socialism

[hyperalgesia]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

Yes I think a Muslim specifically not voting for a Christian ONLY because they are Christian is bigoted. And the same in the reverse. Christians have a wide set of values, just like Muslims or anyone else.

If you go back in the conversation, this discussion started with El Sayed. Clubdeac posted some social media and Youtube links about 'sharia law' and 'Muslim takeover' that have nothing to do with him. Here is a quote from a Republican Senator: "Michigan Democrats just voted to send a TERRORIST to the Senate.Abdulrahman Mohamed El-Sayed is a RADICAL ISLAMIST who will do everything he can to destroy America."

This is a bigoted statement. It does not criticize his values or positions, just demonizes his identiity.

"Bigoted", to me is when you have a prejudicial view of someone, based on immutable qualities, for no other reason. El-Sayed, and even Muslims in general, or even Christians, for that matter - I think those qualities are fair game for your preferred selection. Like, what if I'm a Satanist, can you hold that against me or does that make you a bigot?

"Piker, a leftist provocateur who was one of his biggest boosters on the campaign trail, has a history of making repugnant, anti-American and anti-Israel comments, such as saying the US “deserved 9/11,” and claiming it “doesn’t matter” if rapes occurred during Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023 terror attack against Israel."

Abdul El-Sayed refuses to distance himself from anti-Israel extremist Hasan Piker – even as Jewish Michiganders are scared

After a narrow Michigan Senate primary win, Dem Abdul El-Sayed refused to drop controversial streamer Hasan Piker despite fears from Jewish voters.

nypost.com

 

[bubaghanush]

"Bigoted", to me is when you have a prejudicial view of someone, based on immutable qualities, for no other reason. El-Sayed, and even Muslims in general, or even Christians, for that matter - I think those qualities are fair game for your preferred selection. Like, what if I'm a Satanist, can you hold that against me or does that make you a bigot?

"Piker, a leftist provocateur who was one of his biggest boosters on the campaign trail, has a history of making repugnant, anti-American and anti-Israel comments, such as saying the US “deserved 9/11,” and claiming it “doesn’t matter” if rapes occurred during Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023 terror attack against Israel."

Abdul El-Sayed refuses to distance himself from anti-Israel extremist Hasan Piker – even as Jewish Michiganders are scared

After a narrow Michigan Senate primary win, Dem Abdul El-Sayed refused to drop controversial streamer Hasan Piker despite fears from Jewish voters.

nypost.com

Bigotry isn't limited to race. Treating an entire religious group as an inherent political threat instead of looking at each person's own merits is religious prejudice or bigotry. This is why the Constitution bans religious tests for public office.

Guilt by association is a weak argument (1000s examples on both sides) and using comments by a controversial podcaster to smear him is a distraction.

If you disagree with a candidate's actual policies or actions go for it. But assuming El Sayed isn't loyal to America or has nefarious motives simply because of his faith is prejudice. The same applies to Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, or any other religion.

 

[hyperalgesia]

Bigotry isn't limited to race. Treating an entire religious group as an inherent political threat instead of looking at each person's own merits is religious prejudice or bigotry. This is why the Constitution bans religious tests for public office.

Guilt by association is a weak argument (1000s examples on both sides) and using comments by a controversial podcaster to smear him is a distraction.

If you disagree with a candidate's actual policies or actions go for it. But assuming El Sayed isn't loyal to America or has nefarious motives simply because of his faith is prejudice. The same applies to Christian, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, or any other religion.

And the Satanist?

 

[bubaghanush]

And the Satanist?

I don't know what a Satanist is and I have never met one.

I judge candidates of any faith by their actual platform, values, and actions. If those align with mine then sure, why not.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

Not sure about satanists but have you ever looked into the Church of Satan? They're mostly ex-Christians and don't really believe in Satan. They mainly believe in the separation of church and state and like to poke at Christians and silliness in religion in general. Pretty interesting bunch. They actually make a lot of sense.

 

[hyperalgesia]

Not sure about satanists but have you ever looked into the Church of Satan? They're mostly ex-Christians and don't really believe in Satan. They mainly believe in the separation of church and state and like to poke at Christians and silliness in religion in general. Pretty interesting bunch. They actually make a lot of sense.


View attachment 423156

Very interesting! Unique perspective on embracing human nature.

It's not what I thought of as Satanism but my point holds: IMO, you're not a bigot to reject political candidates who subscribe to this or any other religion, sect, or cult.

I think of religion and values and identity as being pretty deeply intertwined.

 

[mille125]

So your saying if you reject someone because of their religion that is NOT bigotry?

Is that your point?

 

[Pain Applicant1]

Very interesting! Unique perspective on embracing human nature.

It's not what I thought of as Satanism but my point holds: IMO, you're not a bigot to reject political candidates who subscribe to this or any other religion, sect, or cult.

I think of religion and values and identity as being pretty deeply intertwined.

I don't think it matters whether or not you're labeled a bigot, racist, anti-semite, etc. These accusations no longer hold the weight they once held.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

exactly.

this is why america is better. BECAUSE of multinationalism... not in spite of it.

i have zero fear of muslims taking over, imposing sharia law, covering up american women's faces.

that is the kind of sh$t that far right lunatics love. they see a slanted youtube "documentary" of a muslim neighborhood in london or syrians in Sweden and all of a sudden we all have to pray 5 x/day and war hijabs.

reasonable immigration reform is fine. we cant let everyone in. but stop with the racism, b/c i know you hate that word, but that is really what it is all about

Do you want Israel to be multinational also? Do you agree with Muslim immigration into Israel and/or the right of return for Arab Muslims who lived in what is now Israel before 1948? Or do you agree that Israel should be a Jewish state?

How about Muslims? Do you think Islamic countries should also be multinational or do they get to keep their countries for themselves?

 

[SSdoc33]

Do you want Israel to be multinational also? Do you agree with Muslim immigration into Israel and/or the right of return for Arab Muslims who lived in what is now Israel before 1948? Or do you agree that Israel should be a Jewish state?

