Convince me Sup Forumsarks, why should black people be discriminated against...

convince me Sup Forumsarks, why should black people be discriminated against. i want your best and most concrete arguments.

??

CHECK THEM CUNTS


FUCK THE EU

ok?

Because they're niggers.

see

lol you failed
You will never trigger article 50
Screenshot this

...

They shouldn't, everyone should be treated equally as individuals, and not by their race, so no discrimination, but no special treatment either.

how is that an argument for discrimination?

Discrimination should be legal. If people want to discriminate against whites, they have every right in the world to do so. Blacks being discriminated against is just a side-effect of their lack of integration into society and low education levels.
>B-but muh equal rights
Equal discrimination of all peoples = equal rights
>B-but we need equity, not equality. Everyone needs to be on an equal level
Pipe dream, not guaranteed by the constitution (US perspective), communist, &c.

There is literally nothing wrong with discrimination. Any harm it has caused is no greater than the harm of prohibiting it.

Who get?

Its reasonable cause to never relax around blacks.

That based on pure statics alone you are just as likely to be murdered by a segment of that population the is less than 20% of the total.

Meaning you don't go into those neighborhoods that have a high concentration of that group by yourself, thus by discrimination you are actively being safer.

I would not discriminate against an african in africa , but I would discriminate against any foreigner in my nation.

that's fine but what about systematic discrimination of any group, is that ever justifiable.

that's incidental discrimination, you don't go to those neighborhoods because you think of them as dangerous, im talking about specific discrimination, only letting whites get cirtain jobs and go to cirtain things, can that ever be justified?

Yeah it is, a foreigner should not expect to be treated equally as they shouldn't even be allowed here in the first place.

because they as a population refuse to integrate into western society

>79999330
ok, argue that point, why should a foreigner not be let into a (presumably) more prosperous country than their place of origin?

what about the one's that do, then you would be discriminating against a completely innocent person?

...

Because they belong in Africa

...

if 99% of blacks murdered and then the government imprisoned 100% of blacks, isn't the 1% who are wrongly imprisoned a huge injustice?

why?

because they were never supposed to come to Europe, only because some globalist and leftist shills said it was okay doens't give them the right

Better safe than sorry

but what is wrong with people migrating?

(1/2)

Of specific groups? Absolutely. We discriminate against people without citizenship on a daily basis. They cannot vote, often they do not get the same tax exemptions or medical benefits as citizens, and usually breaking the law can end in deportation.

As for ambiguously chosen groups, it would appear to be just so long as it is within the bounds of the law. For example, the United States cannot go out tomorrow and say that blacks no longer have a right to vote. Within the COTUS, we have an amendment in place to prevent laws such as that, and to revoke the amendment would require years of hard work as well as an entire paradigm shift in American perception of race. But within the bounds of the United States, it is not unjust to have discrimination of ambiguous groups, within bounds.

For example, men are required to sign up for selective service where women are not even allowed to sign up for it. This is a group (men) systematically being discriminated against (even if the intention is not prejudice), based on a stereotype (although likely valid, men are more fit for battle than women).

Of course, this all depends on what your definition of discrimination is. One could posit, as google does, that discrimination is "the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex." So long as discrimination is unjust, then by definition systematic discrimination is wrong. So if you go by that definition, you are correct trivially. However, if we go for a more broad definition, such as "Unequal treatment of different categories of people or things, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex," then we get a different story. In this case, almost all people would be for some form of systematic discrimination in some cases. It's just a matter of working it into the law.

>They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Because it is unsustainable- we should be securing the worlds diversity as opposed to giving into theoried short term gains promised by immigration which themselves are false.

Also immigration makes the premise that the majority of the world is simply unlivable and should be given up on hence allowing them to come here. This idea is rejected.

then why not leave your country to reduce the surplus population?

people are naturally racist. stop creating multicultural shitholes

presume there were no legal barriers, would you think it was wrong if blacks were stripped of cirtain rights due to them simply being "inferior"?

i have no problem with people being racist, i'm racist on some level, it's acting on that racism that i care about.

Surplus population? My nation is in need of national socialist Germany tier birth rate policies.
Not only should we cut off immigration but ensure our growth is entirely reliant on birth rates and encourage them as successfully as nat-soc germany did.

This nation has lots of room and going into the future even more as the north opens up more- this will be a nation of 200-300 million european or native canadians- not 50 million europeans and 150 million various foreigner pieces of degeneracy.

you said it was unsustainable, that is purely on population figures, not the origin or race of the population, a population increase is a a population increase either way.

