>Justice, Equality for all, everything is a vague concept.
So then you understand there is plenty of room for bias to create disagreement, which can have real world consequences, as I've been saying?
>The issue is that you think no one else believes in Equality, or something.
It's the "or something" bit, which I've explained very clearly, repeatedly, but which you won't address because it annihilates your argument.
>And all we gotta do...
Ya, all we gotta do. Easy as 1 2 3. Just tell mean white people not to call blacks the 'N' word and poof! Everyone will agree on the precise definition of equality.
>Racial Quotas being suggested...
You understand that a whole lot of people disagree with you about whether that promotes equality, right? All we gotta do is get them to agree with you, right? Just give the finger to people who engage in racial voting suppression, and bam! The exact definition of equality will get slammed into everyone's mind so hard they won't be able to disagree. As long as there are a few cases which you think no one could disagree with, even though people have disagreed with them rather strenuously in the past, the precise, universally agreed upon definition must be right around the corner, right?
>but society comes to a general, sane conclusion.
You understand society came to the conclusion 200 years ago that equality didn't even apply to other races, right? They believed in equality, they just meant something a little different by it than you do.
>I don't expect everyone's definition of "equality" to perfectly match.
So then you understand there's room for reasonable disagreement among reasonable people, and that their human biases will generally result in them preferring the answer which is better for their own race?
>For the most part, I just don't want people to advocate the advance THEIR race at the detriment of other races.
No one cares what you want. You not wanting it doesn't mean it's not going to happen. People are going to be biased toward their own race, consciously or not, and that's going to have real world consequences. Your hopes and feelings don't change reality.
>The issue is you're stuck thinking that any other race is your enemy.
I am certainly not "stuck" thinking anything, and I never suggested anyone was my enemy. All I've suggested is that different policies will benefit or harm different races unevenly, and that in general people will be biased toward their own race.
>just want equality
You're not paying attention. I've already been over this. Even if they really do want equality, that's just a vague concept. It means different things to different people. There is no agreement over what objective criteria should be used to decide whether something meets the definition. When it comes down to deciding whether some policy promotes "equality", people are going to be influenced by their bias. You haven't once addressed this point.
>Equality is a concept
Exactly, it is just a concept. There are no clear, unambiguous, universally agreed upon criteria we can apply to some particular policy such that we would all come to the exact same conclusion. There is a whole lot of gray area, and that is where bias comes into the picture, even in the ideal scenario in which everyone is pro-equality.
>These people are all jackholes...
These people are the ones that publicly embrace their bias. They are not the only ones with a bias. Everyone has a bias. Not everyone is biased in favor of their own race, but most people are, consciously or not.
>you break the peace
The imaginary peace, which I have conclusively demonstrated cannot exist.
Right, a whole bunch of biased people. You're making my argument for me. They don't all agree on what fair governance means. Even if they all say they support it, and they mean what they say, when it comes down to specific issues, they will be viewing those issues through their biased lens.
>I don't see why anyone should give an F
I've tried to explain that. If you expected that other racial groups were going to use their political power to benefit their own race at the expense of your race, which is a totally reasonable outcome to expect, you might be concerned for the well-being of your descendants.
>Now that I've given you...
I'm not trying to sell you on anything. I'm trying to explain why people might have a reasonable concern about changing racial demographics.
Your solipsism is preventing you from understanding my point.
It does not matter what policies you support. It does not matter who you give a middle finger to. You are not the supreme emperor. What you support does not become law. Laws come about through a process involving great numbers of humans who are acting as a consequence of their biases.
>The world isn't perfect, and I don't expect perfect policy decisions to be made all the time.
That's, again, not the point. The point is that policy decisions which affect all races equally are not available in many cases, no matter who you give the finger to.
>And that's where the power of fair governance comes into play.
What power? Who decides what constitutes fair governance? Who makes sure fair governance is what happens? Please do not reply by saying you give a middle finger to everyone who doesn't support fair governance. That is not an answer.
>You said the wall is a racial issue
It's an issue which affects the racial demographics of the United States, which over the past 50 years have been changing dramatically. Those are not controversial facts.
This discussion has been racial since the comment I initially replied to which suggested Donald Trump has a "solid pulse on scared white men".
>The side that is working on making sure EVERYBODY wins is the side I'm on. What side are YOU on?
