It prioritizes things like "fighting stereotypes" and fighting so called "racism" (which is not the telos of the media, but a biased leftist value) over the future of country and civilization. The media is just treasonous to their own countries.
Ok so you don't care about ruining your country just so you wont' be accused of "stereotyping". Great.
"It is far more ethical and best practice to judge an individual on their own merits."
But here we are not talking about judging individuals, but groups. Immigration is a collective policy. No country has the means to judge every individual specifically to decide weather or not he should be let in (especially since they have an incentive to lie and deceive to be let in).
"And, loaded questions"
It's not a loaded question since this is literally happening. Whites will be a minority in the UK in 2060s. Muslims are rising quickly. They aren't assimilating, their values, culture and loyalties are totally different than ours. There is absolutely no reason to think they will assimilate and become like us. Unless something drastic changes, the UK will eventually become a majority Muslim country and it won't be the UK anymore. Do you not care about you country's long term identity?
"They (differences within groups) matter less than differences within ethnic groups"
Why are you just repeating this talking point and not addressing the argument? Just because there is technically more diversity within than between doesn't mean between differences can't be vastly important.
"No; it is an example of giving a standard definition."
In what world is taking aggregate ethnic differences in behavior not make sense if we are deciding from which countries we should be taking immigrants?
"Most differences are, literally, skin deep."
That's simply not true. There are differences in intelligence, psychopathy rates, time preference, work ethic, vulnerability to diseases, life spans...etc, etc..
"However this is not the same as negatively stereotyping in order to exclude them en masse."
Again how do you define stereotype? Does it mean the belief has to be false? Ethnic differences in behavior are factually true. There is nothing immoral about excluding certain ethnic groups from your country and especially not if they tend to cause problems. The purpose of countries is that different ethnic groups have their homelands. No group owes inclusion to anyone else. If Japanese don't like the Chinese, they aren't obligated to take millions of them in their country just like we aren't obligated to take in Pakistanis. Even if our perceptions about Pakistanis were false, we still wouldn't be obligated to take them and they are far from false given the data.
"Why would they?"
Ok you don't know they control for behavior. Yet you still maintain they prove minorities are victims. Also data for race differences in crime are not discredited science
"Google is your friend."
So you don't know how it's measured and what does it control for. Yet you maintain that there is unjustified institutional racism against Blacks
"Ask your white nationalist friends"
None of people I follow demands any kind of supremacy. Only meritocracy and equal standards for all racial groups. If they are allowed identity, nativism, pride, safe spaces...so should we.
"Victim blaming"
Ignoring the argument as usual
"And which 'rights' are not given to whites which the rest of the population enjoy?"
Identity, safe spaces, nativism, pride, history, safety....etc.
"Non-EEA migrants are estimated to have a positive net fiscal contribution to the UK over their lifetime"
No, they don't. You just cherry picked one year (2016). Overall they are a net cost.
A study from 2014 showed that in the period between 1995-2011, migrants cost the UK L114 billion.
• Europeans made a +L4bn contribution
• Non-EEA migrants made NEGATIVE L118bn contribution
https://t.co/IbsCLQUKDB
For 2016/2017:
https://i.postimg.cc/zGWydkk6/EEA-vs-non-EEA-UK.png
"Please see my previous comment"
Why are you changing the discussion from denial of sovereignty to something else? I made a valid point. Exclusion someone is not denying them sovereignty. You claimed I want to deny them sovereignty.
"Also, demographic changes happens. Get over it."
Tell that to any other group besides Whites and see how they react to it.
"Goalpost moving noted."
No, it's not. I clearly said White nationalists in my original challenge, not Proud Boys and every right wing movement.
"It is always your argument"
No, my argument was that if they behave better, they will inevitably be treated better. It's not unfair. Whites are a community, not just skin color. Good people of bad behaving ethnic groups should blame their bad behaving homies, not Whites who are forced to see race to protect themselves for bad Black behavior.
"But to help you out again:"
So a blog from an ideological website?
