A serious vent out of character

TheWhiteMan said:

That sentiment of giving people a chance despite your instincts telling you not to for no other reason than to prove you’re not racist has lead to a lot of tragedies. If any group proved both statistically and personally to be generally bothersome at best and dangerous at worst, I’m going to be more skeptical of people belonging to that group. It’s not my fault that the people I’m weary of for valid reasons just so happen to also be a minority most of the time.
That was the motive behind the “color blind” movement. If you’re going to categorize people by race then one is GOING to be on the top and another is GOING to be on the bottom in any given field. We found that whites tend to be better off in majority white countries (shockingly) which was used as propaganda that every other race MUST be getting suppressed. So now racism and stereotypes against white people is socially acceptable while any other is not. Screw that.

I'm wary of latin american gang members I see on the street, I'm not wary of my twink latin american coworker who's here legally and dresses like a normal fucking person (even if I don't know him that well, and haven't spoken to him much, but I do know he's here legally and has a normal job). I am also wary of white people wearing tank tops and gold chains. If you want a quick, visual idicator, clothes are a much better one than skin color. My policy is be at least slightly careful with anyone I don't know, and then a bit more depending on how they dress, how they speak, how they move, and whether it seems they might have a weapon.

Marcal91 said:

You have a severe misunderstanding of what I'm asking. They may know they exist, but they don't know who or where they are once they cross the border, which, for all intents and purposes, is the same thing. Nobody is "I'm an illegal, give me a house", and if my government is going to give social housing to someone, you can bet your ass they're gonna ask who that person is. My question is how are illegals given that suff by the government, are they just handing stuff without asking any questions? Because even under a Dem president, if they find out you're there illegally, you're getting deported (as it should be). This is my question, how are those resources given to illegals?

Deportation has been a long beaurocratic process because of all the guidelines passed by leftist trying to give more stuff to illegals. Essentially they first are given a court case, and then just expected to show up to that court case many years later a lot of the time, and even if they lose that, they can appeal constantly, giving them even more time. For all these years they are waiting for their court cases and appeals to go through they are given various benefits by numerous states and federal for free. What trump has been doing is just removing all the beaurocracy and regulation of the left, letting them just bypass woke judges that try everything they can to keep illegals as long as they can in the country so we can quickly deport them.

And there are countless NGOs that work with illegals that are given massive amounts of money by democracts, too.

fkiblaze said:

Deportation has been a long beaurocratic process because of all the guidelines passed by leftist trying to give more stuff to illegals. Essentially they first are given a court case, and then just expected to show up to that court case many years later a lot of the time, and even if they lose that, they can appeal constantly, giving them even more time. For all these years they are waiting for their court cases and appeals to go through they are given various benefits by numerous states and federal for free. What trump has been doing is just removing all the beaurocracy and regulation of the left, letting them just bypass woke judges that try everything they can to keep illegals as long as they can in the country so we can quickly deport them.

And there are countless NGOs that work with illegals that are given massive amounts of money by democracts, too.

First one is during the process of deportation, and, while I agree with you that it shouldn't take that long, doesn't mean anything before they are found out, which was what we were talking about.

Second one is just private entities, with no cost to you.

Marcal91 said:

First one is during the process of deportation, and, while I agree with you that it shouldn't take that long, doesn't mean anything before they are found out, which was what we were talking about.

Second one is just private entities, with no cost to you.

Once again, they are usualy all known.

and the second one those NGOs are funded by the government. This was known and unrelated even before the USAID stuff. You have a misconceived view of illegal immigration, which i dont blame you for, because you said you dont live here so your country is probably not insane when it comes to immigration like the west is but all the illegals are essentially funded by the government for the most part. If it was just a matter of them "sneaking" in it wouldnt be millions, it would be a tiny few. But in europe and america they are brought here because they cant be turned around or it would violate human rights. For example, if the british just shot the boats crossing into the country or left them to sit there are drown they would get sued by leftist human rights lawers in the country.

fkiblaze said:

For example, if the british just shot the boats crossing into the country or left them to sit there are drown they would get sued by leftist human rights lawers in the country.

And rightfully so.

Marcal91 said:

And rightfully so.

Not really, it's just how the west does things in the modern area, if it was up to me id just have sentry guns or spider mines on the border (with obviously a sign in the relevant languages that say "danger: minefield dont cross")

fkiblaze said:

Not really, it's just how the west does things in the modern area, if it was up to me id just have sentry guns or spider mines on the border (with obviously a sign in the relevant languages that say "danger: minefield dont cross")

Thankfully, it's not up to you. Human rights were agreed upon for a reason.