How about Muslims? Do you think Islamic countries should also be multinational or do they get to keep their countries for themselves?

changing the goalposts completely. israel is a different country. so are the middle eastern countries and all with different dynamics.

i dont agree with just opening the flood gates and letting anyone in who wants to come. thats not the point.

the difference with america is that I believe diversity is our strength. you seem to think it is a weakness.

america was founded as a secular state. that is not the case in the examples you describe.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

changing the goalposts completely. israel is a different country. so are the middle eastern countries and all with different dynamics.

i dont agree with just opening the flood gates and letting anyone in who wants to come. thats not the point.

the difference with america is that I believe diversity is our strength. you seem to think it is a weakness.

america was founded as a secular state. that is not the case in the examples you describe.

I don't think diversity is a strength or a weakness. There are pros and cons to it, just like everything else in life.

It's not moving the goalposts because the bottom line is still the bottom line. You're Jewish, and you want a homeland for your group so you can have the security of a country. You want diversity for America because you're not part of the group considering themselves to be white and Christian, so a diverse America benefits you, as it does ducttape and babaganoush. Muslims want their own countries too, so they can also have the security and comfort of living with people with the same culture, belief system, etc. This goes for every other group of people in the world. The difference is that only white countries do not allow for this.

If you really want to get down to the nitty-gritty, America was founded to be a nation that protects freedom of religion for sure but was founded to be anything but the ethnically diverse country that it is today. After all, native americans were typically excluded from citizenship and many Africans were treated as property.

 

[SSdoc33]

I don't think diversity is a strength or a weakness. There are pros and cons to it, just like everything else in life.

It's not moving the goalposts because the bottom line is still the bottom line. You're Jewish, and you want a homeland for your group so you can have the security of a country. You want diversity for America because you're not part of the group considering themselves to be white and Christian, so a diverse America benefits you, as it does ducttape and babaganoush. Muslims want their own countries too, so they can also have the security and comfort of living with people with the same culture, belief system, etc. This goes for every other group of people in the world. The difference is that only white countries do not allow for this.

If you really want to get down to the nitty-gritty, America was founded to be a nation that protects freedom of religion for sure but was founded to be anything but the ethnically diverse country that it is today. After all, native americans were typically excluded from citizenship and many Africans were treated as property.

your black and white declarations are often erroneous or only partially correct. when you base the rest of your argument on false assertions, it just turns into slop.

it is very clear that american diversity is a strength, as mille has pointed out with data.

i am jewish, but i dont want the "Security of a homeland". not sure what that means. the only israel even exists is b/c hitler killed a whole bunch of european jews. i dont really understand how that translates into israel becoming a country.

i have never felt a separation or ostracization for being jewish in america. i consider myself white and live in a secular society. rules and laws are often based on judeo-christian mores and ideas. i dont like it when politicians do sh$t b/c their christian god says to.

a diverse america benefits EVERYONE, whether you want to admit it or not.

there is a fundamental difference between american and the countries you list, which i dont know why you cant see

 

[Pain Applicant1]

your black and white declarations are often erroneous or only partially correct. when you base the rest of your argument on false assertions, it just turns into slop.

it is very clear that american diversity is a strength, as mille has pointed out with data.

i am jewish, but i dont want the "Security of a homeland". not sure what that means. the only israel even exists is b/c hitler killed a whole bunch of european jews. i dont really understand how that translates into israel becoming a country.

i have never felt a separation or ostracization for being jewish in america. i consider myself white and live in a secular society. rules and laws are often based on judeo-christian mores and ideas. i dont like it when politicians do sh$t b/c their christian god says to.

a diverse america benefits EVERYONE, whether you want to admit it or not.

there is a fundamental difference between american and the countries you list, which i dont know why you cant see

I'm not against a diverse country but there are definitely strengths and weaknesses to it. If diversity only offered strengths, most people and countries would clamor for it, and that's clearly not the case. Humans are nationalistic and tribal by nature. You yourself said you're rooting for Zelensky because he's Jewish.

Do you not think Israel is important as a safe haven for Jews? Do you honestly not think history can repeat itself? Do you really not understand what the security of a homeland means? And then you follow that statement by saying Israel was created because of the holocaust. Security of a homeland means you have a chance to fight back from another holocaust happening.

 

[SSdoc33]

I'm not against a diverse country but there are definitely strengths and weaknesses to it. If diversity only offered strengths, most people and countries would clamor for it, and that's clearly not the case. Humans are nationalistic and tribal by nature. You yourself said you're rooting for Zelensky because he's Jewish.

Do you not think Israel is important as a safe haven for Jews? Do you honestly not think history can repeat itself? Do you really not understand what the security of a homeland means? And then you follow that statement by saying Israel was created because of the holocaust. Security of a homeland means you have a chance to fight back from another holocaust happening.

yeah, not worried about another holocaust. same way i dont think billy bob and bubba need guns to protect against the big bad gvt.

and again, your theories are pretty silly and wrong.

the strength of multiculturalism is we get the chinese scientists, indian engineers, and mexican contruction workers. im not talking about afghan or haitian refugees here.

judaism will persist if there is or is not a dedicated "homeland". arabs, druze etc can vote and have political parties in israel. id like to see israel treat their minorities better, but id also like to see the minorities not blow themselves and others up. countries based on religions where there is no separation of church and state generally are crappy countries

 

[Pain Applicant1]

yeah, not worried about another holocaust. same way i dont think billy bob and bubba need guns to protect against the big bad gvt.

and again, your theories are pretty silly and wrong.

the strength of multiculturalism is we get the chinese scientists, indian engineers, and mexican contruction workers. im not talking about afghan or haitian refugees here.

judaism will persist if there is or is not a dedicated "homeland". arabs, druze etc can vote and have political parties in israel. id like to see israel treat their minorities better, but id also like to see the minorities not blow themselves and others up. countries based on religions where there is no separation of church and state generally are crappy countries

A couple of things.

You have too much faith in democracy. Historically speaking, it's not uncommon at all for democracies to break down into autocracies and there are many cases of German Jews who felt something like a Holocaust could never happen in Germany.

You think you're making an argument against me, but you're actually supporting my point that diversity has both good and bad to it. You're just more racist about it than I am. That's why you want Chinese scientists but not Haitians or Afghans. That's because you know, as I do, that diversity has both positives and negatives to it.

It sounds like the diversity you want is what the US was like until the Hart Cellar Act. It was limited and didn't threaten to drastically change the culture from an outside source. That's not what's going on today throughout the Western world.

