I mentioned Brazil to show that your example of a "working" diverse country wasn't working at all.
I don't believe diverse countries can work, nor did I claim that. I only pointed out that racial identitarianism is mostly an American thing, and your comeback to that was Brazil, as well as the rare BLM moron in Europe (which are an export from America).
Europe selected its shitty immigrants primarily from MENA, not African blacks.
Loads of African blacks posing as refugees arrive from boats every day. And they are welcomed by the corrupt, criminal political elites. They are not exactly the cream of the crop.
If they had made their way to Europe in large numbers, you wouldn't even have this absurd talking point.
A lot of colonial powers, like French and England, have blacks who are generally fine. Certainly no comparison to yours. Why? Because we have not taught them that they deserve the world on account of being black.
When whites had a strong in group bias and enforced segregation, LMAO.
How exactly does this refute the counterpoint to your claim that it is impossible for blacks to behave, when clearly it is possible?
Why the fuck are you citing the 1950s as a period of good race relations then?
I did not mention race relations at all. I only pointed out that blacks back then behaved.Too bad you couldn't dismantle discrimination against blacks without going overboard into another extreme. America can't get anything right.
Oh wait, people have been quoting MLK at the POCs for the last half century. They don't give a fuck
Except that your pure whites who are liberals are far more likely to believe in 'racial liberalism' than even blacks. Every ethnic group voted against Proposition 16, except for blacks, and even among blacks a significant minority voted against it. And that was in California. If they cannot get support in California, from ethnic minorities, where can they get support?
You don't even care about what you purport to claim about. What you seem to want is to receive unfair advantages the way blacks receive now. And that is quite contemptible.
Based. WTF is your point here and in all of these other conversations?
This isn't exactly rocket science. Every country with diversity is a complete mess. And it barely has anything to do with what kind of diversity it is. Apparently, one of Botswana's great positives is that it has very little diversity. Same for China vs. India.
Anyone with a brain can see that diversity is a terrible thing. The issue is what do you do about it. And I think your solution is "kick out anyone who isn't white", which is not exactly moral.
I'm confused. Are these people "generally fine" or not?
The point is that we're not getting the cream of the crop from Africa, but that they're still generally fine. Certainly none of the stuff we see in your black communities.
I never said it was impossible. I fully acknowledge that a draconian structure like the 1950s could do it. No one wants, that, though so what good is it?
It's not really draconian, though obviously I do not favor it. You seemed to be denying that blacks can behave themselves, but they certainly can. At the very least, we agree that they behave themselves under the regime of the 1950s. There may also be other regimes under which they will behave themselves.
Until 1954, the southern states were working like crazy to make black schools more equal to white schools in order to avoid having to de-segregate (because the courts finally started upholding actual separate but equal, as opposed to separate and unequal). Laws are generally very ineffective at holding people down, evidenced by the great progress that blacks made between 1865 and 1960, and the many places where oppressed minorities do better than the majority. I wonder if more gradual reform, which would not have created too high expectations for equality of outcome on a short-term basis, only to shatter them, would have had a better outcome for blacks.
It was in CA where whites are no longer the majority so I don't know what conclusions to draw from that. Blacks may interpret it as helping Hispanics since they are far more visible in CA.
So why did Hispanics oppose it as well then? It's a very convenient explanation. That fairness wins even in the most left-wing state in America is a good sign that it has great appeal, contrary to your claims that "POC" just want benefits for their skin color.
68% of blacks support CRT, and every poll and study I've seen reveals they have a strong in group bias.
How exactly can you complain about an in-group bias among blacks, when your quarrel is that there is not a sufficient in-group bias among whites? Is it good or bad? Or is it good when you do it, and bad when others do it?
I want to end the diversity experiment that even you admit isn't working.
And how exactly do you want to 'end' that experiment?
I don't believe diverse countries can work, nor did I claim that. I only pointed out that racial identitarianism is mostly an American thing, and your comeback to that was Brazil, as well as the rare BLM moron in Europe (which are an export from America).
Loads of African blacks posing as refugees arrive from boats every day. And they are welcomed by the corrupt, criminal political elites. They are not exactly the cream of the crop.
A lot of colonial powers, like French and England, have blacks who are generally fine. Certainly no comparison to yours. Why? Because we have not taught them that they deserve the world on account of being black.
How exactly does this refute the counterpoint to your claim that it is impossible for blacks to behave, when clearly it is possible?
I did not mention race relations at all. I only pointed out that blacks back then behaved.Too bad you couldn't dismantle discrimination against blacks without going overboard into another extreme. America can't get anything right.
Except that your pure whites who are liberals are far more likely to believe in 'racial liberalism' than even blacks. Every ethnic group voted against Proposition 16, except for blacks, and even among blacks a significant minority voted against it. And that was in California. If they cannot get support in California, from ethnic minorities, where can they get support?
You don't even care about what you purport to claim about. What you seem to want is to receive unfair advantages the way blacks receive now. And that is quite contemptible.
This isn't exactly rocket science. Every country with diversity is a complete mess. And it barely has anything to do with what kind of diversity it is. Apparently, one of Botswana's great positives is that it has very little diversity. Same for China vs. India.
Anyone with a brain can see that diversity is a terrible thing. The issue is what do you do about it. And I think your solution is "kick out anyone who isn't white", which is not exactly moral.
The point is that we're not getting the cream of the crop from Africa, but that they're still generally fine. Certainly none of the stuff we see in your black communities.
It's not really draconian, though obviously I do not favor it. You seemed to be denying that blacks can behave themselves, but they certainly can. At the very least, we agree that they behave themselves under the regime of the 1950s. There may also be other regimes under which they will behave themselves.
Until 1954, the southern states were working like crazy to make black schools more equal to white schools in order to avoid having to de-segregate (because the courts finally started upholding actual separate but equal, as opposed to separate and unequal). Laws are generally very ineffective at holding people down, evidenced by the great progress that blacks made between 1865 and 1960, and the many places where oppressed minorities do better than the majority. I wonder if more gradual reform, which would not have created too high expectations for equality of outcome on a short-term basis, only to shatter them, would have had a better outcome for blacks.
So why did Hispanics oppose it as well then? It's a very convenient explanation. That fairness wins even in the most left-wing state in America is a good sign that it has great appeal, contrary to your claims that "POC" just want benefits for their skin color.
How exactly can you complain about an in-group bias among blacks, when your quarrel is that there is not a sufficient in-group bias among whites? Is it good or bad? Or is it good when you do it, and bad when others do it?
And how exactly do you want to 'end' that experiment?