Redpill me on Racism

Is racism a bad thing Sup Forums? Should we discriminate against someone because of their race of culture?

Other urls found in this thread:

m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/15/obama-demands-compassion-for-syrian-refugees-as-he//
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Yes, discrimination based on characteristics a person cannot change (ie race and gender) is wrong

Racism is defined by the liberal as the ability to recognize patterns among any given set of data.

What about xenophobia

>redpill me on X

Lurk more, reddit

The healthy approach to any irrational fear is to recognize the cause of it and work towards fixing it

Xenophobia is sometimes justified. Judging by what culture someone is from, it's rational to expect certain traits from that person.

Off on a tangent, do you believe that Muslims should be banned from coming into the United States temporarily?

Islam is an ideology, people can choose whether or not to follow it and therefore discriminating against it is not inherently wrong if it's shown to be regressive to western values

But do you believe all muslims should be banned temporarily because of this?

Why do you fucks insist on replying to b8? OP, kill yourself.

There's a difference between hanging blacks purely because of their skin color and not letting Muslims in your country because of their barbaric culture.

No. Freedom of religion is in your constitution

>work towards fixing it

Pic related is the only way to fix the Muslim insurgency and you know it.

*smooch*
What? Of course not! We don't discriminate against anyone...
Ever :)

But what about the First Amendment, which constitutes the freedom of religion? Doesn't banning all muslims go against freedom of religion?

>inb4 They bring up Obama's 2011 ban on Iraqis

>Replying on this "b8" Thread

You're just bumping the thread, kiddo

christianity = islam < judaism

Fear of jihadis is not irrational and therefore not xenophobic

Racism is natural and useful. Problem is that it is meant to work in the background and not be a countries preoccupation line it is for most these days.

>Racism is natural and useful

In what way? For example, should a black person be prevented from going to a store because the white manager says he should not because of his skin color?

>implying this happens

:) Exactly. Why can't we live in peace? After all, not all people are like this :)

No, I believe they should be banned permanently. This pic is a little out of date, but is basically true. If you don't think so, you need to crack a history book sometime.

>B-b-but muh First Amendment

So I guess you're saying screw the First Amendment, screw the rights to practice Islam because muslims are hateful human beings. So how do you propose this?

But foreigners aren't citizens.

What about Muslims currently living in the United States? Should they be allowed to practice their religion without getting discriminated against?

I'm sure a scientific process established that muslims behave in this manner, can you link to the source where they established these percentages?

If banning foreigners from entering based on ideology is not breaking your constitution then it is more up for discussion

Black people claim they cannot be racist, and that only whites are racist, but lump all different white races (such as slavs and europeans) together. I bet you if they were shown a picture of a russian and a brit side by side they eould think of them as just white. They also group asians in with whites purely because they arent brown.

it's from the cia factbook, can't remember year, look up pewpoll statistics for some solid stats

That's not what I'm getting at. What I'm saying is should a person PURPOSELY discriminate against someone else because of their race or culture or religion?

Our constitution has nothing to do with immigration, because it only applies to our country and our citizens. It does not apply to the rest of the world, or anyone who is not an American citizen yet. The only thing it says in our constitution about immigration is that the federal government will regulate it. To me, at least, this implies that the federal government will regulate it to the advantage of our people and our country. There is nothing in there that says we can't exclude anyone for ANY reason.

Sure, here's your link:

Google.com

As I said, the pic is probably a little out of date, meaning the percentages, but the current ones would be easy enough to find.

That's ridiculous. It's crazy how americans value muh freedoms, but you defend taking people's right away to believe in god the way they want to.
That would be unnecessary, immoral, and only cause more separation between the muslim world and the west. Which will likely lead to more extrimism.

Racism is nothing but an opinion. It is a buzzword for something which was created to grant political power to the accusing party.
Bigotry at its core is nothing in itself. You can call any number of ideas bigoted, and it does not rob them of legitimacy. Manipulation of words and phrases to achieve subversive political ends is absolutely a tool of the Frankfurt School's Critical Theory.