Also what kind of racial diversity? Asians, Indians or Backs? I don't oppose Asian immigration. We know Blacks and other minorities are hired at lower standards due to DEI so how can less qualified employees yield a better result? Also again just correlation and haven't you said correlation isn't the cause? Perhaps better companies are more worried about image and are therefor more likely to hire minorities? And even if Blacks would bring more productivity, that would be just one benefit (compared to more downsides like more crime, political problems, economic cost, less socail trust etc)
"Fair treatment under the law"
Latest meta analysis shows no discrimination in the legal system:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359178923000927
Even if it did unfairly discriminated against Backs, that would be only one example from you vs SEVEN examples from me.
"Stereotyping noted."
So they don't behave worse?
"differences are less between groups than within them."
So even you admit there are differnces between groups. Yet you maintan that these differences are not the cause of behavior.
"I don't know of a reputable anthropologist who would make the case that a group's culture makes its members behave badly"
What? So the fact that Afghanis deny education to women, stone them to death is not a result of their culture? And before you say it, it's not religion. Plenty of Muslim countries don't stone their women to death. This statement has to be the dumbest thing you've ever written in this entire exchange and that's saying a lot.
"the onus of proof is on you"
How is the burden on me, if i'm not the one bringing them here? I never said innocent individuals of a given ethnic group should be blamed for their aggregate behavior. I never said they all need to be sterlizied. I just claim we should stop importing them until we know they will start behaving better (and behaving better soon)
Who is pulling the trigger in the US? Is it Asian grandmas, or is it young Black men?
Correlation often times is the cause. If you don't think genetics is the cause of this correlation, then explain what is it?
"There are different ways of putting the same argument,"
Then show me how are White advocates supposed to raise those exact same grievances (and raise them just as effectively) without being accused of "hate"
"Stereotyping noted again."
There are many definitions of stereotype, some include the thesis that the belief has to be wrong, others don't. My premise that Blacks behave worse is not a false one according to all the data.
Whites haven't oppressed Blacks. Exclusion is not oppression unless it's coupled with denial of sovereignty. No ethnic group has an inherent moral obligation to have a positive view of another ethic group and to include them in their society. Especially if the group in question behaves worse.
So changing my comment when quoting me instead of addressing the actual point. How do you define stereotype? Does the belief have to be false?
"Thank you for your opinion"
Ok so you totally avoided addressing the point like usual. And it's not victim blaming since they are not victims given they behave worse. Ethnic groups are not just people with certain skin. They are communities. They are at least to a degree responsible for their aggregate behavior.
An accusation of "special pleading" (whatever that is) as an excuse to ignore a perfectly valid argument. I already addressed the exceptions. I never said Arabs ought to be condemned, I only mentioned them in the context of the fact only Whites are today condemned.
"haven't you now said that things ought not to be judged by the standards of today?"
Yes I did say that, but you and most of modern progressive society disagrees with that that so I'm throwing it back at your face. Also when have Whites conducted mass human sacrifice?
Jews were never seen as racially inferior, they were targeted because they were believed to be an enemy race. Holocaust had nothing to do with race and IQ. Nazis denied validity of IQ test just like modern liberals.
"where exactly do Liberals not hold any participants in the trade 'not accountable'? "
Liberals are concerned with White guilt, not West African guilt over slavery. You know the people who actually captured slaves as opposed to Whites who bought them with their own money and made a lot of Blacks rich. Liberals have double standards against Whites.
"A false comparison"
Not a false comparison. Morality ought to be judged by the environment people lived in at the time. It's liberals who tend to prescribe to moral relativism when it comes to behavior of Islamic societies and indigenous tribes, but when it comes to White behavior in a totally different environment, all that moral relativism goes out the window.
Ignoring the point and straw mining it. I said you are focused on blame on Whites, but not on others who are much less apologetic therefor you are biased against Whites. And that's not even going into the fact that past actions in a different world ought not to be judged by present moral standards stemming from a modern world.
"In the UK however it took years and years; in the US it took a war."
