*** Official Politics Shitposting Thread ***

[Poopadoop]

It's the natives who don't like anyone with a funny tan and a funny accent that make me uncomfortable.

Maybe it's the idea that they're willing to pre-judge me as a baby rapist that does it, dunno.

[Poopadoop]

Perhaps we should stop letting white idiots into the country.

If only the Americas had that option 500 years ago.

[Poopadoop]

A bit dated now but still apt.

[OngBonga]

It's the natives who don't like anyone with a funny tan and a funny accent that make me uncomfortable.

Maybe it's the idea that they're willing to pre-judge me as a baby rapist that does it, dunno.

How do you know they're willing to pre-judge you as a baby rapist? Did you go in there and get called a baby rapist? Or are you just making this shit up because there's often fights at the pub and therefore you assume they are all knuckle dragging racists who hate all foreigners except the Turkish guy who runs the kebab shop.

Also, you did what oskar did. Turn this into an issue about skin colour when my problem is with Allahphiles. +5points for you, you don't get as many points because you didn't say strawman while being a strawman.

If only the Americas had that option 500 years ago.

Yeah, if only. We'd probably be speaking German.

Don't tell an American I said that.

[oskar]

I was trying to draw a connection that I repeatedly asked you to clarify. You justified the child separation policy citing your "disgust" of uk-pakistani child rapists, and I fail to see why all mexicans should be treated badly because some uk-pakistani men committed a crime 11 years ago.
Am I really being presumptuous in saying that this has something to do with skin color? Feel free to clarify what your thought process was in connecting the two.

[OngBonga]

You justified the child separation policy citing your "disgust" (whatever) of uk-pakistani child rapists

No, I said "literally raping babies" in direct sarcastic reply to you saying "literally abducting babies", but you all took it seriously. Since then I've been trolling the shit out of you.

[Poopadoop]

How do you know they're willing to pre-judge you as a baby rapist? Did you go in there and get called a baby rapist? Or are you just making this shit up because there's often fights at the pub and therefore you assume they are all knuckle dragging racists who hate all foreigners except the Turkish guy who runs the kebab shop.

Obviously that was a joke, duh.

There's knuckle-dragging racists in every country. Here, when you see the England flag flying over a pub and only white people inside, it's a good guess you've found a nest of them.

Also, you did what oskar did. Turn this into an issue about skin colour when my problem is with Allahphiles. +5points for you, you don't get as many points because you didn't say strawman while being a strawman.

Where did I call YOU a racist? I was talking about people who are also prejudiced. If you think hating a religious group is somehow less odious than hating a race, well it's not. It's just a different way of being ignorant.

[Poopadoop]

I've been trolling the shit out of you.

So you're only trolling, you don't actually believe what you're saying? I ask because it's not the first time you've expressed these attitudes.

[oskar]

Wow I really got played there. Good job, buddy!

[OngBonga]

There's knuckle-dragging racists in every country. Here, when you see the England flag flying over a pub and only white people inside, it's a good guess you've found a nest of them.

*except during international football tournaments that involve England.

Where did I call YOU a racist? I was talking about people who are also prejudiced. If you think hating a religious group is somehow less odious than hating a race, well it's not. It's just a different way of being ignorant.

Well I hope you haven't been saying anything about them Scientologists that could be deemed offensive. I hope you have the utmost respect for their batshit ideas.

You're wrong. It is not odious to hate a religion. Devil worship is a religion. So is voodoo. You're an idiot if you think these people are immune from critisism on the grounds of "ignorance".

[oskar]

So you're only trolling, you don't actually believe what you're saying? I ask because it's not the first time you've expressed these attitudes.

It's the exact same thing spoon does, it's the same wuf does. Some credit to banana because he hasn't used that as far as I recall. It's so fucking dumb and transparent. Either it's such an elaborate trolling effort that for thousands of posts you keep your story together, but only once you say something really retarded, that's when you jump out from under the bush and yell gotcha!

How incredibly sad and pathetic would that be if that was actually true. There are no winners there.

[Poopadoop]

*except during international football tournaments that involve England.

Really? Where do people of colour go to watch football? Not one of those pubs.

Well I hope you haven't been saying anything about them Scientologists that could be deemed offensive. I hope you have the utmost respect for their batshit ideas.

You're wrong. It is not odious to hate a religion.