(2/2)

The reason it is so taboo today to discriminate against people on the basis of race (especially minority races) is because of the civil rights movement of the 20th century, as well as fear of fascist regimes. To say that races are truly equal to one another is to be ignorant and dismissing of basic biology. People are inherently different based on their genetics, and this simply cannot be denied. It makes sense to have some basic rights which all people have equally (to a certain extent), but the inherent equality of individuals is simply utter nonsense.

If we truly believe that all races are equal to one another and should be treated without any consideration to genetics, upbringing, or culture, then we must also abolish any sexist discrimination (restrooms, selective service, maternity leave, &c), any positively based racial benefits (affirmative action, diversity laws in the workplace, wage laws), as well as the abolishment of many other generally accepted government social programs. Discrimination is prevalent in almost every legal system, and nearly everyone adheres to this and accepts it.

If there were no legal barriers, we would have no rights. The sovereign grants us rights. In a state of nature, as Thomas Hobbes puts it, "life is nasty, brutish and short," and society is a war of "every man against every man." It would absolutely not be wrong to strip blacks of certain rights, as we would not be living in a state in which rights hold any values. Laws are put in place specifically to protect people's rights. The only way to justifiably take away people's rights is to do so through the laws, without barriers. And no, I do not believe there would be anything wrong, within the workings of the law, to have a monopoly on granting rights to certain individuals an barring them from others, for any reason.

*to do so through the laws, with all its barriers.

that's an argument for ending discrimination, not enforcing it, and to rephrase my question, would it be wrong for a race to be treated as a second class citizen.

It's unsustainable globally and racially- the departed nation has lost likely one of its better citizens while the host nations people will in time go extinct.

It's degeneracy brought upon by the jew and this system will be challenged once again.

>it's acting on that racism that i care about

everything is considered racism these days. even defending your own communities against what can only be called a great migration of cultures that can't be juxtaposed with our own way of life

why does it matter that a race would vanish through breeding?

not sjw racism, actual racism, treating people differently purely based on race.

>only letting whites get cirtain jobs
No, barring someone from a certain career based on race is ridiculous. That does NOT mean it's acceptable to force a private business to not discriminate. Nor is it justified to force any industry to comply with hiring quotes or 'diversity standards' based on race (or anything for that matter).

>go to cirtain things
Completely depends on the 'thing': private event, private business, private land, private housing development, whatever should NOT be forced by law to not discriminate based on race (or anything).


What we're talking about here is the state (federal, state, local) passing laws that FORCE private citizens to not discriminate based on race (and other protected groups). Once it becomes known that some particular business is discriminating, the community can decide for themselves to boycott, protest and inform everyone else that these people are some prejudice cunts, but the state should have no part in it. There should still be consequences, just not legal ones where you can be thrown in a cage for choosing not to do business/associate with people based on protected criteria decided by a bureaucratic government.

>convince me Sup Forumsarks, why should people driving on the road notice a pot hole while driving and drive around it, why should pot holes be discriminated against. i want your best and most concrete arguments.

How is it not?

If I showed that statistically you were more likely to end up in a car crash if you drove on the wrong side of the road, would you act like a giant autist and say "how is that an argument for me to not drive on the wrong side of the road?"

bare in mind i'm talking on a governmental and judicial level, not the decision of a private citizen.

uh it matters because it's natural to want to preserve ones own tribe- social darwinism.

Preserving ones own tribe/people is a much better goal than whatever the goals are of the immigration proponent- their goals entirely lie in materialism and individualism alone.

no, it's avoiding driving an wet roads because some have black ice, not all black people are pot-holes

why shouldn't we treat people different if they are different?

you are more likely to be shot in a household that has a gun, should the government ban guns? i don't mind if you choose to avoid guns to mitigate risk but the government should have no say in it.

yes, my goals and ideals lie totally in materialism and individualism, so i guess that's where our divide in rational lies.

(1/2)
My argument is not for ending discrimination, my argument is that if someone is FOR ending discrimination, then they also must accept many other undesirable consequences.

Also, I do not believe it is wrong for a race to be treated second class to other races. One argument people could put forth is that the circumstances of your birth should not be determinant of your future standing in life. To this I say, why not? Nobody ever asked to be born, and nobody should have any specific benefits whatsoever from birth, other than the rights and laws of their sovereign. If anything, one should be thankful they were born into a sovereign rather than a state of nature. It is obviously not ideal to be born into certain situations, but rather than try to put everyone on the same level, perhaps we should try, instead, to bring everyone to AT LEAST a certain level. In a truly equal and equitable society, as many modern liberals describe to be ideal today, no one would receive benefits which they did not deserve. The problem does not lie in the undeserving, the problem lies in the deserving not receiving their fair share. If, to take an extreme example, whites were taxed 5% and blacks were taxed 10%, simply because blacks are second class citizens, this is not an example of unfair treatment of blacks. Instead, this is an example of extreme treatment towards whites. But one would cry, equally, of inequality if in fixing this issue, we tax blacks 5% and whites 2.5%. How others are treated should not be any concern to how you specifically are treated. As long as you specifically are treated fairly, you have no grounds to complain.