Your point being Whites are not perfect my today's moral standards. Yes it took a war, but compared to who? Others like Arabs who abolished it when US was listening to Michael Jackson? (Mauritania abolished it in 1981). Remember the context of disagreement is not weather or not Whites behaved benign by present standards, but weather or not Whites today should have unique guilt over slavery.
Success of the West was built by IQ (genetics), individualism, protestant work ethic, democracy, rule of law, industrialization and enlightenment/science. All of that came from White people.
"Even when the trade was abolished in the UK it is significant that substantial compensation was largely paid to the owners and not their 'lost property"
Slavery was moral back then. If we had to return to living like people in the 1700s, I guarantee you, slavery would have slowly become moral again.
I already addressed this. IQ superiority is not necessarily moral superiority. And even if I claim Whites are morally superior, I don't have to mean they were always morally superior. You on the other hand deny any racial differences, yet hold Whites to higher standards by your own admission. You are the epitome of a hypocrite.
You still don't get it. The left isn't just claiming that individual minorities can be victims in specific situations. They are claiming that they are victims collectively. What I'm saying is that they are only victims collectively if they are discriminated more than how they behave. If their alleged discrimination is a result of their aggregate behavior, then they are not victims.
Whites behaved no worse than others in the past and today behave the best. In fact, today they behave in a destructively pathological altruistic way.
Ok thanks for your opinion, but where is your argument that Black crime has to be a result of discrimination. My theory is that discrimination is the cause of Black crime. Chinese were discriminated in the past (today almost zero) yet they still commit much less crime.
"The distinction I am discussing is the one determined by successful prosecutions"
Yet you are still yet to list that distinction to me. And even if you do it has to allow for White ethnic grievances to be heard, otherwise the country cannot claim to be democratic, free and fair.
How does behavior of Whites 100 years ago affect how Blacks are viewed today as opposed to how they behave being a more likely culprit?
Show me evidence of this overt "racism" and how - even if it exists - is not a result of Black behavior?
I meant, Indians, not Native American you dummy. You really thought I said Native Americans were the richest ethnic group in America LOL?
If Indians are discriminated it could be they are conflated with Pakistanis, Bangladeshis and other brown people who behave worse. Blame those people, not Whites. And even if they are discriminated due to Whites, they still aren't victims. UK is a country built by native Brits. If others don't like it there, leave. I don't have a right to move to Japan and demand Japanese society conforms to my interests as a non Japanese.
Again with the dodge and derail to colonialism. Those countries weren't already rich. I never said all immigrants, i said it's a pattern which is important. They say they come to work and are let in on condition that they will be working, but they and their descendants still tend to take more from the government. Yes there is plenty wrong in some ethnic groups mass migrating into a country that another ethnic group built and influencing that society according to their interest at the expense of the original ethnic group. They bring their genetics, culture, politics, habits, identities and loyalties. The purpose of countries is that different ethnic groups have their homelands. Mass immigration denies sovereignty to ethnic groups who built wealth. It is the antithesis of ethnic justice.
US was founded as a White country. Non Whites were only allowed in 1965 after liberals took over the culture. Race is identity and behavior and much more than skin color. Blacks haven't fully assimilated after 400 years.
"But by the conquerors only, naturally"
That doesn't mean it was immoral. Morality is relative to the time.
How do Whites act towards minorities? Giving them DEI as well as making them 40% of people in commercials despite the fact they commit 60% of murders in the country?
Research shows
And now suddenly, correlation IS causation, eh?
How did buying slaves make those places poor?
Again, slavery as the cause of Black poverty has been debunked: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJwPpNzTWoQ (studies in the video) Effects dissipated after a few generations. IQ is the main cause. If Whites were the cause of Black poverty, how come those Blacks that live with Whites are today the wealthiest (US and UK) while those that live away from Whites are the poorest? East Africa had little slave trade, yet it's actually poorer than West Africa. If slavery was the cause of Black poverty, how come Blacks today do worse than they did prior to the civil rights movement?