Marcal91 said:

Thankfully, it's not up to you. Human rights were agreed upon for a reason.

Humans rights are vague changing things depending on the country and who is in power. They were never "agreed upon". It's just "this group takes power in this place so implements these rights, and changes it from the past group that took power and had different rights." Unless you mean like an objective God given natural rights, of which trespassing is not one.

fkiblaze said:

They were never "agreed upon".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

fkiblaze said:

trespassing is not one.

But right to life is.

Marcal91 said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

But right to life is.

>UN
>48 voted in favour
>1948

Aka a meaningless things voted on by a small amount of people at some period of time in the far past, but also not since the beginning of time, entirely up to some specifics judges in specific countries as to if they agree or disagree with it.

Even wikipedia says it's not legally binding and there are 193 member states anyway.

fkiblaze said:

>UN
>48 voted in favour
>1948

Aka a meaningless things voted on by a small amount of people at some period of time in the far past, but also not since the beginning of time, entirely up to some specifics judges in specific countries as to if they agree or disagree with it.

Even wikipedia says it's not legally binding and there are 193 member states anyway.

What is that take? First, it was 48 out of 58 countries at the time, so pretty much the entire civilized world agreed, and the treaties influenced by the Declaration keep getting ratified (193 members of the UN have ratified at least one). Second, it doesn't matter how long ago, because it's still in use today, nobody is proposing to get rid of it or change it. It is still referenced, and still in use. The fact that it's old just means it's good, because there has been no need to change it.

If you don't like it, ok. If you don't think people have the right to live, ok. But don't try to pass it off as a meaningless, irrelevant document, and don't try to push your narrative that they were never agreed upon, because they were.

Marcal91 said:

What is that take? First, it was 48 out of 58 countries at the time, so pretty much the entire civilized world agreed, and the treaties influenced by the Declaration keep getting ratified (193 members of the UN have ratified at least one). Second, it doesn't matter how long ago, because it's still in use today, nobody is proposing to get rid of it or change it. It is still referenced, and still in use. The fact that it's old just means it's good, because there has been no need to change it.

If you don't like it, ok. If you don't think people have the right to live, ok. But don't try to pass it off as a meaningless, irrelevant document, and don't try to push your narrative that they were never agreed upon, because they were.

the UN is over 100 nations now and ratifying one is not the same thing as ratifying all so it's as i said, vague and changing based on which country and who is in power. Several of them go against even American and European laws. How is it not meaningless if literally no country fully accepts it as law and is itself not legally binding? Show me a single country where the UN Human rights is upheld as the law of the land, and not just one small part of it.

fkiblaze said:

the UN is over 100 nations now and ratifying one is not the same thing as ratifying all so it's as i said, vague and changing based on which country and who is in power. Several of them go against even American and European laws. How is it not meaningless if literally no country fully accepts it as law and is itself not legally binding? Show me a single country where the UN Human rights is upheld as the law of the land, and not just one small part of it.

If only the article I linked had a section about it's impact and significance.

Marcal91 said:

If only the article I linked had a section about it's impact and significance.

What does that have anything to do with going against my point, even in the woke USA as it said "the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain that the Declaration "does not of its own force impose obligations as a matter of international law", and that the political branches of the U.S. federal government can "scrutinize" the nation's obligations to international instruments and their enforceability."

So if even the most woke and lefty of nations at the time doesn't accept it as a law, i fail to see how that doesn't imply it is meaningless.

fkiblaze said:

the UN is over 100 nations now and ratifying one is not the same thing as ratifying all so it's as i said, vague and changing based on which country and who is in power. Several of them go against even American and European laws. How is it not meaningless if literally no country fully accepts it as law and is itself not legally binding? Show me a single country where the UN Human rights is upheld as the law of the land, and not just one small part of it.

Marcal91 said:

If only the article I linked had a section about it's impact and significance.

When I'm in a "derailing threads" competition and my opponents are Marcal91 and fkiblaze.

GorgeWBussy said:

When I'm in a "derailing threads" competition and my opponents are Marcal91 and fkiblaze.

Ayo based? to be fair this thread was about being racist which is kinda political and related to human rights. It's not the worse derail.

fkiblaze said:

What does that have anything to do with going against my point, even in the woke USA as it said "the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Sosa v. Alvarez-Machain that the Declaration "does not of its own force impose obligations as a matter of international law", and that the political branches of the U.S. federal government can "scrutinize" the nation's obligations to international instruments and their enforceability."