It is odious to hate everyone who belongs to that religion though.

[OngBonga]

So you're only trolling, you don't actually believe what you're saying? I ask because it's not the first time you've expressed these attitudes.

Ok, to be clear... I think immigrants should integrate into their host nation. I've been clear what integration means to me... speak the language, work, be law abiding. How is that too much to ask of an immigrant? How is it racist to tell those who refuse to do this to kindly fuck off?

I'm trolling because I don't really give anywhere near as much of a fuck as I appear to here. I just know it's pressing buttons.

[Poopadoop]

It's the exact same thing spoon does, it's the same wuf does. Some credit to banana because he hasn't used that as far as I recall. It's so fucking dumb and transparent. Either it's such an elaborate trolling effort that for thousands of posts you keep your story together, but only once you say something really retarded, that's when you jump out from under the bush and yell gotcha!

How incredibly sad and pathetic would that be if that was actually true. There are no winners there.

Only they know for sure, but my guess is they believe most of what they're saying. And when a number of people call them out on it, they pull out the troll defense so they look less bad.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Don't tell an American I said that.

Lol.



*sigh* My people... ?

[OngBonga]

Really? Where do people of colour go to watch football? Not one of those pubs.

Huh? You said this...

"There's knuckle-dragging racists in every country. Here, when you see the England flag flying over a pub and only white people inside, it's a good guess you've found a nest of them. "

This is pretty much every pub in the country during the World Cup. Are you suggesting that every white person in the country is a racist knuckle dragger?

It is odious to hate everyone who belongs to that religion though.

It's odious to hate someone because they did a vote you don't agree with.

Anyway, I never said I hate every single Muslim. I said I hate their religion and if they want to be full batshit, they can stay away from my country.

But even so... is it odious to hate all devil worshippers purely because of their religious beliefs?

[OngBonga]

Wow I really got played there. Good job, buddy!

Talking of what spoon does... this is his favourite image after someone dares to claim they were baiting him.

[Poopadoop]

Huh? You said this...

"There's knuckle-dragging racists in every country. Here, when you see the England flag flying over a pub and only white people inside, it's a good guess you've found a nest of them. "

This is pretty much every pub in the country during the World Cup. Are you suggesting that every white person in the country is a racist knuckle dragger?

I was referring to the pubs that fly the flag whether there's a football game on or not.

But even so... is it odious to hate all devil worshippers purely because of their religious beliefs?

Picking nits a bit here, but it's a thought crime,yeah. If they use relgion as a reason to do evil shit, then hate them for doing evil shit. Not because they believe some dumb stuff.

Also, out of 1 billions muslims in the world the % raping babies and chopping off heads is very tiny.

[Poopadoop]

Ok, to be clear... I think immigrants should integrate into their host nation. I've been clear what integration means to me... speak the language, work, be law abiding. How is that too much to ask of an immigrant? How is it racist to tell those who refuse to do this to kindly fuck off?

How do you know which people are going to integrate and which aren't before they come in though?

[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.

[OngBonga]

How do you know which people are going to integrate and which aren't before they come in though?

idk, you could start by looking at people of a similar background who are already here.

[BananaStand]

Also, out of 1 billions muslims in the world the % raping babies and chopping off heads is very tiny.

FALSE

[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.

[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.

[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.

[oskar]

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

scary stuff

[OngBonga]

Immigrants are invaders. Not racist btw.

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

[oskar]

I can only take one dyslexic at a time. Use a dictionary.

[OngBonga]

It's clear Oskar has no argument to that banana. He's read the entire post, then replied "pfft invaders" and said "racist" again.

Using language like "abduction" and "racist" is absolutely fine. Powerful words are great when it describes an opponent of left wing views. But say words like "invader" and "criminal" and you're being disingenuous.

Trying to make nevr-Trumpers realise that Trump is not a nasty dictator is a futile exercise. It doesn't matter that his political opponents are on CNN rather than turning up in ditches. It doesn't matter that he can get voted out in two years if the American public don't want him anymore. It doesn't matter that he's actually defused a lot of the global tension that existed before he took office. The dude is literally fucking Hitler.

Might as well just leave people like Oskar to their deluded morality crusade.

[OngBonga]

I can only take one dyslexic at a time. Use a dictionary.