Proudly call yourself a racist. Rob the Jews of their every weapon. Grasp hold of your freedom and never let go save to strangle those who dare to take it from you.

Why aren't there any cigarettes in his ears and tear ducts

Racism is bad, yes. Racialism is not, racialism is natural.

racism is natural

>proudly be intolerant of different ideas
>Grasp hold of your freedom
The double-think is real

Muslims immigrants aren't citizens, and therefore are not offered the protection of the constitution

Aren't those the same?

We discriminate based upon intellect and age all the time.

They also can not be changed .

What about the Muslims currently living in the United States as citizens then?

Also, how practical is it to ban Muslims? Unlike race, it is a choice.

>Islam wants to destroy the west
>Criticize them
>Be called a racist

>Jews want to destroy the west
>Criticize them
>be called an anti semite

So then I got a base ball bat, a knife, 2 handguns, a shotgun and 8 automatic assault rifles.
why?
because nobody is on my side

Like I said, crack a history book sometime. Then tell me, specifically where and when Muslims, in any significant numbers, have ever assimilated into another culture, practiced their religion peacefully, respected everyone else's religion, got along as productive members of that society, and did not try to violently take over as soon as the had the numbers to do so.

I'll save you some reading here. The answer is: NEVER has that ever happened in the entire history of the world. The picture in my post explains it perfectly.

Next question: Why on earth would anyone think that it will magically start happening now?

Banning foreigners for any reason that the President deems worthy is constitutional.

>Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate

Stand strong. Every man is an island, and there comes a time in every man's life where he must weather a terrible storm.

But what about the practicality of banning Muslims? How is the Donald able to ban all Muslims from entering the United States?

Personally I would like to see them go, too, although I concede that it would be a lot trickier to do legally.

As I said in another post, when it comes to immigration, we can ban anyone we want to ban, for ANY reason.

What about the practicality behind banning Muslims as a process? Isn't it tricky enough to ban Muslims, when for all we know there is no proof of their religion and therefore can go pass this?

>this

Non citizens don't have any rights under another country's constitution they can choose to treat me well if they want when I'm visiting or even to treat me the same under their law as a citizen but are not obliged to

When I visit the US I have no rights at all likewise if this American visits here he also has no rights. We just choose to be nice to guests but we could lock eachother up on our respective non countries and there would be nothing g in our constitutions saying otherwise

>Should you discriminate someone because you think you are superior to someone just because you are a different color?

No, you're stupid if you think that. Just the way it is.

>Should you discriminate someone because they have a different culture and values?

If the people in question have ideals and values fundamentally different from the original populace, of course. The incoming people should either conform or stay where they were.

Also I see a lot of people not seeming to understand the word discriminate is not a "bad" word. Just because it's been bastardized the real meaning remains the same, just google it.

All in all, a sovereign state reserves the right to allow, or not allow immigrants, and by definition this is not racist or xenophobic, just cautious.

>tfw everyone can perfectly answer why Donald Trump's ban on Muslims isn't discriminatory
>tfw those same people can't tell me how banning Muslims is possible
>tfw I still didn't get my OP answered

If anyone arrives in an American airport that was born in a Muslim country, send them packing and make the country of origin pay for it if they can't pay for it themselves. Accept zero rapeugees. Make weeding out Muslims an extensive process of the immigration screening program that is punishable by law for lying during.

>culture
yes, that should be a source of discrimination
>race
often is indicative of culture, so yeah, it's a pretty decent metric

America need not be a nation with open borders. No nation need lay open to welcome foreigners into their ranks.
We're a developed country with stagnating monetary growth, over inflated economy, and abysmal private debt. We do not need an influx of outsiders.
America should by policy have closed borders to all except those of exceptional worth such as noted scientists, engineers, Olympic athletes, renown surgeons, mathematicians. Were Islam rightfully classified as a cult, as proofed by their own doctrine, and 1400 years of constant violent conquest, public support for a ban on all middle eastern immigration would be immense.