people over 6'2" should not be allowed in theme parks, why? because they are different and should be treated differently. race is arbitrary, there are no defined race lines and your race does not predestine you as a person, it may increase your likelihood of being cirtain ways but it does not guarantee it.

i believe people should be treated as individuals and should not have a disadvantage or advantage due to arbitrary and unrelated circumstances of birth.

>race is arbitrary

yes but culture isn't. and according to sjw new racism is focused on culture and cultural determinism. now if people have different cultures and are predetermined by them to a certain degree, then why can't we treat people differently?

Name literally one way they make a nation better by being in it.

Literally everywhere they go - America, Canada, Britain, Germany, fucking China or Japan, the country's level of rape, murder, theft, and drug trafficking spikes everywhere they are present.

>if people have different cultures and are predetermined by them to a certain degree

but they aren't, if they were born into a shit culture then they may work to overcome that disability, if people hold regressive ideas (Muslims, feminists etc) they should be treated accordingly, however simply because someone was born in an area or culture where those ideas are held they should not be held to the same standards as those who hold them.

so go to Syria and reduce their level of rape per capita.

Nobody should be discriminated against

but if you're in a dog park and only the rottweilers are biting other dogs you might want to keep your puppies away from those types

i'm fine with that

(2/2)

To continue my point, there are many other examples of discrimination based on circumstances of birth which no one screams inequality to. Simply by being born into a rich, poor, Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Muslim, Jewish, Atheist, white, black, Hispanic, Asian, urban, rural, or any other variety of situations, even in a society of perfectly equal rights, it is extremely unreasonable to expect that people born into each of these circumstances would lead equal lives, or be on equal standing to others. And these are all things which the government can rightly control. Granted, the United States government does not come forward and specifically say those born into certain circumstances will have separate rights from those born into other circumstances, but it does not mean that it is unjustifiable to do so.

One must consider the idea of a "Veil of Ignorance," that the most just laws are those which are created without knowing your standing in the subsequent society. In other words, if you make a law stating that "all X must be executed," this law would be most just if one would not know if they are part of "X" or not. Obviously, the veil of ignorance is almost impossible in most cases, but it is important to think about. If you have two groups of people, X and Y, with X inherently superior to Y, and you do not know which group you stand in, it would be incredibly reasonable to give certain discriminatory laws between X and Y, depending on this superiority or inferiority. For example, considering the same X and Y groups, let us say that there are two hospitals, both with limited capacity, but Hospital A has a higher expectancy of survival than B. If you had to choose who goes to what hospital, what would you choose? I do not doubt that you would choose that the two groups go to these hospitals randomly, but it would be an extreme debate, and certainly something which is worth arguing about, and CERTAINLY not an obvious decision.

To have this kind of logic means you also have to throw out every single piece of literature and study into group psychology, and ignore every statistically provable trend of pretty much anything.

Yes, every one person you come into contact with should be treated as an individual but for macro scale decisions - ie immigration which could have disastrous effects on communities, culture, and opens advents for split loyalties - it can be disastrous.

Good luck with that :^)

>race is arbitrary
Maybe the way society draws racial lines is arbitrary and you could argue the ol' "race is a social construct" based on that, but there is a biological component to race that is definitely NOT arbitrary and is, by every metric, significant.

>but they aren't, if they were born into a shit culture then they may work to overcome that disability

but migrants from shit nations don't work. they go to nations with the best benefits so they can enjoy benefits and do no labour. they don't want to be treated for ideas that can be considered regressive to us because the cultural clash prevents them from integrating.

that's why i mentioned that only arbitrary factors of birth should be disregarded, obviously wealth is an un-chosen factor of birth but there is no way to fix that other than wealth redistribution which steps all over personal freedoms. however the state should see all people, regardless of wealth as equal.

if one migrant does work, just one then they should be given the benefit of the doubt, anything less is unacceptable, why not just discriminate against lazy people, rapists and murderers, regardless of origin and race?

It's not about discriminating against blacks.

Discrimination is:
>affirmative action
>presidents excusing you for assaulting a lawful citizens
>Being praised for disrupting public life
>Getting excused for being "poor" and "uneducated", without considering reversed causation.

We should actually not discriminate.
We should treat them how they act.

