Posts

@The Smiling Pony  
I can admit that there should be some ground rules, but the basic point still stands.

@Ainz Ooal Gown  

 
It doesn’t say the opposite either.

If you live in Europe and Donald Trump imagines himself as Rumpelstiltskin. It would be so funny if the guy wasn’t so dangerous. Oh, nevermind. I have to go fish for all the dead refugees from the Mediterranean Sea.

@Combine03  
So if a sovereign nation’s immigration policy is to hunt down immigrants on horseback and then cannibalize them, that’s A-OK?

@Derpy Whooves  
No. The constitution says NOTHING about accommodating everyone on the friggin planet.

[Deleted]

@Derpy Whooves  
I still think you misunderstood some of what I was trying to say, but as you wish.
 
@Violet Rose in The Rain  
They probably don’t consider what they do to be rape or sexual assaults in the first place.

@Violet Rose in The Rain  
No. Nobody is in favor of rape and sexual assault because you wouldn’t want it happening to you, but thanks for the pointless semantics game.

Internet causing me to doublepost. Disregard this.

 
The ones who actually raped and committed sexual assaults?

@HJSDGCE, God’s Wrath  
Absolutely LUDICROUS. The test alone is bad enough, but the fact that it’s MANDATORY? Unbelievable, this is the kind of shit that happens when you try to solve a non-problem.
 
Who the hell is in favor of rape and sexual assault? Those things are illegal for a very good reason you know, we don’t take kindly to that kind of behavior. It’s obvious. Completely pointless and incendiary.
 
Wouldn’t want to go to a university like THAT, that’s for damn sure.
 
It would be like requiring me to sign a federal document every year saying that I agree not to break the law. Absurd on so many levels.

I know this place is about politics but can I post something about sexual consent here? I found an article and I want your thoughts on it.
 
This is the article in question. Basically, Australian universities adopted a mandatory online module exploring sex and consent.
 
Now, this wouldn’t be so bad if it weren’t for the fact that you must get 100% correct in order to pass. If you miss even one question, you fail. And the thing is, you need to pass in order to get your marks for the semester. I’m not sure if it’s repeatable but let’s assume it is (because tbh it’s impossible for the majority to pass in one try). The questions are vague and difficult, plus can be quite subjective which doesn’t work in an objective format.
 
This test is pretty fucking dumb and unnecessary either, as a rapist could just as easily pass. It’s like the test used to identify those with psychopathic personalities. Just because you failed the test doesn’t necessarily mean you’re a psychopath. Hell, the creator failed his own psychopath test.

@HeadlessHorselessHorseman
 
I’m sure we could do this all night. But just so I’m not completely blowing you off, here’s a spot you seem to be missing:
 
@HeadlessHorselessHorseman  

 
That is exactly what the law where you live says. From the constitution on down. Good luck “repealing” the U.S. Constitution - I’m sure you’ll be able to find a lot of people who will join with you in trying to get rid of all those pesky “rights” that are standing in the way of your “ethnostate”, but you’ll find a lot of us who disagree with you, too.
 
But, to answer your original question - yes, wanting to create an “ethnostate” where only people of the “chosen ethnicity” get legal protection or have human rights makes you a bad person.
 
And deciding entry based on ethnicity is not only wrong, it’s illegal.
 
And I’m really beginning to agree with The Smiling Pony
 
I’m done handling reports in here - unsubscribing.
 
Because some people seem to think that we should be reviewing every post on the site before it appears for others to read, let me just remind everyone that isn’t happening - so if you see someone breaking a rule please report it.
 
And please keep all the “ethnically pure nations with only one ethnicity in them are great!” talk in this thread.

@Derpy Whooves  

 
Pretty sure I’ve never said this, either.
 

 
@Derpy Whooves  

 
Or this.

@Derpy Whooves  

 
I’ll give you the last point, but at no point have I ever said this. Whatever impression I’ve given off, I’m not opposed to interracial marriage.