I think this gets at the root of what you're not understanding, so I'll just address this. It doesn't matter what side you're on. It doesn't matter what side I'm on. What matters is that people in general are biased. It is unreasonable to anticipate that they will act otherwise. Do you agree with that?
There are policy choices which must be made by governments in which there is no option which will result in equal benefit to all races. Indeed, there is no definitive way to even measure that which everyone would agree to. Do you agree with that statement?
>Erm, that's horrifying that you care about dominance of your race above all else and so casually support this idea.
Please try to stick to the topic at hand. I haven't expressed any preference one way or the other, and I certainly haven't given you any reason to believe I care about the dominance of my race above all else. If you only read what you want to read rather than what's actually written, you're never going to have a productive conversation.
>I'm generally against rules and regulations where one race benefits over another.
Sure, but you don't make the rules. Do you have evidence to suggest everyone is opposed to such policies? And I don't just mean they say they're opposed to them. I mean they truly oppose them, and that they agree with you on which criteria should be used to determine whether a rule or regulation meets that definition, and that they're totally unbiased in the application of those criteria?
>White nationalists refuse to understand...
They deny the theoretical possibility of such a rule? Or did they deny that the particular rules you discussed fit that description? Or did they deny that such rules were likely to be the only ones produced as a result of other racial groups having more political power, and that the more likely result would be rules which benefit those other racial groups?
>While the counterargument is simply "They took the jobs that no one wants to take",
And the counter-counter-argument is that if wages were not being driven down by immigrants, especially illegal ones who are more likely to hide their income, then the tens of millions of out of work Americans would have an incentive to move to the places where those jobs are available.
>After all, the economy expands...
There is no reason to believe that the benefits of the expanded economy are distributed evenly. There is actually quite a lot of reason to believe those benefits go mostly to people at the top of the income bracket whose wages are not driven down by immigration and whose businesses benefit enormously from the reduced labor costs.
>For whatever reason, white nationalists refuse to believe in...
Why would you expect that path to be the one we go down when every racial group has an incentive to act selfishly? What invisible hand is guiding them to work together for the benefit of all racial groups, rather than focusing their efforts on benefiting at the expense of others? Especially once the low hanging fruit on the latter tree has been picked?
>A wall, deportation-based policy...
The point of the wall and deportations is to stop the tide of changing racial demographics. Control over government authority is a zero sum game. You either win or lose office. Why would white people expect other racial groups not to use that power to further their own racial interests at the expense of white racial interests? Even if they pursue some policies which benefit everyone, why would anyone expect those to be the only policies they pursue?
>There's nothing scary about gay marriage, even...
First of all, how many people do you think are "scared" of gay marriage?
Second, whether that's true or it isn't has no bearing on this discussion. That is a different situation with its own particular set of circumstances. There is no need to complicate this discussion by talking about that. Do you have any evidence that white nationalists deny the existence of non-zero sum games?
>Just because one group...
Surely you understand that zero sum games do exist. Surely you understand that it's perfectly possible for one race to benefit at the expense of another. Surely you would agree with the statement that whites have in the past benefited at the expense of other races. Do you think it's fundamentally impossible for other races to ever benefit at the expense of whites? If so, what is your reasoning?
It sounds like it put her at risk of losing her visa, not at risk of being deported. If she lost her visa, and then made the decision to break our laws by staying, only then would she be at any risk of being deported.
Saying she was at risk of being deported makes it sound like she was already here illegally.
I assure you I'm not trying to justify anything. I'm just speculating on the consequences of people behaving in certain ways.
Would you agree that white men have lost at least some of their control over the levers of power as you call them since the founding of this country when they had total control? Would you agree that it's perfectly possible for white men to lose even more of that power, perhaps even to the point where they are no longer the dominant political force, especially given the changes in demographics in the United States, and especially if white men display a low level of preference for members of their own race? Do you agree that is an outcome which many people consider to be extremely desirable and which many people are working toward achieving?
Assuming that other racial groups also show some preference for members of their own group, what do you expect would be the consequence to white people of this choice to show a low level of preference for other members of their own racial group?
Interesting, I hadn't thought of it that way. I wonder if white people are the only racial group that demonstrate some kind of a preference for other members of their racial group, and if not, what the implications would be if one racial group stopped having such a preference and other racial groups did not follow suit.
What matters is how people actually behave.