 

[clubdeac]

A couple of things.

You have too much faith in democracy. Historically speaking, it's not uncommon at all for democracies to break down into autocracies and there are many cases of German Jews who felt something like a Holocaust could never happen in Germany.

You think you're making an argument against me, but you're actually supporting my point that diversity has both good and bad to it. You're just more racist about it than I am. That's why you want Chinese scientists but not Haitians or Afghans. That's because you know, as I do, that diversity has both positives and negatives to it.

It sounds like the diversity you want is what the US was like until the Hart Cellar Act. It was limited and didn't threaten to drastically change the culture from an outside source. That's not what's going on today throughout the Western world.

Well said. And the minuses likely outweigh any pluses regarding Chinese scientists. Remind me ssdoc, how many BILLIONS of dollars have they stolen in intellectual property?

One thing about diversity that we’ve lost is the original values, standards, language, culture and mores on which the country was founded. If you bring in enough disparate groups with differing languages, cultures and values without any attempt whatsoever at assimilation, your identity as a country is destroyed

Victor Davis Hanson wrote an excellent book about this. The Dying Citizen. Brilliant guy

 

[hyperalgesia]

Well said. And the minuses likely outweigh any pluses regarding Chinese scientists. Remind me ssdoc, how many BILLIONS of dollars have they stolen in intellectual property?

One thing about diversity that we’ve lost is the original values, standards, language, culture and mores that the country was founded on. If you bring in enough dissipate groups with differing languages, cultures and values without any attempt whatsoever at assimilation, your identity as a country is destroyed

Victor Davis Hanson wrote an excellent book about this. The Dying Citizen. Brilliant guy

"Diversity is our strength" was originally a benign and healthy message to make Americans of different ethnicities feel more comfortable.

Like so many other things, it's been co-opted it to justify radical goals like open borders and DEI mandates.

 

[mille125]

A couple of things.

You have too much faith in democracy. Historically speaking, it's not uncommon at all for democracies to break down into autocracies and there are many cases of German Jews who felt something like a Holocaust could never happen in Germany.

You think you're making an argument against me, but you're actually supporting my point that diversity has both good and bad to it. You're just more racist about it than I am. That's why you want Chinese scientists but not Haitians or Afghans. That's because you know, as I do, that diversity has both positives and negatives to it.

It sounds like the diversity you want is what the US was like until the Hart Cellar Act. It was limited and didn't threaten to drastically change the culture from an outside source. That's not what's going on today throughout the Western world

My question for you is that if the US was not a "beacon" to attract people from around the world would we be able to compete with China?

The answer is no and it is simply about the volume of people. We would choose from 300 million. They choose from 1 billion. Its not a contest.

Previously we choose from 6 billion (the whole world). They choose from 1 billion because they are not a country that truly welcome immigration.

There are other reasons but for that reason alone diversity (and our pursuit for it) is a strength.

You are aligned with the Trump administration on this point. It is clear even now that this is not going to work out in our interest.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

My question for you is that if the US was not a "beacon" to attract people from around the world would we be able to compete with China?

The answer is no and it is simply about the volume of people. We would choose from 300 million. They choose from 1 billion. Its not a contest.

Previously we choose from 6 billion (the whole world). They choose from 1 billion because they are not a country that truly welcome immigration.

There are other reasons but for that reason alone diversity (and our pursuit for it) is a strength.

You are aligned with the Trump administration on this point. It is clear even now that this is not going to work out in our interest.

It's not that straightforward. History is replete with less populated nations ****kicking more populated nations around. Japan whipped China in the 30's and 40's. Jews whipped the Arabs in 48, 56, 67, 73....

China has had nearly a billion people for decades and we've always been stronger than them. They've only become a major global behemoth within the last couple of decades and we still spend like 3x as much on the military as they do. If they outcompete us, their population numbers won't be the major cause.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

My question for you is that if the US was not a "beacon" to attract people from around the world would we be able to compete with China?

The answer is no and it is simply about the volume of people. We would choose from 300 million. They choose from 1 billion. Its not a contest.

Previously we choose from 6 billion (the whole world). They choose from 1 billion because they are not a country that truly welcome immigration.

There are other reasons but for that reason alone diversity (and our pursuit for it) is a strength.

You are aligned with the Trump administration on this point. It is clear even now that this is not going to work out in our interest.

Don't forget, I'm not necessarily against diversity or immigration but I'm happy to argue either side

 

[mille125]

It's not that straightforward. History is replete with less populated nations ****kicking more populated nations around. Japan whipped China in the 30's and 40's. Jews whipped the Arabs in 48, 56, 67, 73....

China has had nearly a billion people for decades and we've always been stronger than them. They've only become a major global behemoth within the last couple of decades and we still spend like 3x as much on the military as they do. If they outcompete us, their population numbers won't be the major cause.

You miss the point.

Immigrants start many of the top US technology and business companies. Immigrants or children of immigrants have founded or co-founded over 55% of America’s billion-dollar startup companies and nearly half of the top Fortune 500 firms. Have you ever heard of Elon Musk or Jensen Huang (NVIDIA) or Satya Nadella (Microsoft) or Sergey Brin (Google). These four come from South Africa, Taiwan, and India, and Russia respectively. These four names alone make your argument of diversity and immigration as well as that of the Trump administration (which is aligned) just some bats$#@ crazy suggestion to put it nicely.

In addition we (used to) attract the world's best scientists, engineers, and thinkers to US universities and labs. You dont think that is a differentiator?

Guess what else happens. All of this diversity leads to deep connections to other nations helping to build strong global partnerships. We then understand global markets better and help US businesses abroad.

“The value that immigrants bring to American innovation and economic growth is immense and has always been America's competitive advantage" This was said by a Florida Republican.

Your suggestions otherwise are just ludacris. Kindly pick another topic and lets move on.

 

[mille125]

Google filled in some more that I left out. but I am sure that you (and clubdeac and hyperalgesia) still think that diversity and immigration don't make us great....