@HeadlessHorselessHorseman  
✅ wants to exclude people from the country based on their ethnicity  
✅ thinks it should be ok to refuse people the right to marry based on race  
✅ doesn’t think that denying citizens their civil rights based on their ethnicity is “uncivil”  
✅ wants to turn the US into an ethnostate that allows only one ethnic group  
✅ wants to repeal any laws that require equal treatment for all people regardless of race or ethnicity  
✅ brings up slavery in the discussion but if others reply to that point it’s ‘poisoning the well’
 
Ok.
 

@The Smiling Pony  
wtf lol

[Deleted]

Yo, the problem with illegal immigration isn’t their ethnicity, religion, or race; it’s their lack of documentation: that’s it. We’re wasting tax dollars prosecuting people for trying to cross illegally, technically a crime but not worth the courts’ time. We can always turn them away and say no if we don’t know who they are.
 
I don’t want my country flooded with a bunch of poor, desperate people who don’t speak English and have no documentation proving who they are. America is not a refugee camp. We already have thousands of undocumented immigrants that need to be processed, identified, and verified. The problem is our ‘zero tolerance’ approach in the name of stamping out drug and human traffickers. Completely backwards.
 
Trump doesn’t want a bunch of judges? Fine! Throw their case out and drop the charges then. Fucking idiot President doesn’t know what the fuck he wants or what he’s doing which is why everyone hates him.
 
If you want to come here to work legally you should be welcome with open arms. There’s no shortage of hard work to do in America. Problem is if you come here illegally you have to work illegally, which is why it shouldn’t be so fucking hard to get US citizenship.

@MethidMan  
I can’t really agree with what you mean by “racism”, then, even if I would agree that it’s in our interest to give aid to other nations to preserve global stability.

@HeadlessHorselessHorseman
 
“Because we can” still doesn’t justify racism. Racism is wrong, period.

@The Smiling Pony
 
I don’t have a Tumblr account to see what’s in that link.

@Combine03  
https://the-smiling-pony.tumblr.com/tagged/pinkie-hater-guy/chrono

@Derpy Whooves  
A country is not a for-profit business that has to adhere to some kind of public accomodations law in accepting all comers into its borders. If laws say otherwise, those laws need to be repealed, and bringing up the Confederacy to poison the well is a non-starter.

@HeadlessHorselessHorseman  

 
That’s perfectly legal in the United States - Churches and clergy may discriminate against whomever they please. Churches and clergy can discriminate against you and refuse to marry you based on your shoe color if they want. Because of the separation of Church and State.
 
However, companies and individuals operating in the public marketplace may not, nor may elected officials, and nor may the state.
 
You are trying to extend religious protections to the civil marketplace and to the state, and want to do away with basic civil rights like the right of assembly and equal access under the law.
 
And, yes - that’s wrong of you. You don’t get to discriminate against others based on their race in America. Advocating that it should not only be “ok” to do so but somehow “moral” to do so is … wait - oh.
 
I recognize this.
 
This is Abraham Lincoln’s Cooper Union address … you’re asking for the same thing southern states were asking for during the civil war. As Lincoln put it:
 
“This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly - done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated - we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas’ new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.” – Abraham Lincoln.
 
Substitute “slavery” with “racism”, and you’re asking the same thing - you want to know why it’s wrong to completely abolish equality before the law, and only afford individuals their civil rights based on their race. You’re asking for all of civil society to see it as “civil” and “just” to allow racial discrimination, and to create a state where only people of certain races retain legal rights.
 
Well, I think you’re wrong. Very, very, very wrong.
 
And, no - if as you posit Obama had tried to restrict immigration to only allow black people to come into the United States, he would have been wrong.
 
He would have been wrong morally, and legally, and ethically. It would have been very, very wrong of him to try to do that. And it would have been flat out illegal and unconstitutional - it never would have stood in any court and ethical people in the departments tasked with implementing it would have properly, and legally, refused to do so. Just like with Trump’s first and second immigration bans.