Immigrants aren't a race, dickhead.

[oskar]

They aren't an army either.

[OngBonga]

In fact I'm going to agree with you on something... I think the word "invaders" is probably not a reasonable word to describe Mexican immigrants. Mexicans are economic migrants. I'd use the word "invader" to describe Muslim immigrants, ie those who have no intention of integrating and have a long-term goal of dominance.

But still. Stop being a hypocrite. Why is it ok for you to abuse words like "abduction" and "racist" but banana can't abuse the word "invader"? If you want to use powerful words disingenuously, allow other to as well.

[oskar]

It's clear Oskar has no argument to that banana. He's read the entire post, then replied "pfft invaders" and said "racist" again.

Is there any specific question from that wall of autism you want me to answer?

[OngBonga]

Is there any specific question from that wall of autism you want me to answer?

Yes. Why is it ok for you to abuse words but not your opponents?

[OngBonga]

Let's get an FTR slang dictionary going so we don't keep bickering about words...

"abduct" - to lawfully separate a child from its parent
"racist" - a person concerned about immigration
"invader" - illegal immigrant
"Hitler" - a disliked democratically elected leader

[oskar]

Never called Trump Hitler. I called him a fucking retard, which he is, in point of fact.
The separation might have been lawful. The laws in place that allow it were supposed to be applied when there was a perceived threat to the child. Starting with Trump's policy, they applied that to every single child that crossed the border. Even if it's not illegal it's a misuse of power. What was ruled to be unlawful was the indefinite detention of children who crossed the border with a guardian. The reunification was court ordered. If the federal courts didn't step in, thousands of children would still be separated.
So it was an unlawful separation of children from their parents without the parents consent. We can call it that, but abduction is a lot shorter.

[OngBonga]

What was ruled to be unlawful was the indefinite detention of children who crossed the border with a guardian.

What do you mean by "indefinite detention"? If I were responsible for a border, and a child crossed said border, I can either "indefinitely detain" the child, or I can just let him keep walking. Or maybe I can stop him, ask his name, and then send him on his way.

The options when faced with a unaccomponied child are...
indefinitely detain - that is, detain the child until a suitable alternative has been found,
send them back - dump them the other side of the border and it's Mexico's problem again,
process them and don't detain them - leave a child to fend for himself in USA

When children turn up at borders alone, they need to be cared for. That is detention, and it's indefinite because they are alone, a child, and it would be grossly irresponsible if the receiving state did NOT dteain them.

For fuck's sake.

[BananaStand]

Is there any specific question from that wall of autism you want me to answer?

Yeah, why is a family separation at the border different than your nephew being separated from your mom when she drives drunk and kills pheasants.

[BananaStand]

I read last week that there are still a number of kids who have not been reunited.

that's nuts.

It's 2018. The age of facebook. How can you not find a person?

All that says to me is that these kids weren't really crossing with their families in the first place. See the problem now?

If you let people off the hook when they have kids with them.....then the bad guys will start marching over the border with kids.

Are you really so naive and shortsighted to believe that the coyotes, smugglers, cartels, and criminals haven't figured that out over the last fucking decade?

the fact that some kids got stranded kinda proves that these werent' all law abiding, peace-loving families. There was some serious child exploitation going on.

And yet, people like oskar pull their hair out and scream idiotic nonsense like "Oh these kids would be at home, with their families, playing monopoly, and going to school, except TRUMP FUCKED THAT UP!!!"

Deranged.

[BananaStand]

Never called Trump Hitler. I called him a fucking retard, which he is, in point of fact.

I see we're splitting hairs about words and definitions today. And we're being precise, and factual right?

So what's Trump's IQ?

The separation might have been lawful.

No, we're being precise today oskar. The separations ARE lawful.

The laws in place that allow it were supposed to be applied when there was a perceived threat to the child.

Mom and dad are going to jail. Is that a threat to the child?

Starting with Trump's policy, they applied that to every single child that crossed the border.

No, just the ones that came over illegally

Even if it's not illegal it's a misuse of power.

No, it absolutely isn't. Learn fucking democracy dude. Seriously, this is getting old. The mandate from the electorate was to enact a zero-tolerance border policy. Abiding my a democratic mandate is probably the furthest thing from an abuse of power.

you know what's an abuse of power.....when one single, solitary, left leaning, politically biased activist judge upends the entire democratic process and says "you can't do that anymore.....cuz racism"

What was ruled to be unlawful was the indefinite detention of children who crossed the border with a guardian. The reunification was court ordered.