Prominent Immigrant-Founded Companies

• • Google (Alphabet): Co-founded by Sergey Brin, who immigrated to the U.S. from the Soviet Union as a child.
  • NVIDIA: Co-founded and led by Jensen Huang, who was born in Taiwan and immigrated to the U.S.
  • Tesla / SpaceX: Co-founded by Elon Musk, an immigrant from South Africa.
  • eBay: Founded by Pierre Omidyar, born in France to Iranian immigrant parents before moving to the U.S.
  • Intel: Co-founded by Andy Grove, who immigrated as a young refugee from Hungary.
  • Pfizer: Co-founded by Charles Pfizer, a German immigrant.
  • Procter & Gamble: Co-founded by William Procter (England) and James Gamble (Ireland). [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Prominent Immigrant-Run Executive Leadership

• • Microsoft: Led by CEO Satya Nadella, an immigrant from India.
  • Alphabet (Google): Led by CEO Sundar Pichai, an immigrant from India. [1, 2, 3]

 

[emergentmd]

Diversity is used as a catch all rally cry for the left. I am not even sure what they even know the meaning anymore.

Do you think NBA/Football/sport teams want diversity or meritocracy? If diversity was so great, then why not mandate it in sports?

If I was starting a company, give me meritocracy over diversity and I have a higher chance of success.

Diversity is great if combined with meritocracy. Diversity without meritocracy is a zombie.

If I had a choice of 50 guys (10 white, 10 blacks, 10 asian, 10 hispanic, 10 indians) with the same height, weight and asked to pick a basketball team, I would pick the 10 blacks and move on. I would likely win the vast majority of the time. Is this racist?

 

[hyperalgesia]

Google filled in some more that I left out. but I am sure that you (and clubdeac and hyperalgesia) still think that diversity and immigration don't make us great....

Prominent Immigrant-Founded Companies

• • Google (Alphabet): Co-founded by Sergey Brin, who immigrated to the U.S. from the Soviet Union as a child.
  • NVIDIA: Co-founded and led by Jensen Huang, who was born in Taiwan and immigrated to the U.S.
  • Tesla / SpaceX: Co-founded by Elon Musk, an immigrant from South Africa.
  • eBay: Founded by Pierre Omidyar, born in France to Iranian immigrant parents before moving to the U.S.
  • Intel: Co-founded by Andy Grove, who immigrated as a young refugee from Hungary.
  • Pfizer: Co-founded by Charles Pfizer, a German immigrant.
  • Procter & Gamble: Co-founded by William Procter (England) and James Gamble (Ireland). [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Prominent Immigrant-Run Executive Leadership

• • Microsoft: Led by CEO Satya Nadella, an immigrant from India.
  • Alphabet (Google): Led by CEO Sundar Pichai, an immigrant from India. [1, 2, 3]

Yeah but those immigrants aren't eating peoples' pets.

 

[mille125]

Diversity is used as a catch all rally cry for the left. I am not even sure what they even know the meaning anymore.

Do you think NBA/Football/sport teams want diversity or meritocracy? If diversity was so great, then why not mandate it in sports?

If I was starting a company, give me meritocracy over diversity and I have a higher chance of success.

Diversity is great if combined with meritocracy. Diversity without meritocracy is a zombie.

If I had a choice of 50 guys (10 white, 10 blacks, 10 asian, 10 hispanic, 10 indians) with the same height, weight and asked to pick a basketball team, I would pick the 10 blacks and move on. I would likely win the vast majority of the time. Is this racist?

Dont get distracted.

My original point is that the US historically has fared well economically because it attracts the best and the brightest from the entire world instead of just one country (even a big country like China). It is this diversity that is a strength. The immigrants that I listed that came to this country and founded a fortune 500 company prove my point. Pain applicant and others were trying to say that population numbers dont matter or that countries should strive to be homogeneous. These arguments fail.

Now going to your points

As much as you ridicule that "left" for using the term diversity, you and the right continously use the term "meritocracy". You are obviously trying to say that diverse groups somehow lack merit but then you yell about meritocracy and then support people like Hegseth for dept of defense, RFK jr for health director, Kash Patel for FBI director....etc etc with many many other examples. I am not going to even go into Trump's J6 pardons/slush fund, release of criminals, etc. Meanwhile, scores of women and black persons with very long and undisputed dignified records are summarily dismissed. This is meritocracy, huh?

What you are saying is that meritocracy simply means that you or someone like you picks who they think has "merit" by some measure and it definitely does not include anyone who is a woman, black, or brown because none of them deserve anything. Why dont you just say this instead of beating around the bush?

 

[emergentmd]

What you are saying is that meritocracy simply means that you or someone like you picks who they think has "merit" by some measure and it definitely does not include anyone who is a woman, black, or brown because none of them deserve anything. Why dont you just say this instead of beating around the bush?

Left always bring it back to racism to discount someone's point. I can care less what the color. I am a minority. I had a minority PCP. I can care less what your race if you are good at what you do with a nice attitude.

If a Black/hispanic guy comes in well dressed/spoken I would hire him over any other race who does not dress/act the part.

It is crazy now that meritocracy is used as some racist inflammatory word. When I grew up, Merit was all that matters and no one cared that I was a minority.

 

[mille125]

Diversity is used as a catch all rally cry for the left. I am not even sure what they even know the meaning anymore.

Do you think NBA/Football/sport teams want diversity or meritocracy? If diversity was so great, then why not mandate it in sports?

If I was starting a company, give me meritocracy over diversity and I have a higher chance of success.

Diversity is great if combined with meritocracy. Diversity without meritocracy is a zombie.

If I had a choice of 50 guys (10 white, 10 blacks, 10 asian, 10 hispanic, 10 indians) with the same height, weight and asked to pick a basketball team, I would pick the 10 blacks and move on. I would likely win the vast majority of the time. Is this racist?

And just using your sports analogies, you should read the MIT Sloan study on the topic. It reveals that this "great meritocracy" in sports is not as simple as you articulate.

I case in point is Kim Ng. For those of you that don't know her she was hired as the general manager of the Miami Marlins, the first time a woman has held the position in Major League Baseball.

She had a long distinguished career starting as an intern in 1990. From there she held roles like director of waivers and records for the American League, assistant general manager for the New York Yankees, and in 2011 she was hired as MLB’s senior vice president of baseball operations. She had much more of a resume than scores of people who passed over her and it took 30 years to promote her to general manager. But we are supposed to believe that there is no racism and no sexism. Merit only rules the world, right? There is no systemic racism or structural or cultural barriers., right?

