Aunt on Facebook

david starling said:

It's not about intentional mixing, the way segregation is intentionally about not mixing. It's about the right to be treated fairly, and for everyone to be able to work, shop, go to school and dine out wherever they choose.

Click to expand...

So if I wanted to dine out in your kitchen, I should be able to do so? There are now no more boundaries? Or if I wanted to come to your country, I could just cross the border illegally and waltz right in, and if I got nabbed by your border guards, I just chant: "everybody should be able to go wherever they choose"?

aquarius7000 said:

Is practicing racism and thereby indirectly causing a rift in the society of your "own country" not berating it?

Wouldn't it then be better to just yourself "emigrate" to a place - say if one likes only whites to a place with a very low non-white population, so a more heterogenous society can live in peace and unity, and you can dis-integrate yourself from the current society to a place where you don't need to be concerned about integration at all (at least not when it has to do with mere skin-colour and looks)?

Click to expand...

I think integration happens naturally. I also believe its for the best once it does. But it has to come from the cultures naturally blending together, which occurs after a few generation.

Asians in the U.S. are pretty well accepted aren't they? Asians are pretty well accepted pretty much everywhere to be honest.
First generation asian immigrants usually keep to themselves. But their children usually integrate really well.

I dislike the idea of governments "forcing" people to integrate. I dislike the idea of governments forcing people to do anything.

- The source of this black/white tension in the U.S. comes from your government forcing people to stay segregated (jim crow laws).
- Now the government is trying to correct this past mistake by forcing people to be integrated (affirmative action and that sort of thing).


What governments need to do is stay out of people's lives - and allow integration to occur naturally.

david starling said:

Actions speak louder than words, although speaking out is also an action.

Click to expand...

Yes speaking out operates from my perspective within the overarching term "action".

Y

Dirius said:

Why did CHAZ (seattle autonomous zone or something), created by BLM activists, had segregated areas that said "black people only"?

Are you suggesting this fellas were breaking the law ... and also being racist?

Click to expand...

I will admit I am not completely sure behind the reason for creating CHAZ, though have heard of it.

However, on a more general note, could it be humanly possible that when a certain section of society is continually persecuted (I mean we are talking centuries here), even today, that they feel they are only accepted by people with the same skin colour, want to feel wanted and welcome, and need to mingle? Who does not need friends or want to feel welcome? And when you have faced dismissal and rejection from others based merely on your skin-colour and hair texture (I mean how absolutely bonkers is that!!!) would you remain just as 'adventurous' to keep trying, or would you be, you know, as a human being, just a bit hurt and broken? I mean look at how Wan is struggling to justify her condemnation of a section of society. And this struggle and whining has nothing to do with real life scenario, such as when nobody is going to not want to interview her for a job because one is not of a certain skin colour, etc.

I mean there are people that call 911 because they see two black guys waiting in Starbucks. This is the society we live in and we are discussing why it is wrong for somebody to come here on the forum and publicly say they find that certain section of society "ugly" and suggest they should emigrate? As if it were as normal as saying - I don't like cauliflower so throw it out of the fridge.

I am shocked that so many posts are reqd. by a no. of people to make some understand what is wrong with ostracizing and persecuting Americans in America!!! Honestly. I guess the education system needs more fixing than one would think.

wan said:

So if I wanted to dine out in your kitchen, I should be able to do so? There are now no more boundaries? Or if I wanted to come to your country, I could just cross the border illegally and waltz right in, and if I got nabbed by your border guards, I just chant: "everybody should be able to go wherever they choose"?

Click to expand...

Good point. No, it's really just about the public arena, and having the opportunity to fully participate in the economic system. That includes work, education, consumerism, and entertainment.

Wan, which "White people" are you speaking for?

david starling said:

Good point. No, it's really just about the public arena, and having the opportunity to fully participate in the economic system. That includes work, education, consumerism, and entertainment.

Click to expand...

Why is it OK to discriminate in private areas but not ok to do so in public areas? And who came up with this rule?

Further, what about friendship? Is this a public arena or private? What about clubs? Last I heard, private clubs in your country are prohibited from discrimination.

aquarius7000 said:

However, on a more general note, could it be humanly possible that when a certain section of society is continually persecuted (I mean we are talking centuries here), even today, that they feel they are only accepted by people with the same skin colour, want to feel wanted and welcome, and need to mingle? Who does not need friends or want to feel welcome? And when you have faced dismissal and rejection from others based merely on your skin-colour and hair texture (I mean how absolutely bonkers is that!!!) would you remain just as 'adventurous' to keep trying, or would you be, you know, as a human being, just a bit hurt and broken? I mean look at how Wan is struggling to justify her condemnation of a section of society. And this struggle and whining has nothing to do with real life scenario, such as when nobody is going to not want to interview her for a job because one is not of a certain skin colour, etc.

I mean there are people that call 911 because they see two black guys waiting in Starbucks. This is the society we live in and we are discussing why it is wrong for somebody to come here on the forum and publicly say they find that certain section of society "ugly" and suggest they should emigrate? As if it were as normal as saying - I don't like cauliflower so throw it out of the fridge.

I am shocked that so many posts are reqd. by a no. of people to make some understand what is wrong with ostracizing and persecuting Americans in America!!! Honestly. I guess the education system needs more fixing than one would think.