Misuse of power

If the federal courts didn't step in, thousands of children would still be separatedcriminals would still be in jail

Fixed your post

So it was an unlawful separation of children from their parents without the parents consent.

What the living fuck Oskar. Seriously. What the holy hell here? Unlawful?? But didn't you just say......

The separation might have been lawful.

...it's not illegal...

....laws in place that allow it...

ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah ah ahahahahahahahhahahahhahahahahhahahaha
haha ha ha ha ha ha ah ah ahhahaha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

Cmon dude....get smarter. You can't just go flip flopping your opinions, changing the definition of words, and ignoring democracy just so you can adapt to whatever anti-Trump idea Vox spoon-feeds you. Have some conviction. Act like a god damn man!

[oskar]

The options when faced with a unaccomponied child are...

irrelevant because that's not the issue. They take accompanied children from their guardians and then treat them exactly as they would if they were unaccompanied. That is the issue.

Yeah, why is a family separation at the border different than your nephew being separated from your mom when she drives drunk and kills pheasants.

Try to answer that for yourself. How is it different? I can't believe you can't answer that. I know you're retarded but you're not that fucking retarded.

Oh and do you disagree with the federal judge's ruling that the families need to be reunited or do you believe they should have been permanently separated?

[BananaStand]

And I'm still waiting for an actual answer to the perpetually open question. How would you enforce the border and not separate families?

Giving a free pass to people travelling with kids is not an acceptable answer.

I'll simplify the question because at this point it's clear that the concept is over your head. Here's the new question.

When someone is arrested for a crime....any crime....anywhere....and they have a kid with them, how would you enforce the law without separating the kid from the criminal being arrested?

[BananaStand]

irrelevant because that's not the issue. They take accompanied children from their guardians and then treat them exactly as they would if they were unaccompanied. That is the issue.

What's wrong with that? These "guardians" are criminals charged with a crime. Once that happens, they can no longer accompany the children. So those kids become unaccompanied. And then they're treated accordingly.

Sounds like the system is working.

Try to answer that for yourself. How is it different? I can't believe you can't answer that. I know you're retarded but you're not that fucking retarded.

OMG You called me a name!! Monkey!! Where are you?? Save me?? use your mod powers on this oppressor!!

Seriously though, I can't answer it for myself. All I know is that when you get arrested, you can't take your kids to jail with you. They get separated from you. Why is border crossing different?

I can't believe you can't answer that!!

[BananaStand]

Oh and do you disagree with the federal judge's ruling that the families need to be reunited or do you believe they should have been permanently separated?

you say "permanantly separated" like it's something enforceable. Or that it was originally done as some kind of punishment measure.

I dont' agree with the judges ruling because the underlying presumption is that this is somehow the judge's business. So fuck that judge.

Do you disagree with the democratic mandate that says enforce teh fucking border??

it's funny, when one activist judge agrees with you, that person is somehow an indisputable authority. Yet when 65 million voters say "no more illegal immirgrants please", suddenly they're all idiots and what they say doesn't matter.

And "permanently separated" is a red herring that you're using because you're a transparent demagogue. I find it hard to believe that someone who has been charged, tried, sentenced, punished, and then deported can't just pick up a phone and get their kid back. CNN wants you to believe we're holding these kids captive as part of some kind of sadistic exercise. If you want your kid back, wait until you're a free person again, and call the fucking embassy.

Jesus Oskar, you make it sound like these kids have been absorbed into the gulag archipelago never to be seen again.

[oskar]

Oh yeah, I remember. You also thought the ruling against racial gerrymandering in NC was done by the "activist" supreme court. We don't need to go any further. I agree with the court decision on this. You disagree. Take it up with the courts.

[BananaStand]

Oh yeah, I remember. You also thought the ruling against racial gerrymandering in NC was done by the "activist" supreme court. We don't need to go any further. I agree with the court decision on this. You disagree. Take it up with the courts.

LOL, so what you're saying is....

You just hate the border policy because Trump is the one enforcing it. And you actually have no better idea with any sensible legal basis.

it's just strawman and demogogue to the extreme on this huh? You aren't going to ACTUALLY engage on any points of fact, or answer any of the sensible and direct questions you've been asked...

