*** Official Politics Shitposting Thread ***

[oskar]

Btw, banana, in just a couple of posts you have misused the words demagogue and strawman, and you are shaky on the difference between is and should. I strongly question how fruitful this argument can possibly be.
I have suggested this to wuf and spoon already: I am completely fine with arguing against the notion that brown people are inferior, which seems to be your unspoken axiom. It would truthfully be a more challenging discussion than this nonsense.

[OngBonga]

Btw, banana, in just a couple of posts you have misused the words demagogue and strawman, and you are shaky on the difference between is and should. I strongly question how fruitful this argument can possibly be.
I have suggested this to wuf and spoon already: I am completely fine with arguing against the notion that brown people are inferior, which seems to be your unspoken axiom. It would truthfully be a more challenging discussion than this nonsense.

+10 points for getting the word "strawman" into this paragraph.

You're right, every time I've been to London I had to constantly look over my shoulder for the muslim invasion to steal my culture. scary stuff

Haha said by someone who's been to Hyde Park but not Finsbury Park.

You recently argued that immigrants are baby-rapists, clearly and plainly expressing a fear of babies being raped by immigrants.

Fear and disgust are not the same thing. I'm not afraid of baby rapers, because I'm not a baby.

[Poopadoop]

Haha said by someone who's been to Hyde Park but not Finsbury Park.

There's lots of places in the U.K. I wouldn't go to given a choice, including the pub down the street. Plenty of them are occupied by white people (including the pub down the street).

[BananaStand]

Btw, banana, in just a couple of posts you have misused the words demagogue and strawman, .

That's something a demagogue strawman-er would say.

and you are shaky on the difference between is and should.

Nope. Let's just say that your tales of baby Auschwitz's in El Paso are drastically overstated.

I strongly question how fruitful this argument can possibly be.

As do I. I mean, I've only asked the question about 19 friggen times now. I asked you to present a reasonable border policy that doesn't separate parents from children. In response, you propped up some silly strawman about a Canadian hiker. I'll ask a 20th time now. This is your chance Oskar. Tell us how to enforce the border while keeping families together. What's your brilliant policy for that?

the notion that brown people are inferior, which seems to be your unspoken axiom.

If you ever entertain thoughts of saying this to my face, then I would highly recommend you first take a careful inventory of your teeth.

[oskar]

I asked you to present a reasonable border policy that doesn't separate parents from children. In response, you propped up some silly strawman about a Canadian hiker. I'll ask a 20th time now. This is your chance Oskar. Tell us how to enforce the border while keeping families together. What's your brilliant policy for that?

You can do it the same way every other civilized country does it, or even how the US handles it at the canadian border, or before the Trump administration, or after a federal court ordered the family reunification. How is this a question you couldn't have answered yourself?

If you ever entertain thoughts of saying this to my face, then I would highly recommend you first take a careful inventory of your teeth.

brilliant.

[BananaStand]

You can do it the same way every other civilized country does it

With walls?

or even how the US handles it at the canadian border

Uhh, border enforcement policy is border enforcement policy. Period. The rules don't change on the Canadian border. The only difference is, Canada isn't a corrupt shithole full of opium smugglers, violent criminals, and uneducated masses. So maybe things just *seem* better up there.

or before the Trump administration,

Sorry, I asked you to suggest an effective border enforcement policy. Suggesting that anything pre-Trump was "effective" is complete idiocy.

or after a federal court ordered the family reunification.

Once again, you've failed to suggest something "effective"

You seem to be missing the key factor here. None of the pre-Trump border enforcement policies qualify as "effective". In fact, they were SO ineffective, that Trump got elected by promising a fucking wall. Do you get that? Does that register to you? People thought there should be tougher consequences and stiffer penalties and zero tolerance for illegal immigration. That issue was put up for a vote. And open borders LOST.

So you sound awfully wishy-washy when you're challenged to suggest and effective border policy, and the best you can come up with was "just do what we've always done!".

The voters spoke, and they decided that was inadequate. Continuing to push it as a solution is just dumb.

So here are the paramaters Oskar, and I'm still waiting to here what you think would solve the issue of family separation.

1) Illegal border crossers will be charged with a crime and given a commensurate punishment
2) Kids can't go to jail with their parents.

So Miguel steps over the border and gets nabbed. He's being charged with a crime. But he's got a kid with him. You just gonna give him a pass?

See this is where you falter Oskar. Because in the Canadian hiker example, you were fine with my suggestion of shipping the little brat back to Canada and making it Trudeau's problem. Yet, in that instance, a family was separated.

So what's really your problem here? Is it about separations? Or is it about what happens to the kids afterward? Cause those are two WAAAAY different discussions.

Another question. Serious question. Your mom is driving around drunk with your little nephew. She loses focus and runs over a pheasant that was crossing the road and then crashes into an antique lamppost destroying a priceless historical artifact. The police come. They give her a sobriety test and she fails. the police have probable cause to charge her with mayhem and arrest her.

Should they let her go because she has a kid with her?
Should they arrest the kid too, and put him in a holding cell with your mom?
Would there be any plausible circumstance where that woman and that child would be anywhere near each other just 30 minutes after this episode?

Assuming that the answer to all of the above is "no", then please explain why an arrest for the crime of invading a sovereign nation would be handled any differently.

[oskar]

Assuming that the answer to all of the above is "no", then please explain why an arrest for the crime of invading a sovereign nation would be handled any differently.

Immigrants are invaders. Not racist btw.

[OngBonga]

Immigrants are invaders. Not racist btw.

Illegal immigrants are indeed invaders. Why is that word racist?

[oskar]

https://twitter.com/classiclib3ral/s...703661568?s=19

scary stuff

[MadMojoMonkey]

If you ever entertain thoughts of saying this to my face, then I would highly recommend you first take a careful inventory of your teeth.

Care to explain how this is not a direct threat of bodily harm?
I've been convinced by other mods to leave you alone for the most part.

Give me one more of these and you're gone for good from FTR.
I hope you know I'm not bluffing, here.

[BananaStand]

Care to explain how this is not a direct threat of bodily harm?
I've been convinced by other mods to leave you alone for the most part.

Give me one more of these and you're gone for good from FTR.
I hope you know I'm not bluffing, here.

I don't think you know what "threat" means. It was simply a suggestion.

Furthermore, the dude straight-up called me a racist. Without cause, evidence, or provocation.

I 100% meant what I said, and I'm not sorry.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I don't think you know what "threat" means. It was simply a suggestion.

We're not 7, here.
Everyone knows exactly what your suggestion meant.

Furthermore, the dude straight-up called me a racist. Without cause, evidence, or provocation.

Yeah. Then you decided to escalate that into a flame war.

If you want to take the position that he's acting like a child, then you can't zoom to a more childish response like as though that's not hypocritical.

I 100% meant what I said, and I'm not sorry.

That's none of my concern. You're free to think anything you like.
What you're not free to do is to post things on FTR which are against FTR's rules.

You're voluntarily engaging in a conversation with people whom don't respect you.
(and so are they; it's reciprocal)
If any of you choosing to do this can't manage it in civility, then you are not invited to participate on this forum.