The truth is the she was on the "slow track" strictly and only because she was an Asian woman. Whether you want to open your eyes and acknowledge it, glass ceilings, racism, and sexism, and other forms of bigotry exist and are permeated, embedded, and intertwined in our society.

 

[mille125]

Left always bring it back to racism to discount someone's point. I can care less what the color. I am a minority. I had a minority PCP. I can care less what your race if you are good at what you do with a nice attitude.

If a Black/hispanic guy comes in well dressed/spoken I would hire him over any other race who does not dress/act the part.

It is crazy now that meritocracy is used as some racist inflammatory word. When I grew up, Merit was all that matters and no one cared that I was a minority.

What defies "merit"

Who has more merit for a particular job? The straight A college grad who never faced adversity or good student who overcame a stacked deck and has now shows obvious growth. Some may same #1 has merit. Others see #2. Some say it depends.

All I can tell you if I were building a company, I would like to combine #1 and #2 in my company. You can be freed to pick all #1s or all #2s but I can almost guarantee that my team and my company would kick your teams butt.

It comes back to the question. Who has the merit? We can agree or dsagree on this but I would hope that we can both agree that it is not RFK Jr, Kash Patel, Pete Hegseth, or Donald Trump.

 

[emergentmd]

And just using your sports analogies, you should read the MIT Sloan study on the topic. It reveals that this "great meritocracy" in sports is not as simple as you articulate.

I case in point is Kim Ng. For those of you that don't know her she was hired as the general manager of the Miami Marlins, the first time a woman has held the position in Major League Baseball.

She had a long distinguished career starting as an intern in 1990. From there she held roles like director of waivers and records for the American League, assistant general manager for the New York Yankees, and in 2011 she was hired as MLB’s senior vice president of baseball operations. She had much more of a resume than scores of people who passed over her and it took 30 years to promote her to general manager. But we are supposed to believe that there is no racism and no sexism. Merit only rules the world, right? There is no systemic racism or structural or cultural barriers., right?

The truth is the she was on the "slow track" strictly and only because she was an Asian woman. Whether you want to open your eyes and acknowledge it, glass ceilings, racism, and sexism, and other forms of bigotry exist and are permeated, embedded, and intertwined in our society.

You know I was talking about the athletes but then you threw out some strawman argument being a manager. I wonder why the left never fought for diversity in basketball/football. Hmmmmmm.

 

[emergentmd]

What defies "merit"

Who has more merit for a particular job? The straight A college grad who never faced adversity or good student who overcame a stacked deck and has now shows obvious growth. Some may same #1 has merit. Others see #2. Some say it depends.

It comes back to the question. Who has the merit? We can agree or dsagree on this but I would hope that we can both agree that it is not RFK Jr, Kash Patel, Pete Hegseth, or Donald Trump.

Merit is in the eye of the decision maker and this is all that matters. If I own a company, I get to decide who best fits my company and not someone that no vested interest. If hiring for a Front desk job, I likely would pick a dependable good looking person over a obese 50 yr old with a 130IQ.

No one should be able to tell decision makers what his/her criteria is short of blatant racism.

As for DJT, he may be a big dope but the voters decided. When it comes to highly unqualified people for their respective jobs, RFK/Patel/Pete, whoever makes the decision can base it on whatever merit they choose.

 

[cowboydoc]

Google filled in some more that I left out. but I am sure that you (and clubdeac and hyperalgesia) still think that diversity and immigration don't make us great....

Prominent Immigrant-Founded Companies

• • Google (Alphabet): Co-founded by Sergey Brin, who immigrated to the U.S. from the Soviet Union as a child.
  • NVIDIA: Co-founded and led by Jensen Huang, who was born in Taiwan and immigrated to the U.S.
  • Tesla / SpaceX: Co-founded by Elon Musk, an immigrant from South Africa.
  • eBay: Founded by Pierre Omidyar, born in France to Iranian immigrant parents before moving to the U.S.
  • Intel: Co-founded by Andy Grove, who immigrated as a young refugee from Hungary.
  • Pfizer: Co-founded by Charles Pfizer, a German immigrant.
  • Procter & Gamble: Co-founded by William Procter (England) and James Gamble (Ireland). [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Prominent Immigrant-Run Executive Leadership

• • Microsoft: Led by CEO Satya Nadella, an immigrant from India.
  • Alphabet (Google): Led by CEO Sundar Pichai, an immigrant from India. [1, 2, 3]

I think you are conflating the ability of the United States to attract the best and brightest in the world to the proposed benefit of diversity. These are distinct things. Though you suggest it may not longer be the case, nearly any high achieving individual from any country would jump at the opportunity to come to the United States. I think it would be a horrendous choice for us to degrade the elements that draw the world’s best and brightest from all stripes here. However, that is not a reasonable argument to justify no border security or quotas and diversity for diversity’s sake. If you dial into the Google example over the last few years, several insiders chastised Google for losing its way by being more concerned about DEI than creating the best products. They made some strategic shifts that seem to have been favorable to those voting with their wallets. They obviously didn’t create a homogenous workforce, but moved away from DEI gone wild, e.g. their AI creating black George Washington images.

 

[lobelsteve]

 

[Pain Applicant1]

You miss the point.

Immigrants start many of the top US technology and business companies. Immigrants or children of immigrants have founded or co-founded over 55% of America’s billion-dollar startup companies and nearly half of the top Fortune 500 firms. Have you ever heard of Elon Musk or Jensen Huang (NVIDIA) or Satya Nadella (Microsoft) or Sergey Brin (Google). These four come from South Africa, Taiwan, and India, and Russia respectively. These four names alone make your argument of diversity and immigration as well as that of the Trump administration (which is aligned) just some bats$#@ crazy suggestion to put it nicely.

In addition we (used to) attract the world's best scientists, engineers, and thinkers to US universities and labs. You dont think that is a differentiator?

Guess what else happens. All of this diversity leads to deep connections to other nations helping to build strong global partnerships. We then understand global markets better and help US businesses abroad.

“The value that immigrants bring to American innovation and economic growth is immense and has always been America's competitive advantage" This was said by a Florida Republican.

Your suggestions otherwise are just ludacris. Kindly pick another topic and lets move on.