[BananaStand]

Oh yeah, I remember. You also thought the ruling against racial gerrymandering in NC was done by the "activist" supreme court. We don't need to go any further. I agree with the court decision on this. You disagree. Take it up with the courts.

First of all, judicial activism is a thing. Ignoring it is stupid.

Second, there is a MASSIVE difference between a 9 member panel of the most accomplished judges on earth making a ruling, and one singular ass-hole in a robe banging gavels in a circuit court.

I don't have to agree with the Supreme court's decision, but I respect it. (by the way, several of those most accomplished judges on earth agreed with me)

When a single person thinks they can upend the democratic process by suddenly declaring long-standing laws unconstitutional...I neither agree, nor respect that action.

how do you not see the difference?

And why are you deflecting rather than just engage head-on on the actual issue here

[oskar]

I told you exactly what the better idea was. And you had a sensible idea when I asked you how you'd enforce it at the canadian border. You can answer it for yourself easily: imagine the immigrants are white, and you'll know what I think the reasonable policy is.

First of all, judicial activism is a thing. Ignoring it is stupid.

Interesting how judicial activism is so biased towards brown people. Really makes you think, huh?

[OngBonga]

It's a fair point. What does America do with all those white Candaians who are bringing their kids to the border and trying to sneak over?

[OngBonga]

Interesting how judicial activism is so biased towards brown people. Really makes you think, huh?

Oskar, I'm not sure if you've noticed yet, but it's you and poop who seem obsessed with the colour of people's skin.

[BananaStand]

I told you exactly what the better idea was.

What? Where? just tell me the post #

So far the suggestions I've seen you endorse are:
1) Don't punish illegal border crossers if they have kids with them (the old policy). this fails because it doesn't satisfy the voters' mandate to enforce the border. The old policy didn't work.
2) You seemed to be ok with shipping the canadian kid back to Trudeau. but that requires the kid to be separated from his family. So I'm not following your logic here? Is family separation only an outrage when it happens to brown people?

And you had a sensible idea when I asked you how you'd enforce it at the canadian border.

My "sensible idea" was to separate the family, throw the hiker in jail, and not give a fuck if they ever see each other again. Are we on the same page? You think that's "sensible"? It requires a family separation. Why is that suddenly ok when we're talking about white people?

You can answer it for yourself easily: imagine the immigrants are white, and you'll know what I think the reasonable policy is.

I'm sure it's very easy to have balls and call someone a racist from behind a keyboard. But honestly, this is a pathetic and transparent debate tactic. Nothing I've said has anything to do with race, and nothing I've advocated would be applied differently at the 'white' border. So if you're calling me a racist, then it's obviously because you can't contend with the facts, refuse to recognize the election results, and will delude yourself into believing ANYTHING if it means complications for Trump's agenda.

It's the last resort of the ineffective demagogue. You can't engage on the actual issue, so you try to label your opponent as some kind deplorable character, so you can take everything he says, put in in a box, shelf it, and remove it from the dialogue.

Be better

Interesting how judicial activism is so biased towards brown people Against anything Trump does. Really makes you think, huh?

Fixed your post.

[BananaStand]

MY KINGDOM FOR A WORTHY DEBATE OPPONENT!

PLEASE!!

[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.

[BananaStand]

MMM, serious question

Why are you here?

You've openly admitted you have no particular interest in the subject matter being discussed. You haven't contributed anything useful to any conversation in forever.

Was it really your calling to be hall monitor?

Go away

[OngBonga]

For clarification, making threats of violence, however they are intended to be interpreted, it against FTR rules and it's not a flexible one like calling someone an idiot or a dickhead. There's no mod dispute on this one. I'll just be more polite about it... please don't make threats, or there might actually be some action. Cheers.

[oskar]

Oskar, I'm not sure if you've noticed yet, but it's you and poop who seem obsessed with the colour of people's skin.

Because you gave me no other way to interpret what you said. You equated pakistani with mexicans (calling both baby rapists). Went on to defend this retarded statement for about 5 more posts until resorting to the classic trolled-u defense.
I almost don't want to bring it up because I'm not going back a hundred posts but I'm pretty sure banana has argued in favor of a white ethnostate. Spoon definitely has. Sometimes it's hard to keep track of your dyslexic racists.

