Okay, well in that case I definitely don't agree with them that 'whitey is bad'.
I don't think national borders are a false comparison at all. What purpose do they serve other than to separate different groups of people who want to live differently? That's segregation, by its definition, if not by its politicised American historical definition.
I don't think national borders are a false comparison at all.
It is.
What purpose do they serve other than to separate different groups of people who want to live differently? That's segregation, by its definition, if not by its politicised American historical definition.
Because your comparison is segregation based on nationality, while segregation here is based on race by people who share a nationality.
So, if you don't agree with "whitey is bad" message, then you must agree that "jews are bad" message is also wrong.
Race and nationality, up until very recently in human terms, were inextricably linked. There are of course many factors that can lead to people splitting and forming their own communities, but race is clearly a primary one. Historically, you can't make people of different ancestries live together peacefully for any length of time.
There appears to be a genetic threshold where two peoples are too different from each other and will self-segregate. This, eventually, will lead to them forming their own communities, and then nations.
This is human nature; it doesn't matter how much you try to 'educate' it out of people, at the end of the day, their genes will do the talking.
As for your second point, I don't think any group of people are 'bad'. Reality is much more complicated than that.
It sounds like you are advocating for CRT, and SJW nonsense. Step back a little, and imagine you are talking to an SJW with your argument. What does it sound like?
I will grant the modern progressives a singular credit in that they acknowledge differences between groups of people. That is the only point on which we agree. The difference is that I am willing to accept, and work within this reality. They are not. They want to beat humanity into a paste of equality with the bludgeon of pure political force. I don't believe equality exists, nor can it ever exist in nature. Trying to enforce it will only end in suffering. I'm quite willing to allow hierarchy. In fact I believe hierarchy to be inevitable and healthy for a human society.
It's also worth mentioning that there are plenty of people on their side who don't give a rat's ass about equality and are just opportunistically pushing their group's interests, which is completely understandable and expected from human nature. People are more loyal to their groups than they are to any abstract idea. Hence why I mentioned before, different groups cannot live together in peace.
Let's be honest, if different groups of people could coexist peacefully, history would have shown it to be the case. Humanity has been around for awhile now. I have yet to see a realistic example of that ever happening.
I think this is the fundamental difference between right and left (as much as those terms mean anything anymore): equality vs. hierarchy, borders vs. openness.
Okay, well in that case I definitely don't agree with them that 'whitey is bad'.
I don't think national borders are a false comparison at all. What purpose do they serve other than to separate different groups of people who want to live differently? That's segregation, by its definition, if not by its politicised American historical definition.
It is.
Because your comparison is segregation based on nationality, while segregation here is based on race by people who share a nationality.
So, if you don't agree with "whitey is bad" message, then you must agree that "jews are bad" message is also wrong.
Race and nationality, up until very recently in human terms, were inextricably linked. There are of course many factors that can lead to people splitting and forming their own communities, but race is clearly a primary one. Historically, you can't make people of different ancestries live together peacefully for any length of time.
There appears to be a genetic threshold where two peoples are too different from each other and will self-segregate. This, eventually, will lead to them forming their own communities, and then nations.
This is human nature; it doesn't matter how much you try to 'educate' it out of people, at the end of the day, their genes will do the talking.
As for your second point, I don't think any group of people are 'bad'. Reality is much more complicated than that.
It sounds like you are advocating for CRT, and SJW nonsense. Step back a little, and imagine you are talking to an SJW with your argument. What does it sound like?
I will grant the modern progressives a singular credit in that they acknowledge differences between groups of people. That is the only point on which we agree. The difference is that I am willing to accept, and work within this reality. They are not. They want to beat humanity into a paste of equality with the bludgeon of pure political force. I don't believe equality exists, nor can it ever exist in nature. Trying to enforce it will only end in suffering. I'm quite willing to allow hierarchy. In fact I believe hierarchy to be inevitable and healthy for a human society.
It's also worth mentioning that there are plenty of people on their side who don't give a rat's ass about equality and are just opportunistically pushing their group's interests, which is completely understandable and expected from human nature. People are more loyal to their groups than they are to any abstract idea. Hence why I mentioned before, different groups cannot live together in peace.
Let's be honest, if different groups of people could coexist peacefully, history would have shown it to be the case. Humanity has been around for awhile now. I have yet to see a realistic example of that ever happening.
I think this is the fundamental difference between right and left (as much as those terms mean anything anymore): equality vs. hierarchy, borders vs. openness.