Sunlight is the best disinfectant. The truth by nature destroys lies. Islam cannot stand mass scrutiny in a free nation where media propaganda campaigns are ground to a halt.

Ban on muslims does not mean ban on people from islamist countries

But they do have constitutional rights.

Not saying this is good or bad, but they do.

"No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Muslims won't come to your country in any significant numbers, you're barely even taking any refugees in right now. Those who have the money to come to US are likely just the productive members. If you think banning them is a way to fight terrorism, you're also wrong. Muslims could still come to your country claiming to be christians or non-religious, and you already have loads of them as american citizens (which is another problem you didn't offer a solution).

The reason that never happened in the history is because there hasn't been any sudden mass immigration of muslims, before recently. And we're yet to see any efforts by muslims to take over any of the western countries.

Too bad for them.

You're never going to completely stop illegal immigration. It's quite literally impossible to completely stop it, even with a wall 10 million feet high.

What you can do is evolve and actually enforce the processes we have already. If a background check is done and they are indeed Muslim, send them back.

But you're kidding yourself if you think you're going to stop someone who has money from getting in. If a terrorist org REALLY wants in, they will get in.

no but we shouldn't fill our countries with them either.

that is part of the ban on muslims, yes.
it's also a reasonable guess that anyone with a traditionally middle-eastern name is also muslim, so we can ban them too
last part would be a "please self-report faith" question on whatever form they fill out to visit, and deny anyone dumb enough to put down "islam"

>no state
>deliberately mentions citizens
>deliberately does not mention federal government
States such as NY or LA or whatever are unable to ignore laws and rob non-citizens. The federal government is able to deny initial right of entry

How can you figure out the cause if it's irrational?

They don't need to.

They already out breed most whites in European countries. While I doubt there is some secret Muslim agenda run by terrorist to out last Europeans, it is happening.

Not sure what you mean? My argument was that illegals DO have rights, which they do indeed, not that the government has the right to deny them, which they also reserve the right to.

Also remember the expression "safety first"?

The point is to stop the accident before it happens.

Sure, illegals have rights. Unreasonable search+seizure, right to life, etc. People will still get in trouble for gunning down an admitted illegal immigrant in the street That doesn't mean they have a right to be in the country, meaning we can deport them when and where we find them.

Have you ever played chess?

Minorities only commit crimes because white men keep keep fucking them over economically.
If they had equal access to employment and education, every single African-American would rise up and become a wealthy capitalist with a college degree.

>inb4 citation

None needed. It's common fucking sense.

Of course, they are quite literally criminals.

It's kind of discouraging seeing how many people actually support criminals now.

>The reason that never happened in the history is because there hasn't been any sudden mass immigration of muslims, before recently.

Are you kidding me? Like I said, you have some reading to do. Start with the Ottoman Empire, and go back from there. There has been "mass immigration of Muslims" many times, and it has always ended up badly for everyone else around them.

>If anyone arrives in an American airport that was born in a Muslim country, send them packing and make the country of origin pay for it if they can't pay for it themselves

Am I really not going to be allowed to go to America after November?

>Muslims won't come to your country in any significant numbers, you're barely even taking any refugees in right now.


Exactly, and we want to keep it that way.

The number of offspring muslims produce goes down as they move to western countries though. In most white countries the muslim population is quite insignificant anyway.
>Safety first
A lot of people would put human rights first. The premise shouldn't be that a certain human is more dangerous than another based on their race, nationality, or religion. Again, freedom of religion is part of your constitution, and you either follow that value or you do not, there's no middleground.
If you wanted safety first, how about making it a little harder for people to buy automatic weapons for example?

I like this thread.

Do you seriously think you have to ban all of them in order to keep it that way?

> Is racism a bad thing Sup Forums?
NO
> Should we discriminate against someone because of their race of culture?
YES

>millions of rapefugees is an insignificant number
I personally would be completely okay with a Muslim holocaust, but I guess a ban would be enough for now.