Settle down there, Beavis.

As if 4 people have anything at all to do with the current immigration policy of the US. I already told you that there are pos and negs to immigration, but the success of these people in no way equates to the idea that high immigration is good for America. You can have a policy where top engineers and scientists come to the US at the same time as not allowing a massive number of, how should I put it, third-world refugees to be allowed in. These are not coupled together, and pre-Hart-Celler policies would have likely still allowed this.

Edit:

For the record, I'm much, much closer to being a foreigner than you. It wasn't too long ago that we were peasants, filthy urban peasants, but peasants nonetheless, lol.

 

[Pain Applicant1]

Google filled in some more that I left out. but I am sure that you (and clubdeac and hyperalgesia) still think that diversity and immigration don't make us great....

Prominent Immigrant-Founded Companies

• • Google (Alphabet): Co-founded by Sergey Brin, who immigrated to the U.S. from the Soviet Union as a child.
  • NVIDIA: Co-founded and led by Jensen Huang, who was born in Taiwan and immigrated to the U.S.
  • Tesla / SpaceX: Co-founded by Elon Musk, an immigrant from South Africa.
  • eBay: Founded by Pierre Omidyar, born in France to Iranian immigrant parents before moving to the U.S.
  • Intel: Co-founded by Andy Grove, who immigrated as a young refugee from Hungary.
  • Pfizer: Co-founded by Charles Pfizer, a German immigrant.
  • Procter & Gamble: Co-founded by William Procter (England) and James Gamble (Ireland). [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Prominent Immigrant-Run Executive Leadership

• • Microsoft: Led by CEO Satya Nadella, an immigrant from India.
  • Alphabet (Google): Led by CEO Sundar Pichai, an immigrant from India. [1, 2, 3]

No need to waste your time copy and pasting from chatgpt. A handful of successful companies founded by immigrants is a poor argument for allowing millions of foreigners in.

It's no better than the opposite argument of ceasing immigration completely because of the following immigrants who have committed violent crimes. I can do the same thing. See:

• Victor Martinez-Hernandez — Salvadoran national; convicted in 2025 of the rape and murder of Rachel Morin in Maryland.
• Keiber Jaen Martinez — Venezuelan national; pleaded guilty in 2026 to two murders and a shooting in New York City as a member of Tren de Aragua.
• Samuel Gonzalez Castro — Venezuelan national; same case, pleaded guilty to two murders and a shooting.
• Eferson Morillo-Gomez — Venezuelan national; same case, pleaded guilty to two murders and a shooting.
• Keineyer Ibarra-Mujica — Venezuelan national; same case, pleaded guilty to two murders and a shooting.
• Jose Luis Reynaldo Reyes-Castillo — Salvadoran national; convicted in 2026 of offenses including murder, attempted murder and kidnapping connected to MS-13.
• David Arturo Perez-Manchame — Honduran national; convicted in the same MS-13 prosecution involving murders, attempted murder and kidnapping.
• Joel Vargas-Escobar — Salvadoran national; convicted in the same prosecution involving murders, attempted murder and kidnapping.
• Jose Gonzalez Flores — Guatemalan national; convicted of involuntary manslaughter in Virginia after a 2018 vehicle collision killed a four-year-old child.
• Nahro Sudoi Innab — Palestinian immigrant; convicted in 2026 for participating in murder-for-hire schemes targeting three people and sentenced to 35 years.
• Akayed Ullah — Bangladeshi immigrant; convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the 2017 attempted suicide bombing in the New York City subway near Times Square.

There are plenty more where that came from

-------

Out of curiosity, do you notice any common characteristics in my list and your list?

 

[bubaghanush]

Know Nothing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Internment of Japanese Americans - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[lobelsteve]

Know Nothing - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Internment of Japanese Americans - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But for the numerous interviews from Islamists stating their purpose is to overthrow the west.
How are the Afghan women doing in school?

 

[bubaghanush]

No need to waste your time copy and pasting from chatgpt. A handful of successful companies founded by immigrants is a poor argument for allowing millions of foreigners in.

It's no better than the opposite argument of ceasing immigration completely because of the following immigrants who have committed violent crimes. I can do the same thing. See:

• Victor Martinez-Hernandez — Salvadoran national; convicted in 2025 of the rape and murder of Rachel Morin in Maryland.
• Keiber Jaen Martinez — Venezuelan national; pleaded guilty in 2026 to two murders and a shooting in New York City as a member of Tren de Aragua.
• Samuel Gonzalez Castro — Venezuelan national; same case, pleaded guilty to two murders and a shooting.
• Eferson Morillo-Gomez — Venezuelan national; same case, pleaded guilty to two murders and a shooting.
• Keineyer Ibarra-Mujica — Venezuelan national; same case, pleaded guilty to two murders and a shooting.
• Jose Luis Reynaldo Reyes-Castillo — Salvadoran national; convicted in 2026 of offenses including murder, attempted murder and kidnapping connected to MS-13.
• David Arturo Perez-Manchame — Honduran national; convicted in the same MS-13 prosecution involving murders, attempted murder and kidnapping.
• Joel Vargas-Escobar — Salvadoran national; convicted in the same prosecution involving murders, attempted murder and kidnapping.
• Jose Gonzalez Flores — Guatemalan national; convicted of involuntary manslaughter in Virginia after a 2018 vehicle collision killed a four-year-old child.
• Nahro Sudoi Innab — Palestinian immigrant; convicted in 2026 for participating in murder-for-hire schemes targeting three people and sentenced to 35 years.
• Akayed Ullah — Bangladeshi immigrant; convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the 2017 attempted suicide bombing in the New York City subway near Times Square.

There are plenty more where that came from

-------

Out of curiosity, do you notice any common characteristics in my list and your list?

America attracts the best and brightest in science, industry, business, etc.

You yourself stated earlier in the thread that immigrants have a lower rate of violent crime than US citizens. So while overall crime rate will increase with any population increase, crime per capita is less. I would guess immigration has overall been more than their proportion of economic gain. Quick Google search says 40% of Fortune 500 companies founded by immigrants or their children.

Of course we want to attract the best and brightest and leave out the criminals - that's policy.