[oskar]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...rce=reddit.com

Are democrats mexicans?

[BananaStand]

For clarification, making threats of violence, however they are intended to be interpreted, it against FTR rules and it's not a flexible one like calling someone an idiot or a dickhead. There's no mod dispute on this one. I'll just be more polite about it... please don't make threats, or there might actually be some action. Cheers.

Again, I didn't threaten violence.

I simply stated that if one is to go around calling people racists in physical proximity to them, then it would be prudent to be prepared for likely consequences.

[BananaStand]

I'm pretty sure banana has argued in favor of a white ethnostate.

HOW THE LIVING HELL DO YOU GET AWAY WITH SAYING THIS??

HOW IN THE FUCKING WORLD DO YOU NOT HAVE SOME KIND OF FILTER IN YOUR BRAIN THAT SAYS "WARNING: YOU'RE ABOUT TO MAKE A MONUMENTALLY INCENDIARY ACCUSATION. ARE YOU ABSOLUTELY SURE IT'S TRUE??

WHO FUCKING RAISED YOU MAN?

[BananaStand]

Maybe it was just spoon.

Fuck you.

[OngBonga]

Again, I didn't threaten violence.

I simply stated that if one is to go around calling people racists in physical proximity to them, then it would be prudent to be prepared for likely consequences.

Let's not get into semantics on this. You must be able to see why it's unacceptable. You implied that if you were to meet, if oskar were to call you a racist to your face, you would rearrange his teeth. I realise this is normal big boy talk, but it's also easy to interpet such comments as threats of violence. It was a threat by implication, and you know it was. I'm not discussing this any more, I don't want to argue about it. I just want to point out that I agree with mojo that's it's unacceptable, and worthy of mod intervention.

[Savy]

I'm sorry what I said was interpreted as a threat of physical violence. I'm sure no one really took it as that but I appreciate why a website can't condone threats of physical violence, no matter how weak and pathetic, as standard.

Feel free to copy and paste this into any of your near future posts BS.

[BananaStand]

I'm sorry.....

nope

[OngBonga]

There's no rule that says you have to say sorry, and if there's one thing worse than not saying sorry about something it's saying you're sorry when you're not. He broke a rule, got told, end of story.

Honestly, I don't give a fuck if he's sorry or not. banana and oskar are never going to meet, I doubt very much that oskar feels intimidated by such comments, and I doubt very much that banana intended to intimidate oskar. It's just the line has to be drawn somewhere, there has to be a point where mods are in agreement as to what we can and can't let slide.

[MadMojoMonkey]

FWIW, BananaStand is an ethnocentrist, not a racist, IMO.

I don't think the assessment that he's racist holds up to any of his assertions, and I can understand why he's upset at the accusation.

From what I can tell, if someone doesn't want to adopt his culture, that's the line he's drawn. If it happens to correspond to skin color, then that's a coincidence. He doesn't want Mexicans crossing the border. Mexican is not a race; Mexicans are all races. The majority of them are brown, but plenty are white or black, too.

[BananaStand]

From what I can tell, if someone doesn't want to adopt his culture, that's the line he's drawn

I don't know how you're concluding this. What do you mean by culture? What do you mean by "adopt"?

I support an immigration policy based on merit. And I'm not advocating for unattainable standards of merit either. Do you have job prospects? Are you a criminal? That's really all I care about. The only culture-related requirement I might suggest is that they speak english. And that's really more about practical functionality of our economic, academic, and political systems. But I think that's a pretty long way from ethnocentrism.

Where I've drawn the line, is between what I perceive to be fair, and unfair.

For example I mentioned language. If everyone speaks the same language, then everyone has the same access to information, the same access to education, etc. That's fair.

When a large population of people refuses to speak english, and essentially demands that our system provide bi-lingual access, at the system's cost, then that's unfair.

If there are people working "under the table" because they're undocumented...that's unfair

If those same people expect free education and medicaid for their children born here, that's unfair.

I believe Oskar's policy of coddling brown families at the Mexican border, while happily punting a white baby back over the Canadian border is unfair. I think babies of all colors should get punted back to the social services departments in their home countries. That's fair, no?

If immigrants travelling with children are given a free pass while those travelling alone are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law...that's unfair.