I bet you hate when SJWs discriminate against whites and men though

Am I missing something here, because I'm unaware of USA taking millions of muslim refugees?

no, it means clinging to your handbag and changing road sides when encountering a male nigger in detroit at night in a bad neighborhood.

dark skin colour is, in most countries, an indicator of risk factors, like bad education, bad culture, poverty, etc.

citation needed

we hate that because they're fucking stupid about it and blame everything they possibly can on white males. Noticing patterns in races and discriminating because of it can be a good thing, but crying like a bitch because you get your feelings hurt will never be.

We are not at the moment, but it isn't like people don't want us to. And we have been taking relatively small numbers of Muslim refugees already.

You're not on reddit stop acting contrary as if it gives your opinion anymore validity than mine. Listen we don't want our country going to shit like your neighbors, so just fuck off.

Despite most of the state officials saying they will outright refuse to accept any of the rapeugees, Obama is trying to force them to, has already taken tens of thousands, wants to take even more, and Clinton has said she wants to not only continue to do so but increase the amount.

So no, not "millions", but any more than 1 is an issue.

that's completely different though you retard

Racism isn't bad, and some people deserve to be openly discriminated, such as the Jews because 1). They're easy to defeat in battle and 2). They can't even argue effectively about the subhuman shit they are.

>it's okay when we do it

It's okay to like other races less but bullying people because of their race is nigger tier
This is why skinheads are terrible

That's correct, whites are objectively superior and are allowed to discriminate against inferior subhumans.

>pretending not to acknowledge the differences in these situations just to make a joke about it
listen, if you want to get upvotes you're on the wrong site.

Racism is merely the product of experience.

Racism is not discrimination you dipshit

Not to get off question, but there is an inherent problem with calling it racism as it buys into 1930 nazi ideas of race and human genome.

I'm sure I ain't going to change anyone tonight, but it really is ethnocentrism.

None the less, I'm with the Finn all the way. Though I haven't bothered to read the entire thread. :P

Discrimination based on culture can be rational, although most people don't actually understand many other cultures well enough to do so.

Typically it's just an inchoate feeling that different=bad; a typically human form of stupidity.

'Races' are inventions only stormfags, sjws, and illiterates are stupid enough to talk about like they were real things.

m.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/15/obama-demands-compassion-for-syrian-refugees-as-he//

Obama wants to take in more. I swear he's willfully ignoring Europe's situation.

Since asians are objectively superior to whites I should treat you like the subhuman burger you are. Also you need to submit when asian SJWs call you white trash, after all they are superior to you
What differences

Yes, a store owner should be able to kick or choose to not do business with whoever he doesn't want. It's his goddamn store.

>it's awl whities fawlt!! Dindu nuffin
>common sense

This meme needs to die
I don't give these dindus guns so they can kill each other at a rate FAR HIGHER than any other minority! No one is forcing them to steal and rape and abort more than anyone else! I'm just your average Joe "privileged" white kid paying taxes off my job at subway so they can GO TO SCHOOL FOR FREE and/or LIVE OFF THE GOVERNMENT DOLE. But their culture pisses and shits all over that and blames ME because my skins not as Brown.

I have no problem so the term nigger because I think there is a distinction to be made between black persons and dindu niggers who CHOOSE that life style and play the victim afterwards.

Reminder: Ben Carson was a nigger before he decided to man up, unfuck his life, and become a world renowned brain surgeon instead

Tl;dr
Nigger is not a racist term as it describes a lifestyle.

Wrong link, soz. On mobile. This one should work.

I want to challenge that.

Any sign or signifier, such as a word - a word is just a sound without any real meaning. What ever meaning comes forth is co-created by those using it.

Which is to say, any island is doomed if they don't work with others.

Of course you can choose to work with a smaller team, but one of the great innovations of genghis khan was to promote people on skill rather than on linage.

Same goes for the innovation of the 1. Amendment. The tools you use to pick your team will over time - like a few generations, will be more defining than any luck in picking those with skills.

washingtontimes.com/news/2015/dec/15/obama-demands-compassion-for-syrian-refugees-as-he/