Click to expand...

And how would self-segregation fix this?

Wan claimed that whites shouldn't be forced to interact with black people, but why would it be ok for black people to do the same?

The way I see it, the argument comes down to this:

- If you are part of a "victim" group, you should do what you want.
- If you are part of the "dominant" group, you can't do what you want.

I do understand the sentiment behind this position. If I'm not mistaken, minorities are given a "pass" for certain behaviour, because they suffered in the past. I understand the point.

But I don't think that it is a good position to take. Nor do I believe this leads towards equality.

wan said:

Why is it OK to discriminate in private areas but not ok to do so in public areas? And who came up with this rule?

Further, what about friendship? Is this a public arena or private? What about clubs? Last I heard, private clubs in your country are prohibited from discrimination.

Click to expand...

Public areas are supported by taxes, from every citizen.

You can't turn away the tax-payer. Public comes from "the people" - the entire nation. It belongs to everyone.

david starling said:

Wan, which "White people" are you speaking for?

Click to expand...

I am speaking for myself only.

aquarius7000 said:

Words don't come out of a vacuum. Words reflect one's thoughts and intent.

This is not to say that words cannot be misinterpreted, but, if not immediately, after a while (here, after a no. posts) there is little room for misinterpretation. Unless somebody is hell bent upon misinterpreting to serve a particular purpose.

Click to expand...

aquarius7000 ,

I believe many of the true racists out there in the world with through and through racists intentions and beliefs at their very heart realize the need to adopt to the world as it is in order to survive. They might not be the sharpest in their judgments and analytical assessments but I dont believe many of them are beneath seeing their basic survival situation in regards to social contexts, work and financial safety for example.

Y

Dirius said:

Public areas are supported by taxes, from every citizen.

You can't turn away the tax-payer. Public comes from "the people" - the entire nation. It belongs to everyone.

Click to expand...

So you would be against private clubs being forced to admit people that they don't want to admit?

Do you agree that a victim is different than a perpetrator, just going by the meaning of the word?

Do you agree that the experience of a victim is different than the experience of a perpetrator?

Do you agree the effect on the victim of the act/event is different than the effect on the perpetrator?

That should then help you understand what this "comes down to", and why it is different when and why (sentiment wise) victims form a group vs. when perpetrators huddle together.

Dirius said:

And how would self-segregation fix this?

Wan claimed that whites shouldn't be forced to interact with black people, but why would it be ok for black people to do the same?

The way I see it, the argument comes down to this:

- If you are part of a "victim" group, you should do what you want.
- If you are part of the "dominant" group, you can't do what you want.

I do understand the sentiment behind this position. If I'm not mistaken, minorities are given a "pass" for certain behaviour, because they suffered in the past. I understand the point.

But I don't think that it is a good position to take. Nor do I believe this leads towards equality.

Click to expand...

wan said:

So you would be against private clubs being forced to admit people that they don't want to admit?

Click to expand...

I'm not in favour of the government forcing anyone do anything.

However I am a capitalist, and capitalism is color-blind. I you don't want to admit a group of people, you will end up going bankrupt anyways. Racism can't survive in a pure capitalist society.

Dirius said:

I'm not in favour of the government forcing anyone do anything.

However I am a capitalist, and capitalism is color-blind. I you don't want to admit a group of people, you will end up going bankrupt anyways. Racism can't survive in a pure capitalist society.

Click to expand...

What if the club is only for enjoyment, not for profit-making? Would you be OK with it prohibiting minorities from joining?

david starling said:

Hey, I just checked, and Argentina is listed as one of the "whitest" countries on the planet! Now, if you can overcome your intolerance towards Leos, Dirius might help you emigrate to Argentina!

Click to expand...

That indeed is interesting - in more ways than one . I wasn't aware of that. See now that is a part of the world I haven't yet visited. I guess I should depend on "selected media" more than I do, currently.

aquarius7000 said:

Do you agree that a victim is different than a perpetrator, just going by the meaning of the word?

Do you agree that the experience of a victim is different than the experience of a perpetrator?

Do you agree the effect on the victim of the act/event is different than the effect on the perpetrator?

That should then help you understand what this "comes down to", and why it is different when and why (sentiment wise) victims form a group vs. when perpetrators huddle together.

Click to expand...

Who is the perpetrator?

The government who passed segregation laws? Or the white people who were alive 200 years ago and are now dead?

Because I'm fine with abolishing the former, and the latter are already dead.

Why would an italian family, who migrated to the U.S. in 1920, and had nothing to do with slavery or jim crow laws be responsible?

aquarius7000 said:

That indeed is interesting - in more ways than one . I wasn't aware of that. See now that is a part of the world I haven't yet visited. I guess I should depend on "selected media" more than I do, currently.

Click to expand...

Its very beautiful place - but currently undergoing a giant economic depression, because, socialism.

There is a reason Buenos Aires is called the southern Paris. Lot of natural reserves and natural sights on southern Argentina too.

wan said:

What if the club is only for enjoyment, not for profit-making? Would you be OK with it prohibiting minorities from joining?

Click to expand...

Thats not a business then. It is a group of people renting a building and hanging out there.

Dirius said:

Thats not a business then. It is a group of people renting a building and hanging out there.

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if it's a business or not. I am asking you whether you would be OK with it. I want to get a feel for your boundaries.