Kicked for "Bigotry"

Post Reply New Topic

I can understand people being "anti-immigrant" because immigrants actually take jobs away from native-born people.

Otherwise, I have noticed that anti-immigrant stances are frequently borne out of mere xenophobia and the desire to associate only with people of their "own kind."

I guess also things can become worse for this underclass as well, jobs may become more competitive for them and wages could easily fall down. The poverty cycle through that way can worsened.

Take a look at the 2005 riots in France. Around 25,000 people rioted in the north of the country and 8 people were killed. Events like this ring bells to the LA riots in the 1990s.

Look at any graph of terror attacks in France and you will notice a sudden boom from 2015 to 2016 and a similar boom during the 1980s. During both cases most of the terror attacks in France are often reserved to the Arab Muslim minority.

Unemployment in France is high amongst the native-born, too. There is much prejudice amongst the native born against Arab immigrants, as well as vice versa.

There should be a concerted effort on the part of the French government to encourage assimilation. Immigrant groups huddling together and not assimilating, inevitably, will cause problems. They don't associate with actual French people, don't become friends with them, develop stereotypical notions of them...and vice versa.

This sort of thing breeds terrorism....because the Frencb are seen as a monolithic group, rather than as individuals.

Yes, the "social climate" must be addressed.

I would agree with you on that.

I dislike it when leftists tout Diversity is a golden mantra that can never go wrong. For a country deciding on immigration is like deciding whether or not to have children, if you decide to have them, they need constant nurturing and in return can create happiness and benefits. However sometimes nations need to wait, they need to adjust their situation and be prepared for such a thing to happen before they open their borders.

I think that if they don't do enough France can in the future become a very dangerous society and people like Le Pen will only help it become a reality.

Well, firstly, I'm thinking you mean "there" when you say "their"? That often confuses me, with your posts.

Secondly, you're wanting them to assume that you're NOT against ALL immigrants, but, at the same time, you want them to stop with the assumptions (that someone is being racist)----you can't have it, both ways. When are people suppose to know when they should assume, and when they shouldn't? Since Aspies so often don't get people, I'm thinking you should be more tolerant of when people don't get you, cuz you know how it feels. Also, another "fault" of some Aspies seems to be that they don't like to conform----which I can understand, cuz I used to be that way; but, here's the thing.....

If one refuses to follow the norm (conform), in PUBLIC (what one does in private, is different), then they have no one to blame, but themselves. IOW, by your not wanting to qualify your statement by saying "some immigrants", you are coming-across as "not-willing-to-conform" (not willing to follow social convention and be PC, or whatever)----so, then, when others come down on you, you have no one to blame, but yourself. When you're in public, and don't follow social conventions, expect to incur troubles----when you're in private, you, MAYBE, can expect that people will know what you mean, IF you have, at-some-other-time, made it clear (but, don't expect people to read your mind----which is more irony, considering many Aspies are often angered when they feel others are expecting THEM [the Aspie] to read their mind).

I've read through the entire thread and two things stand out:

1) You didn't do an especially good job of presenting your arguments and you asked a lot of questions in a tone which might have been mistaken for hostility rather than a genuine desire for other posters to explain their own positions in greater detail.

2) Despite this, the Admin issued you with a week long ban using unsubstantiated, inductive reasoning based on their assumption that "because you said X you obviously have a hidden agenda and you clearly hate brown people". That's a piss-poor way for someone to behave when given the responsibility of moderating discussion. You were effectively found guilty of a thought-crime (though in this case the crime was in fact a failure of thought on the part of the admin).

Incidentally, I've witnessed the same flawed reasoning on this board, many, many times, and can assure you that the type of people who use it are not aware of the fact that they're ignorant bigots, such is the degree of their intellectual ineptitude. Don't sweat it, and don't bother returning to the scene of the crime when the ban is lifted. It won't lead to anything productive.

Wait so did you go on alternatehistory.com it wouldn't surprise me if you are their.

What could I do to improve on presenting arguments?

I did. I was intrigued as to how events played out.



Well, we can use your OP from the thread (and the one on here) as an example. You've presented a premise "Is there a leftist agenda in academia", but you didn't really provide any evidence against or in support of it beyond your single anecdote which contained your opinion of a hot-button (and therefore highly divisive) topic.

It would have been better to open with some data - perhaps on the political leanings of Professors and faculty - or to create a thread with a more suitable title and focus on providing data in support of your position on the actual point you made at the event. Something like "Do Le Pen's supporters have legitimate concerns re: cultural diversity?" would have been more appropriate. You could have then provided statistics on e.g. crime, wages vs inflation, etc - basically anything other than a personal anecdote and zero data.

But all that said, when the first respondent to your OP brazenly labels Le Pen supporters "far-right, bigoted populists" and makes the "but only a minority are terrorists" as if terrorism is the sole concern for such people, it's probably a good sign you should find somewhere else to discuss the subject.

So more citations.

Hah! Always!

Without meaning to come across as disrespectful, you'd need a ton of practice to rely on rhetoric alone.

Bottom line: they shouldn't have banned you based on inference. Or "thought crime." Too much like 1984.

They should have let you argue your points instead.

What do you mean.

I'm saying you don't have sufficient mastery to rely solely on persuasive language (relatively few people do).

It's not political correctness. New Zealand has had immigration and a lot of immigrants and has had for a long time - all of your life and long before that. So if immigration causes terrorism, New Zealand must be riddled with it. It isn't. The only terrorist incident here was committed by the top levels of a country we regarded as a friend (France) in the 1980s. (The bombing of the Rainbow Warrior in Auckland Harbour in the 1980s). Immigration is used by some bigots to smear all immigrants and all immigration. You don't want to be one of them, I am sure, and this isn't political correctness, it is about balance.

Maybe the admin is an immigrant. lol

Let's not compare apples and oranges. There is a correlation between having a 5% or higher population of Muslims - immigrants or otherwise - in a Western nation and an increase in domestic terrorism. That isn't to say that the immigration is causal, but higher population density certainly increases the likelihood of radicalisation. There's also a correlation between that 5% or higher population and Western fighters for ISIS. That is to say, there are far more British and French citizens fighting for ISIS than Canadian citizens.

The problem is not immigration, the problem is a rapid increase in a non-integrated Muslim population and the ensuing clash of cultures, and it's one you're unlikely to have encountered in NZ... yet.



That's close to the argument that was used as justification for the week-long ban. It's irrelevant whether the arguments being presented might also be used by "bigots", what matters is what conclusions you draw from the data. This infatuation so many people have with not sounding like <insert ideological group> is anathema to discussing and addressing problems rationally and without histrionics.