So if even the most woke and lefty of nations at the time doesn't accept it as a law, i fail to see how that doesn't imply it is meaningless.

A good number of countries (most of those with a Constitution written after 1948) directly reference it on their Constitutions, including Portugal, Romania, São Tomé and Príncipe, and Spain, which also compel their courts to interpret constitutional norms consistently with the Declaration. That fact alone makes it not meaningless. And again, even if it isn't law by default, it's existance has sparked many laws, treaties, and regulations.

You said yourself the British government would be sued if it did what you proposed, so you do know it would be illegal.

You can say it's not legally binding, because, well, it isn't (in most countries), but to say it's irrelevant is a huge stretch, and to say that it wasn't agreed upon another one, I honestly can't decide which stretch is bigger.

GorgeWBussy said:

When I'm in a "derailing threads" competition and my opponents are Marcal91 and fkiblaze.

Skill issue, gotta train hard. But hey, all threads in this forum end up getting political, even before I got here. If anything, this is one of the least derailed threads, it's not that far from the OP and title as others I've seen XD

Marcal91 said:

A good number of countries (most of those with a Constitution written after 1948) directly reference it on their Constitutions, including Portugal, Romania, São Tomé and Príncipe, and Spain, which also compel their courts to interpret constitutional norms consistently with the Declaration. That fact alone makes it not meaningless. And again, even if it isn't law by default, it's existance has sparked many laws, treaties, and regulations.

You said yourself the British government would be sued if it did what you proposed, so you do know it would be illegal.

You can say it's not legally binding, because, well, it isn't (in most countries), but to say it's irrelevant is a huge stretch, and to say that it wasn't agreed upon another one, I honestly can't decide which stretch is bigger.

Skill issue, gotta train hard. But hey, all threads in this forum end up getting political, even before I got here. If anything, this is one of the least derailed threads, it's not that far from the OP and title as others I've seen XD

Marcal91 said:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

But right to life is.

Idk man, you're trying so hard to push the "right to live", be "human". You're acting exactly like they want you to. "They" are the leftists and the migrants. Migrants see that as weakness, you're weak. Your kindness is a flaw that they'll exploit. That's quoted by muslim migrants about Europe. They have the moral high ground on you. If there was children and women we could consider that. But if you look at those illegals, most of the time it's just men, only men.
Take the Polish borders. They're pretty much attacked by hordes of military-aged muslim men. They know damn well what happened to their neighbours for taking terrorists and barbaric people in. They have more than enough reason to shoot on sight, but they won't. Because the System is watching, and the System actively import them and the System won't tolerate that you want to defend yourself, because that's "not very nice"

By the way you completely skipped that one -> "and the second one those NGOs are funded by the government. This was known and unrelated even before the USAID stuff. You have a misconceived view of illegal immigration, which i dont blame you for, because you said you dont live here so your country is probably not insane when it comes to immigration like the west is but all the illegals are essentially funded by the government for the most part. If it was just a matter of them "sneaking" in it wouldnt be millions, it would be a tiny few. But in europe and america they are brought here because they cant be turned around or it would violate human rights. For example, if the british just shot the boats crossing into the country or left them to sit there are drown they would get sued by leftist human rights lawers in the country."

Marcal91 said:

A good number of countries (most of those with a Constitution written after 1948) directly reference it on their Constitutions, including Portugal, Romania, São Tomé and Príncipe, and Spain, which also compel their courts to interpret constitutional norms consistently with the Declaration. That fact alone makes it not meaningless. And again, even if it isn't law by default, it's existance has sparked many laws, treaties, and regulations.

You said yourself the British government would be sued if it did what you proposed, so you do know it would be illegal.

You can say it's not legally binding, because, well, it isn't (in most countries), but to say it's irrelevant is a huge stretch, and to say that it wasn't agreed upon another one, I honestly can't decide which stretch is bigger.

Skill issue, gotta train hard. But hey, all threads in this forum end up getting political, even before I got here. If anything, this is one of the least derailed threads, it's not that far from the OP and title as others I've seen XD

The part you are missing is I said "the BRITISH government" not all governments. IE currently we have woke leftist making up things in our governments, most countries do not. Japan doesn't have a mass immigration problem, nor does korea, or so on.

GorgeWBussy said:

When I'm in a "derailing threads" competition and my opponents are Marcal91 and fkiblaze.

I'm actually enjoying reading their responses and I'm learning a few things.