"I'm a half-Asian that grew up in a solid red area and I never thought about race until high school so idk what the director of Elemental is talking about" Silence
"Max Landis seems like a jerk but the accusations against him don't meet the definition of rape" This resulted in a girl getting extremely pissed off so I had to make peace for 15 minutes
"Hunter Biden is obviously laundering money through the painting hobby he started last week" Tepid agreement
"Male and female characters obviously behave differently and you can't just swap them into each other's stories" "Hahaaa I don't know, I just like this character doing her thing"
"Obviously cancel culture exist, we wouldn't be able to have any frank conversations if they were publicized to millions of people" "Yeah fair point" Silence
"If that female pastor is ordained, that's illegal according to church rules" Crossed arms staring at the ceiling
Before a few years ago, I've never had the problem of being too obviously right in political discussions. That's because I used to cling to dumb ideas myself, like the Iraq invasion, but at least I had a little wriggle room (democracy is a good thing for the Middle East! just give it time!). There are too many positions on the left today that are indefensible if you're not a psychopath. I guess I'm thankful my lib friends are still genuine friends and retain a shred of integrity.
This misses the point. Yes, you are correct: natural rights apply to everyone in the country. However, racial demography can be controlled through immigration restrictions, which do not violate natural rights.
Slaves weren't Americans, so they can't be counted as Americans. You may as well count the entire native population as "Americans." Freemen were Americans, but well under 3% of the population as mentioned earlier.
Btw, I'm waiting for you to show the heated period debate over Irish, Germans, and Spaniards as white or not.
The MacArthur Constitution is the rule of law in Japan. Are you alleging the Japanese do not follow the rule of law?
Some policies and institutions are inherently incompatible with Liberal philosophy. One of those is Slavery. Either Liberalism dies, or slavery does. They are mutually exclusive because slavery violates the base premise of Liberalism: you are your own property. That means: you can't be someone else's property. Liberalism can not albeit slavery, and it will always exist as a conflict point until one or the other is abolished. Slavery must die, or Liberalism must die, they can't co-exist in perpetuity.
Race Control (Racialism) is another. Racialism is, effectively, a Leftist concept that is attempting to homogenize multiple ethnic groups under a single political abstraction that can be weaponized as a political bloc the move Socialism forward, preferably Socializing that bloc. This is in total defiance to Liberalism's parochial attitude towards individuals and the communal bonds they cultivate. The point behind race control is that it rejects the point about Liberalism being of a shared value system, and supplants it with race; rejecting the idea that race doesn't guarantee values.
In fact, that is the base premise of every racialist argument: Race, and only race, is the foundation of any and all culture. Race is the penultimate factor in the consideration of any behavior, as all behaviors and all cultures are an extension of racial genetics alone. Therefore, Liberalism's universalism is inherently impossible. Only specific races will ever be capable of holding the Anglo-Saxon values on individuals and property hold. Hence, Liberalism and Racialism are fundamentally incompatible.
On a side note that you might come back to: ethnic protectionism (and national protectionism) and race control are wholly different things.
This just isn't true. Even though Leftists talk about Chattel Slavery, American slaves were never truly chattel. You couldn't actually just shoot a slave in the head if you felt like it. Slaves were still part of the American Liberal system. They were still granted some legal and judicial protections, even if they were not granted individual autonomy or political power. They were still American, and they were still seen as American. Just American slaves. And again: the slavers themselves were hoping to "civilize" Africans into that Liberal framework through slavery. Slaves weren't being deported like foreigners, they were being intentionally integrated by the slavers themselves. They are American.
"But you just said Liberalism and Slavery is a contradiction! How could a slave be in a liberal system?!!"
Yes, see above. That's why the US had to come to blows over it. Liberalism and Slaveocracy are institutions in total opposition to one another. One had to die.
The American constitution was a desperate compromise that couldn't hope to resolve the issue, and never did. It was amended to end the contradiction after 2% of the population was dead.
If you want to see the debate over whether Spaniards are white or not, go to /pol . That issue is still well and truly up for debate, even within the modern vernacular. How are Hispanics people of color, but Spaniards aren't? That's a good question.
Similarly, if the the US is a white supremacist country, why did it actively discriminate against Irish and Germans? Well, it's not white supremacist. It's also not a white nationalist country.
"White" is, and has always been, a fairly bizarre British (then American) racial construct. There was never a heated argument about who, what, when, and where were the strict confines of white in some sort of "Whiteness Debates" that presidential candidates had. The term has always been colloquially defined. You can even find Enoch Powell referring to the importance of a "White" population in Britain, but then also warding against an overwhelming German population that would be a problem for the exact same reason, because even if the Germans are 'White', they sure as shit aren't British.
Even in the Jim Crow South, "White" varied state to state; and there is one strange incident where a Japanese family moved from California (due to racial discrimination against "Orientals" specifically) to Mississippi and had MS recognize them as a "White" family under the purposes of the law, even though the state itself was a "One Drop Rule" state.
I'm not going the Noel Ignaev argument and saying "Poors or immigrants can't be white". I'm saying the term isn't clearly demarked. It means different things at different times; and even within the "White" race, there are some whites that are considered inherently inferior, because it's a bastardization of British, or even just English.
People who have laws mandated on them by force, will reinterpret those laws to mean something than what's written on the page. If you do it long enough, everyone thinks it's the law. The 2nd Amendment is pretty clear that all federal gun control is illegal. But if you pretend to be retarded and change the definition of what words mean in your head, then actually the 2nd amendment doesn't apply to weapons of war!
Japan is not a Liberal country. Nor is Sri Lanka, Romania, or Russia. This is because the people are not Liberal, and do not make Liberal considerations, even if words resemble things that Americans would find appealing.
I understand your philosophizing, but the United States was once a country that controlled its racial makeup. I don't care whether you describe that as liberal or illiberal. The fact remains that it existed.
That's simply not true. No American in that period would have described slaves as American or Americans.
You're citing contemporary internet arguments to prove the existence of a 19th century debate over whiteness. So you have no proof. I mean, I knew you didn't, but that's funny.
Supremacy == ethnocentrism. The US was obviously ethnocentric, first specifically to Anglo-Saxon Protestants then later expanding to include the rest of Europe.
Japanese immigrants did campaign to be perceived as white, but ultimately that failed. White = European.
If Japan is ignoring its constitution as a matter of practice, you should have plenty of evidence.
You understand the fact of the philosophical basis, then you reject it anyway and supplant it with your own narrative.
I can do nothing for you.
You are not operating either in good faith, or with respect to evidence.
I'm just forcing you to acknowledge the reality that the US once controlled its racial demography. Mission accomplished I guess.