 

[bubaghanush]

But for the numerous interviews from Islamists stating their purpose is to overthrow the west.
How are the Afghan women doing in school?

Judging American citizens by foreign extremists like the Muslim Brotherhood or Taliban is as absurd as internment of Japanese descent citizens during WW2, or judging all American Christians by the KKK.

 

[mille125]

I think you are conflating the ability of the United States to attract the best and brightest in the world to the proposed benefit of diversity. These are distinct things. Though you suggest it may not longer be the case, nearly any high achieving individual from any country would jump at the opportunity to come to the United States. I think it would be a horrendous choice for us to degrade the elements that draw the world’s best and brightest from all stripes here. However, that is not a reasonable argument to justify no border security or quotas and diversity for diversity’s sake. If you dial into the Google example over the last few years, several insiders chastised Google for losing its way by being more concerned about DEI than creating the best products. They made some strategic shifts that seem to have been favorable to those voting with their wallets. They obviously didn’t create a homogenous workforce, but moved away from DEI gone wild, e.g. their AI creating black George Washington images.

Not sure where you think that I said we should have no border security. Never said that. All of my postings have said that we should have border security and that the people who are here illegally and have been part of the fabric of society should pay a fine.

But my main point is that you would have to be either deeply imbued in MAGA or incredibly naive to think that our current policy to all immigrants including students and scientists is in our best interest of maintaining a competitive environment. The highly sought after immigrants like some of the people that I have named are looking elsewhere or staying in their home countries because of the current administration. How does that help us?

 

[hyperalgesia]

Not sure where you think that I said we should have no border security. Never said that. All of my postings have said that we should have border security and that the people who are here illegally and have been part of the fabric of society should pay a fine.

But my main point is that you would have to be either deeply imbued in MAGA or incredibly naive to think that our current policy to all immigrants including students and scientists is in our best interest of maintaining a competitive environment. The highly sought after immigrants like some of the people that I have named are looking elsewhere or staying in their home countries because of the current administration. How does that help us?

High value immigrants are leaving the US bc of Democrat tax policies not bc of Trump. Try again.

 

[Ducttape]

Identify as a white Christian, lol!!!! New label for me, add it to the others.

Kindly give me one example of a nation where white Christian nationalists have taken total control. Once you give me this example, I will take a close look at it and see if it's something I would be for or against. Just one example, please.

United States of America.

South Africa.

(edit. at that moment, i got bored of having to list the hundreds of nations where white europeans came and colonized the local populace. the Americas from North America to Latin America (its called Latin America, for heavens sake), to Southern Americas. All of Africa. Central Asia such as India. South Asia. Oceania.)

1. No one is arguing that these groups has better terms Ultra Wealthy (Billionaiers) > Rich (Docs) > Middle Class > Poor >>> Poor with major debt. This is what loan rates are based on, how hard is it to understand this? No one is arguing that Buffet gets better rates than almost everyone else b/c his loans are essentially zero risks. This is how basic economics work..... You prove you are low risk, someone will bid a lower rate for your loan. Why do you think Buffet should get the same rate as You/I or even lower 1/3 with debt?

2. Your ChatGPT proves my point and you are just arguing to make your view make sense. First, No one is getting a 1% loan if the bank has to borrow for 3.6% from the fed. No bank is going to pay 3.6% from Uncle Sam then lend anyone at 1%. No ONE unless there are other ways for them to make back the 2.6% Gap. Second, if you read how Billionaires can borrow at at 1%, it is b/c they are borrowing against very liquid (cash like) that they have at the bank. IF I have $1M in the bank, and I ask for a 500K loan using my $1M, the bank could very well charge me 1% to borrow my own money. But if you read your chatgpt search and understand what is going on, you will realize that the banks are still making money off these low rate loans either by holding a large deposit, charging a large AUM fee, or some other arrangement. Regardless, the bank is NOT losing money on these loans. Dress it any way you want, but they are making money off these Billionaires and it is not just some magical 1% loan. Read and understand rather than parroting 1% without context.

Didn't you read that low rates for billionaires are unusual? Don't just look at edge cases without knowing the details. Just parroting the woe is me 1% for the rich is disingenuous.

I am done b/c you do not seek to learn or understand. You just care to prove some weird point that 1% Billionaire is not fair. Buffet has given more to the GDP/charity/taxes than you would in your lifetime x 100K. I would say that you have not paid your "Fair Share" if you really think about it. Maybe you should just write the IRS a check to pay your fair share b/c they will certainly cash it.

Final point, odd take to say I am fine with the rich generating income where they don't work. What a hypocritical view. The house you own, the stocks you have all generate value/income and you really have not done much work to generate that. When you pass your estate down to your kids, I guess you are a big part of the problem you are complaining about. This is the problem with socialism and socialist. Funny they become capitalists when they achieve great wealth. I have yet to see a billionaire socialist give back all their money to the IRS.

i see how you have managed to deflect from the conversation and i am sorry to have missed the logical fallacy.

its not the loan rate that is the major concern. it is the fact that wealthy are not paying taxes on their earnings and have an avenue of approach to live off of those earnings without having to pay any share of taxes, by borrowing off of these earnings and then deferring tax payments until they have died, and their heirs pay significantly less in taxes than would have happened if they had been paid during the billionaire's lifetime.


to finish - they are getting sub 1% loans. the chatGPT article clearly states that they are. and again, the issue is that they are garnering increasing wealth in means that the rest of the country does not and are not contributing in spite of their mass accumulation.

and yes, step up basis should not apply to anyone. not the billionaire class, not the middle class that you are destroying.

 

[Ducttape]

High value immigrants are leaving the US bc of Democrat tax policies not bc of Trump. Try again.

this is so laughable.

they are leaving because of republican policies.

who has had control of the senate, the house, the white house and SCOTUS the last year and a half? (hint the last Democrat tax bill was in 2022, and trump blocked many key provisos as soon as he came to office in 2025)

Diversity is used as a catch all rally cry for the left. I am not even sure what they even know the meaning anymore.

Do you think NBA/Football/sport teams want diversity or meritocracy? If diversity was so great, then why not mandate it in sports?

If I was starting a company, give me meritocracy over diversity and I have a higher chance of success.

Diversity is great if combined with meritocracy. Diversity without meritocracy is a zombie.

