Hacker News Reader

Comment by frob | Hacker News Reader

Could you please give an example of a major politician agitating against white people? To be specific, I do not mean someone pointing out that our system has been built to privlidge white people at the behest of white people, but a politician specifically agitating against white people.

Because I can find endless pages of the head of the Republican party agitating against Mexicans (they're sending rapists), Latinos, Black people (shithole countries), Muslims (literally banned them after musing about how great it would be to kill them with bullets dipped in pig's blood), and Asians (Wuhan flu and China virus, over and over and over).

View on HN

> but a politician specifically agitating against White people

The Senate majority leader refusing to confirm a judge because he is white: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/schumer-slammed-for-citing-...

Biden for one:

> An unrelenting stream of immigration, nonstop, nonstop. Folks like me who were Caucasian, of European descent for the first time in 2017 will be in an absolute minority in the United States of America, absolute minority. Fewer than 50 percent of the people in America from then and on will be White European stock. That's not a bad thing. That's a source of our strength.

And that's a very innocent one, but terrifying nonetheless. Imagine the same wording but about how a reduction in blacks would be a strength, all hell would break lose.

Failing to panic about the Great Replacement is racism now? Cuuuute.

Judging people based on their color is the definition of racism.

Do you mean to say you're on board with the narrative that only democrats do that, and not republicans?

How did you get that impression? I didn't say anything to even imply that did I?

Read the thread

You're going to have to be more specific than that. Quote me.

Stop being lazy.

I have read all the comments I've replied to, and I know for sure I don't say anything even close to that. I do however ignore the irrelevant whataboutism "republicans do X all the time", but ignoring isn't the same as denying they do. It's simply not relevant to the discussion and not worth a comment.

I guess that's the misunderstanding if I really stretch it, but it's just GP projecting and putting words in my mouth. I figured maybe having to re-read would help realizing that.

It doesn't seem to me that Biden is calling for culling of white people or whatever. The US has long been regarded as a melting pot of cultures, and Biden just seems quite enthusiastic that there'll be more of that. White people have, as a group, (not every single white person, of course) been overrepresented in some ways. It would be alarming if people talked about a reduction in the black population because they've historically been oppressed and disadvantaged, and they don't make a huge portion of the population.

I missed the part in the constitution where it said America should be made up of mostly whites. If you want more whites in america, i guess you should have more children.

That's not what I'm saying. I don't care either way, but I also don't push to change the demographics. I have no reason to, I don't define the strength of a country based on the color of the population.

Can you understand the difference?

ok, so whatever happens, happens. Let's imagine in 100 years, the country is 90% black. Who cares. It is whatever it turns out to be.

Correct, and probably how things end up based on birth rates alone. What is a problem however is the wording:

> An unrelenting stream of immigration, nonstop, nonstop.

> Folks [...] of European descent [...] will be in an absolute minority in the United States of America, absolute minority. [...] That's not a bad thing. That's a source of our strength

It can be interpreted as the nonstop immigration is a tool with the goal of changing the demographics. Why? What's so important and why do they put a value on proportions of race?

Just now in Texas you have federal and state employees fighting against each other, the former to let as many as possible in, the latter to prevent it. What is the goal here?

My take on not just this example but the race discussions in general are to divide and keep us busy fighting over useless issues to distract us from the corruption. Same with the east vs west endless war, we need an external enemy to be outraged against so we can ignore the enemies within. Otherwise we might be able to put the differences aside and collaborate to achieve something useful as a planet, but how would that help the elite to keep living like gods?

You could start with arguing in good faith, because this:

>you have federal and state employees fighting against each other, the former to let as many as possible in

Is flat out false. There are laws in this country and we have a process for asylum seekers. Texas is choosing to not follow those laws AND it thinks it gets to override the Fed on issues of border control, the law is real clear on both.

Why does the border control want to cut the fences to begin with? What's wrong with the official paths for asylum seekers? The right to seek asylum doesn't have to mean the country has to help them cross by illegal means. I live in a country where we tried that, doesn't help anyone least of all the migrants forced to live in underground communities. Incentivising chaos only brings more chaos, which may even be the goal.

That statement by Biden is not terrifying at all, stop tilting at windmills. You sound like the moody uncle at Thanksgiving that talks about nothing but right wing talking points.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com