>however the state should see all people, regardless of wealth as equal.
Why? Who told you this?

>if one migrant does work, just one then they should be given the benefit of the doubt

i agree and all the rest can fuck off, and just because one shitskin has a job and actually pays taxes that doens't mean we should have open borders and destroy our functioning nation states and throw away thousand of years of progress just because muh new age globalism meme

let's say pay was standardized based on IQ (dumb idea i know but bare with me) , for convenience the government decides to separte it along race lines instead of each individual's IQ due to the statistical correlation between race and IQ. this means that all black people with higher than average IQ have been served an injustice and i believe that is wrong.

of course not but should "shitskins" be treated differently in the eyes of the law? no, because then those that defy said average will be treated unfairly.

>you are more likely to be shot in a household that has a gun

Only true if you count suicides.

it was an example to demonstrate the importance (or lack thereof) regarding statistics when it comes to individual rights.

>convince me Sup Forumsarks, why should black people be discriminated against
Non-Whites do not belong in White countries.

Prove me wrong.

the law should be applied equally to the people, migrants that increase rape and crime are not the people

...

And on top of that, doesn't that mean, as says, that there should be no affirmative action? No selective service? No diversity in the workplace laws? When we talk about citizens of a state, what do we value? I'm not arguing that race OUGHT to be valued, but it would not be an invalid or inherently unjust mean.

You asked for "our best and most concrete arguments."
>the state should see all people, regardless of wealth as equal.
>i believe people should be treated as individuals and should not have a disadvantage or advantage due to arbitrary and unrelated circumstances of birth.
>race is arbitrary, there are no defined race lines
>my goals an ideals lie totally in materialism and individualism
None of these are sufficient or concrete. There is no objective reason NOT to discriminate based on race, or any other arbitrary measurement.

why draw the lines between natives and immigrants? why not just draw the line between normal people and rapists and criminals?

i think people belong wherever they may be useful.i'd prefer an Indian doctor as a neighbor than a chav.

this got me thinking
should countries have a clear immigrant population cap?

because they live in our countries, if they want to live here they should contribute. we never should have given them national status anyway, they should have stayed foreign workers because it's easier to send them back.

not quite sure where you're coming from there, tad conveluted comment. i just think people should be treated as individuals, you are not going to convince anyone by simply saying "i don't have to convince you, you have to convince me" that just goes nowhere, i simply asked you to help me understand where you are coming from.

all men are rapists.

that'd be one way of doing it sure.

what about the ones that do contribute, you are just treating them unfairly by lumping them in with the assholes by treating them all as a single demographic.

me are more likley to be rapists so all men should take anti rape classes. sounds familiar.

>what about the ones that do contribute

they can stay and since that would decrease their total number they would integrate faster. win win. Trust if i could expel dutch criminals, but i can't and they are still my own people but foreign criminals should fuck off. Our countries shouldn't be some free theme park where everyone is welcome and can enjoy themselves

Sup Forumstards and feminazis are the same, 2 sides of the same stupid coin, both working on emotional tribalistic levels.
both completely impermeable to logic and reason.

say that again once you meet your cancerous diaspora

so why say, "we should boot out all these immigrants, they cause crime and rape" when you can just say "we should boot out all these criminals and rapists, they cause crime and rape"

Is it still difficult to tell after all that? If that's all you want, to know where we are coming from, I'll try to make it simple for you.

1. Circumstances of birth DO matter. People are too quick to believe the human rights statutes of the U.N. as plain fact, even though there is no evidence to back it up.
2. Races AREN'T equal. Genetics makes a difference. We treat breeds of dogs differently, and we know they act differently. It is not wrong to treat types of people differently because they act differently.
3. The veil of ignorance doesn't just mean "but it would suck if you were born black in this society :( ". It is a much more complicated issue which is not obvious at first glance.
4. Discrimination by individuals is a free and valid use of their rights, regardless of who is being discriminated against.
5. Discrimination laws ARE very common, only they are not as clear as people may think. And people depend on them more than they expect.

lol how are * feminazis * tribalistic?

im guessing that's the language barrier rearing it's ugly head as i have no fucking clue what you're saying.

all of those are fine, but discrimination laws that rely on averages are wrong as they treat those who are exceptions of the average unfairly.

it's the difference between men and women for them as the difference between whites and errybody else is to you.

>i think people belong wherever they may be useful
I think the races being separated would be even more useful for the survival of the White race.

>i'd prefer an Indian doctor as a neighbor than a chav.
I would prefer a White-only nation instead of a multicultural one.

Now explain to why your feelings (which will result in the extinction of the White race) trump my feelings (which will result in the survival of the White race).