If I had a choice of 50 guys (10 white, 10 blacks, 10 asian, 10 hispanic, 10 indians) with the same height, weight and asked to pick a basketball team, I would pick the 10 blacks and move on. I would likely win the vast majority of the time. Is this racist?

so you would be okay if the NBA, and the NFL had no white players...

diversity means everyone gets a chance, regardless of skin color.

You know I was talking about the athletes but then you threw out some strawman argument being a manager. I wonder why the left never fought for diversity in basketball/football. Hmmmmmm.

they did. it was called the Rooney Rule for the NFL.

there has also been a big push that is labelled voluntary amongst the NBA and WNBA to hire more black coaches.

there has been consideration for a "Russell Rule" for the NCAA.

 

[emergentmd]

Socialism and socialist policies are a failed experiment but you keep arguing for it.

A thoughtful person would think, socialism fails = must suck. But you keep arguing for it.

Let’s everyone be equal. No rich people. LETs go

 

[clubdeac]

Judging American citizens by foreign extremists like the Muslim Brotherhood or Taliban is as absurd as internment of Japanese descent citizens during WW2, or judging all American Christians by the KKK.

What are your thoughts about Mamdani blessing an Imam and speaking at a prayer vigil where the Imam says death to infidels? And surprise, not one major news organization covered it. Our media is a one sided full on propaganda machine.

 

[Ducttape]

guess what - pure capitalism also fails. it sucks for 99% of the population.

unfortunately, the ultra wealthy - the oligarchy - has successfully brainwashed people into thinking that their owning 30% of the total wealth in the country is acceptable. and a lot of that has to do with terminology and the terms communism and socialism ie the Red Scare.


we have not had a true socialist system in modern history; there are party or totalitarian lead "socialist states".

i do note that democrats consistently show a lack of social awareness. almost no one is arguing the US should become socialist (except those people who are arguing not in good faith against socialist policies). republicans and right wing advocates have managed to successfully conflate "socialism" and "communism" with policies that are "socially equitable" and should be considered democratic.


what should be argued for is better balance in the form of socially equitable policies, including a better balancing of income inequity. it means getting a middle class that owns its share of wealth, unlike the imbalanced system currently in play where the top 1% owns 31% of total wealth and the bottom 50% owns 2.5%.

in fact, the top 1% share has increased from 22% in the 80s to over 31% now. the middle class owned about 37% of total wealth 50 years ago and now owns only 26% and these are worsening (for all but the 1%).

 

[clubdeac]

guess what - pure capitalism also fails. it sucks for 99% of the population.

unfortunately, the ultra wealthy - the oligarchy - has successfully brainwashed people into thinking that their owning 30% of the total wealth in the country is acceptable. and a lot of that has to do with terminology and the terms communism and socialism ie the Red Scare.


we have not had a true socialist system in modern history; there are party or totalitarian lead "socialist states".

i do note that democrats consistently show a lack of social awareness. almost no one is arguing the US should become socialist (except those people who are arguing not in good faith against socialist policies). republicans and right wing advocates have managed to successfully conflate "socialism" and "communism" with policies that are "socially equitable" and should be considered democratic.


what should be argued for is better balance in the form of socially equitable policies, including a better balancing of income inequity. it means getting a middle class that owns its share of wealth, unlike the imbalanced system currently in play where the top 1% owns 31% of total wealth and the bottom 50% owns 2.5%.

in fact, the top 1% share has increased from 22% in the 80s to over 31% now. the middle class owned about 37% of total wealth 50 years ago and now owns only 26% and these are worsening (for all but the 1%).

I understand your concern for the bottom 99%. Can you share what specifically you're doing to help the bottom 99% other than pontificating online?

 

[bubaghanush]

What are your thoughts about Mamdani blessing an Imam and speaking at a prayer vigil where the Imam says death to infidels? And surprise, not one major news organization covered it. Our media is a one sided full on propaganda machine.

As stated, I judge politicians by facts and actions, not guilt by association. Post a credible source or move on.

 

[clubdeac]

As stated, I judge politicians by facts and actions, not guilt by association. Post a credible source or move on.

Your defense and denial is concerning. Not hard to find online even though no major news outlet reported on it. These positions are not compatible with western ideals

WATCH: Mamdani attends Friday sermon where imam calls on Islamic angel to kill the infidels

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani addressed the Al-Khoei Islamic Center in Queens, where he expressed gratitude for the opportunity to run the city.

worldisraelnews.com

 

[emergentmd]

guess what - pure capitalism also fails. it sucks for 99% of the population.

A little extreme don't you think?

Here is a quick chatgpt search and it is an undeniable fact. Capitalism sure sucks where most everyone in the US lives better than the world median. But lets get rid of that so we can live like most of the world. Those Rich billionaire scoundrels who put in the hard work/risk to build companies, employee people, create GDP, provide health insurance, etc. They should never exist!!!!!!

The problem is you just latch onto talking points and myopic rather than looking at the whole picture/consequences. There is a reason people risk their lives to come to the US illegally so they can hope to live the bottom 1/3 American Lives. If 99% of the people's life sucks, then most could go live in another country quite freely. Physicians, on avg are not in the top 1% of US income, and for you to say their life sucks is just plain ridiculous. How can anyone in their right mind think that most physicians life sucks not to mention pharmacists, engineers, lawyers.

Most Americans in the bottom third of the U.S. income distribution have a higher material standard of living than the majority of the world's population. the 10 largest economies by nominal GDP, essentially all 10 operate predominantly capitalist/market-based economies. The top 50 largest economies by nominal GDP, the answer is even clearer: almost all are fundamentally market-based capitalist economies.

 

[bubaghanush]

Your defense and denial is concerning. Not hard to find online even though no major news outlet reported on it. These positions are not compatible with western ideals

WATCH: Mamdani attends Friday sermon where imam calls on Islamic angel to kill the infidels

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani addressed the Al-Khoei Islamic Center in Queens, where he expressed gratitude for the opportunity to run the city.

worldisraelnews.com

Nothingburger. Everything Mamdani said was completely fine. He didn't 'bless' anyone. He's not responsible for what everyone says after he leaves the stage. Guilt-by-association, you are really reaching hard.

If every politician were responsible for everything someone said in any event they were at, there would be no one left.