-TSS- Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 These debates about immigration are so futile and lead nowhere as people have very deeply entrenched opinions one way or the other. Debating on the issue reminds me of a saying we have in Finland, I'm sure you have something of a similar saying, namely: When you wrestle with a pig you will both get covered in mud but only the pig enjoys it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 Ah yes ... splitting hairs now ... because you'd rather be called prejudiced than racist? How 'bout racial prejudice? You ok with that? Really Argus. This is ridiculous. No doubt that racism exists among employers. Including Chinese ones that stipulate Mandarin as a job requirement, say, ie employers of all races. We were talking about institutionalized racism. We don't have that in Canada, unless you consider all the special deals for certain races we have as racism, as I do. Positive racism is still racism. We've bent over backwards to make Canada as fair a state as we can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Road Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 Try Saudi Arabia north Korea Iran Nazi Germany those are racist places. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 22, 2012 Report Share Posted December 22, 2012 (edited) Ah yes ... splitting hairs now ... because you'd rather be called prejudiced than racist? How 'bout racial prejudice? You ok with that? Really Argus. This is ridiculous. First of all, I'd rather not 'be called' anything. Well, I'll agree to arrogant and judgmental, but not much else. Second, the difference between prejudice and racism is not splitting hairs. One has a fundamental philosophy of superiority and disregard for certain racial groups and the other is simply a preference based either on supposition or experience about the behavior, skills or abilities of that group. Edited December 22, 2012 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted December 23, 2012 Report Share Posted December 23, 2012 Try Saudi Arabia north Korea Iran Nazi Germany those are racist places. Well all but the latter (out of business by 1975) defined Zionism as "racism and racial discrimination." So "Saudi Arabia north Korea Iran" must be enlightened places. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Road Posted December 23, 2012 Report Share Posted December 23, 2012 Well all but the latter (out of business by 1975) defined Zionism as "racism and racial discrimination." So "Saudi Arabia north Korea Iran" must be enlightened places. I meant people say Canada is racist but compared to what. I say we are fairly easy going. Noone getting thrown in jail for kissing on the beach (Saudi Arabia )or blown to pieces like North Korea. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dissenter Posted December 24, 2012 Report Share Posted December 24, 2012 (edited) Black and especially Asian people on the average are much more racist than white people. Especially towards each other. Nobody says that Black or Asian countries have a problem with "racism" because they're predominantly Black or Asian. Nobody DEMANDS that all Black countries - and ONLY Black countries - or all Asian countries - and ONLY Asian countries - take in millions of non-Blacks or non-Asians and force integrate and assimilate with them. In predominantly White countries - and ONLY in predominantly White countries - race is just supposed to be a "social construct" - except when it comes time to blame White people for everything bad that has happened throughout history. Thus, who cares if White people have a future? When deliberate policy is destructive of a non-White population, it's called genocide. Should Tibetan people be forced to assimilate with the Han Chinese population because they're just a "social construct"? After all, we all "bleed red," right? But when this happens to a White population, it's called "progressive." It is openly stated in the media that White people will become a minority in countries they founded - including the UK - and some people think this is a good thing. How is that not anti-White? Would it be pro-Black to argue that Black people should become a minority in predominantly Black countries? Should a Black man smile at such a thing and say, "diveristy is our strength" lest he be called a "racist"? ONLY White people are attacked and labelled "racist" for caring about their own ethnic identity. Other ethnic groups are encouraged to do so. In fact, we're told that this makes "dull" White communities "vibrant." What if I said that "dull" Black communities need to be less Black to be "vibrant"? How is this not just anti-White? How is the deliberate destruction of a people not genocide? Oh, and every other attempt at genocide began with denying or degrading the identity of the targeted population. Edited December 24, 2012 by Dissenter Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted December 24, 2012 Report Share Posted December 24, 2012 (edited) An escaped troll from stormfront ...? Edited December 24, 2012 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dissenter Posted December 24, 2012 Report Share Posted December 24, 2012 An escaped troll from stormfront ...? You had to do editing to come up with that? Thnx for proving the point: Anti-racist is just code for anti-White. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted December 24, 2012 Report Share Posted December 24, 2012 You had to do editing to come up with that? Thnx for proving the point: Anti-racist is just code for anti-White. Only in an obsessive mind.Scumfront misses you! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GreatJob! Posted December 28, 2012 Report Share Posted December 28, 2012 (edited) Nobody says that Black or Asian countries have a problem with "racism" because they're predominantly Black or Asian. Nobody DEMANDS that all Black countries - and ONLY Black countries - or all Asian countries - and ONLY Asian countries - take in millions of non-Blacks or non-Asians and force integrate and assimilate with them. In predominantly White countries - and ONLY in predominantly White countries - race is just supposed to be a "social construct" - except when it comes time to blame White people for everything bad that has happened throughout history. Thus, who cares if White people have a future? When deliberate policy is destructive of a non-White population, it's called genocide. Should Tibetan people be forced to assimilate with the Han Chinese population because they're just a "social construct"? After all, we all "bleed red," right? But when this happens to a White population, it's called "progressive." It is openly stated in the media that White people will become a minority in countries they founded - including the UK - and some people think this is a good thing. How is that not anti-White? Would it be pro-Black to argue that Black people should become a minority in predominantly Black countries? Should a Black man smile at such a thing and say, "diveristy is our strength" lest he be called a "racist"? ONLY White people are attacked and labelled "racist" for caring about their own ethnic identity. Other ethnic groups are encouraged to do so. In fact, we're told that this makes "dull" White communities "vibrant." What if I said that "dull" Black communities need to be less Black to be "vibrant"? How is this not just anti-White? How is the deliberate destruction of a people not genocide? Oh, and every other attempt at genocide began with denying or degrading the identity of the targeted population. I'd hate to agree with someone who has a reputation as a racist in these boards but... Its unfortunate that this seems to be the truth though... if we are objective: look at any real or imagined racism talked about in the news, take the protagonists of the news item and invert their races. And see how different the treatment would have been. Even more telling, look at nearly every second film out of hollywood... Harold and Kumar for instance portrays every white character as moral lepers, white men are portrayed as racist hick southerners or resentful losers. White women are portrayed as prostitutes that just can't get enough "ethnic love"... The only "good white guy" in the movie turns out to be doogie howser... who is gay. And that model seems to be a constant in new releases... whites are generally the bad guys (Avatar) the only good white people have to be either female, handicaped, harbor some antipathy to a white higherarchy or be gay... I could be here all day listing more examples... Crash... the supposed anti-racist movie... has every single white actor as moral inferiors to non-whites. Tarantino movies of late have been pretty explicitly racist against whites (Black Snake Moan) and Django Unchained... even the interviews of Jaimie Fox literally saying he loves the idea of killing white people. And also referring to Obama as "his president" because he's "black"... again its not hard to imagine how different the media reaction would have been if we would have inverted the races... if Leonardo Dicaprio would have been openly stating that he enjoys killing black people... and identifying with a politicians because he was a white man, he would have been unemployable after... and the media would be apoplectic... Its simply not possible to dispute these realities. An easy enough thing to do, is sample virtually anything said by black celebreties... and imagine if white celebs were saying the same things. put the shoe on the other foot... doing that show us a definite double standard.... and a clear agenda of general antipathy towards caucasians. I used to think it was some crazed neonazi hatesite conspiratorial thing to say... but i'm sorry... I think its true... I think there's too much evidence for it. Edited December 28, 2012 by GreatJob! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-TSS- Posted December 28, 2012 Report Share Posted December 28, 2012 Canada has one of the strictest immigration-laws in the western-world, which of course is a bit of a paradox given the history of Canada but moving into Canada is a great deal harder than moving into almost any Western-European country. All of this proves which I have always said that the number of immigrants in any given country is a political decision. A country can have strict or lax immigration-laws. Immigration is not like some sort of force of nature that you can't do anything about except to adapt to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted December 29, 2012 Report Share Posted December 29, 2012 Canada has one of the strictest immigration-laws in the western-world. This is absolute nonsense, of course. If anything, we have one of the weakest immigration laws in the western world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted December 29, 2012 Report Share Posted December 29, 2012 This is absolute nonsense, of course. If anything, we have one of the weakest immigration laws in the western world. We may have strict laws about who may come in, but it does't stop us from accepting more people per capita than anybody else. To say it's easier to get into any European nation is just nonsense. And we certainly don't have the strictest refugee laws. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 29, 2012 Report Share Posted December 29, 2012 We may have strict laws about who may come in, but it does't stop us from accepting more people per capita than anybody else. To say it's easier to get into any European nation is just nonsense. Per capita immigration means nothing.....in 2006, the U.S. landed more legal immigrants than all other nations in the world...combined. The illegals just added more to the party ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted December 29, 2012 Report Share Posted December 29, 2012 I looked in on this thread when if first started, but never got around to adding a comment to yet another thread raising the phony issue of reverse racism again. What most of these arguments boil down to is someone who enjoys the privilege of being part of the majority group in a population...and a majority with overwhelming political and financial control of the economy, complaining about each and every example where they think they might lose something or have to bend a little, to address issues like racism. * worth noting that checking back at the link in the OP, it still only has one signature....with 24,999 left to go, before the petition reaches President Obama's desk.....good luck with that! I'd hate to agree with someone who has a reputation as a racist in these boards but... Its unfortunate that this seems to be the truth though... if we are objective: look at any real or imagined racism talked about in the news, take the protagonists of the news item and invert their races. And see how different the treatment would have been. Even more telling, look at nearly every second film out of hollywood... Harold and Kumar for instance portrays every white character as moral lepers, white men are portrayed as racist hick southerners or resentful losers. White women are portrayed as prostitutes that just can't get enough "ethnic love"... The only "good white guy" in the movie turns out to be doogie howser... who is gay. Really? The only good Christmas movie to come out in at least the last 10 years, and you're complaining that Harold and Kumar is anti-white racism. Clearly someone can't take a joke! And that model seems to be a constant in new releases... whites are generally the bad guys (Avatar) the only good white people have to be either female, handicaped, harbor some antipathy to a white higherarchy or be gay... Really....again? What about the White Saviour who comes in to save the day for the helpless and incompetent savages! It's Dances With Wolves, and the Indians are blue....aside from that, it's another patronizing story about how the natives need the help of that one good liberal white man to survive! Easy to see that racism cases can be made from other sides....depending on which way you are holding up your telescope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted December 29, 2012 Report Share Posted December 29, 2012 How is this not just anti-White? When did "White" become a continent? WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Posted December 29, 2012 Report Share Posted December 29, 2012 When did "White" become a continent? WWWTT You have to admit though that when someone screams that a person is a racist, it's automatically assumed that the racist in question is white. Our society has been programmed that way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-TSS- Posted December 29, 2012 Report Share Posted December 29, 2012 You have to admit though that when someone screams that a person is a racist, it's automatically assumed that the racist in question is white. Our society has been programmed that way. This is what I've been saying all along. And not just me but anyone with any sense. But to no avail. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 29, 2012 Report Share Posted December 29, 2012 This is what I've been saying all along. And not just me but anyone with any sense. But to no avail. Have you ever heard of Louis Farrakhan ? He is not "white". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted December 29, 2012 Report Share Posted December 29, 2012 Per capita immigration means nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlin Posted December 29, 2012 Report Share Posted December 29, 2012 Have you ever heard of Louis Farrakhan ? He is not "white". I think you'd be in the minority if you think of Mr. Farrahkan when someone screams "racist"! Most people would think of a white person. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted December 29, 2012 Report Share Posted December 29, 2012 I think you'd be in the minority if you think of Mr. Farrahkan when someone screams "racist"! Most people would think of a white person. No, I am just older than most and have seen a lot more things go down. I didn't grow up in "Lily White" Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WIP Posted December 30, 2012 Report Share Posted December 30, 2012 You have to admit though that when someone screams that a person is a racist, it's automatically assumed that the racist in question is white. Our society has been programmed that way. Whose racism has the most power to deny jobs, voting rights, education etc.? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-TSS- Posted December 30, 2012 Report Share Posted December 30, 2012 Canada has very strict immigration-laws. Believe me, if Canada had lax immigration-laws you would be inundated with immigrants and the Canadian born people would be a tiny minority in Canada and as we are all aware that is not the case. Of course, it is easy to believe that Canada has lax immigration-laws because Canada is such a magnet for immigration, probably the 3rd or 4th most wanted destinations in the world after the USA and Britain. Even if you allow 1/100 people of all applicants in it is still a lot of people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.