I'm not sure what the number might be, but America does have a capacity for new immigrants. It is something that they at least try to control. I'm sure there are plenty of folks abroad just aching to get into America that are being delayed or denied access. Giving preferential treatment to immigrants at the Mexican border, merely due to physical proximity, is unfair.

One thing I do have a problem with, is business that close for things like Chinese New Year, or Cinco de Mayo. Maybe you could call that ethnocentrism, but I actually think it's something else. I find it kind of insulting really. Like, if Mexican Independence Day makes you feel patriotic enough to blow off work, why the fuck did you leave Mexico in the first place? We already have an independence day in America. It's when we celebrate the freedom that allows an immigrant to live, think, and work peacefully in the most prosperous nation on earth. No love for that though....it's just party-it-up on May 5th.

That probably sounds ethnocentric, but to me its not.

Let's say you're at someone's house for dinner. They serve ham. And you show up and say "nah, I actually don't like ham, but I've got a pizza coming, so I'll stay anyway". To me, that's called being a dick. Either eat the fucking ham, or don't come over. Not liking people who are dicks is not the same as ethnocentrism.

[OngBonga]

Yeah not agreeing with you on the last bit banana. If I came to live in USA, and England vs USA is a World Cup match, sorry bro but I'm supporting England. I'd celebrate July 4th with you all, but I'm not going to ignore my roots.

You can't expect Mexican immigrants to not celebrate whatever Mexico celebrates.

[OngBonga]

It's not like ordering pizza at some guy's dinner party. More like a few of the boys sneaking outside for a spliff, then coming back expecting another glass of wine.

[BananaStand]

youre full of shit ong. If i paraded through London dressed in stars and stripes and set off fireworks on July 4th you would rightly call me a cunt

[BananaStand]

It's not like ordering pizza at some guy's dinner party. More like a few of the boys sneaking outside for a spliff, then coming back expecting another glass of wine.

I dont care what you smoke on your own, but if youre going to be sharing, roll a proper joint.

Sharing a spliff sounds so inadequately intoxicating I wouldn't feel bad demanding more wine

[OngBonga]

youre full of shit ong. If i paraded through London dressed in stars and stripes and set off fireworks on July 4th you would rightly call me a cunt

Well probably, but only because that independance you're celebrating is from us. Historical butthurt, you ungrateful traitors.

Seriously though I wouldn't give a fuck. I like fireworks. I suppose if a fuck ton of Americans took over my town in celebration, yeah that would annoy me. But an American who lives in England, celebrating July 4th? I'd have a beer with you rather than call you a cunt.

[OngBonga]

I dont care what you smoke on your own, but if youre going to be sharing, roll a proper joint.

Sharing a spliff sounds so inadequately intoxicating I wouldn't feel bad demanding more wine

It'll be two spliffs at least. Probably three. I'm not smoking quarter of a spliff or whatever and then going back inside. And if I'm determined to get baked, a seasoned fucking pro, then we're all getting baked.

[BananaStand]

Here's what I'm talking about.

In my family, our Christmas Eve tradition is to have a massive lobster & shrimp feast. One year, when I was married, I hosted one such celebration. My wife's family was in town, and even though they were Jewish, they came too. My ex mother in law has a very old and very close friend that lives locally. This person is also Jewish, but since she was alone for the holidays, we invited her too.

I'm only mentioning the jewish-ness as evidence of NON-ethnocentrism. If I am the person MMM described then I wouldn't welcome jews to a christmas celebration unless they tore up their yarmulkes and got baptized first.

Now this friend of the family is a generally nice person, but is absolutely bat-shit crazy when it comes to compassion for animals. She sees her own house as a de facto cat orphanage (she had over 25 at one time). She literally will not kill a fly. She'll trap it with a paper cup, slide an index card underneath, and then take it outside and set it free. (It's fucking hilarious when the fly just zips right back inside ha ha ha). She would kidnap your dog if she thought for a minute that the animal was abused, neglected, or somehow kept in less than optimal conditions.

I'm not kidding. She's been arrested for exactly that more than once.

So anyway, this cunt accepts the invitation, but relays a message that she strongly insists that we not serve lobsters, citing the inhumanity of putting a live animal face first into boiling water.

My response was [paraphrased] "Fuck off, don't come"

Is that ethnocentrism?