Immigration Threads on TFL.
- Thread starter Al Norris
- Start date
- Status
JUNKPILE: Not "pseudoscience" at all.
MDMAN: "Scientifically speaking" you might try some of these:
ROOT SOURCE
http://www.springerlink.com/content/k4214864k63m40m2/?p=5ee1e81ce5a9408cb3ed8e8ec61c4d04&pi=1
http://www.springerlink.com/content/65r3eu28ta4jr8f2/?p=5ee1e81ce5a9408cb3ed8e8ec61c4d04&pi=2
I'm done with this one. I've got better things to do with my life than debate settled science.
See Ya,
J
MDMAN: "Scientifically speaking" you might try some of these:
ROOT SOURCE
http://www.springerlink.com/content/k4214864k63m40m2/?p=5ee1e81ce5a9408cb3ed8e8ec61c4d04&pi=1
http://www.springerlink.com/content/65r3eu28ta4jr8f2/?p=5ee1e81ce5a9408cb3ed8e8ec61c4d04&pi=2
I'm done with this one. I've got better things to do with my life than debate settled science.
See Ya,
J
You guys are too deep for me. I thought Kentuckian was it's own ethic group...shows how little I know. Sounds like a conversation from the lounge at Scientific American. All of a sudden I find the need to go to a good thread about 1911's being better than Glocks...which they are of course.
Sometimes my big mouth does get me into trouble... I said nothing on this thread would be edited. Which if I follow my own rule, I can't delete the little off topic exchange, above. [groan]
Canuck? When you immigrate, you will be welcomed. I doubt if many on this board have a problem with those that go about it in the proper fashion.
OK then. Enough of this off topic stuff.
So far, the general consensus is that immigration threads should continue to be discussed. Again, the general consensus appears to be that trouble makers and rabble rousers, outright racism, and such, be dealt with extreme prejudice.
Have I got this correct?
I'm going to leave this open for a few more days. So if you haven't checked in, please do.
Just so everyone is clear, to recap the rules:
General Rule #1:
1) All Topics and Posts must be related to firearms, accessories or civil liberties issues.
There was a reason that these three were chosen. As it relates to the L&P forum, this description is specific to rule #1:
Legal and Political:
Round table discussions range from the Bill of Rights, to concealed carry, to general political issues.
Again, there are reasons this is setup in this manner. Please note that the description does not conflict with rule #1.
And finally, the other sticky that I posted a while back: L&P: Consider this, before you post.
Canuck? When you immigrate, you will be welcomed. I doubt if many on this board have a problem with those that go about it in the proper fashion.
OK then. Enough of this off topic stuff.
So far, the general consensus is that immigration threads should continue to be discussed. Again, the general consensus appears to be that trouble makers and rabble rousers, outright racism, and such, be dealt with extreme prejudice.
Have I got this correct?
I'm going to leave this open for a few more days. So if you haven't checked in, please do.
Just so everyone is clear, to recap the rules:
General Rule #1:
1) All Topics and Posts must be related to firearms, accessories or civil liberties issues.
There was a reason that these three were chosen. As it relates to the L&P forum, this description is specific to rule #1:
Legal and Political:
Round table discussions range from the Bill of Rights, to concealed carry, to general political issues.
Again, there are reasons this is setup in this manner. Please note that the description does not conflict with rule #1.
And finally, the other sticky that I posted a while back: L&P: Consider this, before you post.
This thread sticky needs to be discussed. I'll not get into a debate, just speak my peace and let others do the same.
Seems to me that you can't stay away from culture, language multiculturalism, melting pot, etc. when talking about immigration of any kind legal or illegal. Different people have different ideas of what the melting pot and America is. Some see us as a "land of immigrants" others see the melting pot as a 20th century political myth that was and is more of a salad bowl than a melting pot.
Many on the liberal end don't think illegals are a problem and see America as a "proposition nation" or "land of immigrants" they say. Illegals contribute more to society than they take, we are told. According to some (not all, some are honest and you can engage in civil discourse) of these, if you believe anything contrary to this, you are labeled a "racist." A loaded word that immediately equates you to the likes of the KKK that hates black people and others for "simply breathing on this earth" at best or Adolph Hitler who slaughtered 6 million Jews at worst.
The conservative end says illegal immigration (especially as massive as it is and from a single country) is dangerous to our cultural makeup and our economy. They say America is a country with a particular people and culture from region to region like any other and has the right to preserve this just like any other country in the world. Some advocate things like setting up snipers on the border considering the illegal crossing no different than invasion sponsored by the Mexican government, others say cutting off benefits that bring illegals will solve most of the problem, not only stopping them from coming but de facto send the ones already here packing and heading home voluntarily.
Then there are some who are in between these sides.
Any of these views should be able to be expressed without getting PERSONALLY ATTACKED for their views (if I remember right, that is a rule of TFL)
People are going to have frustrations and even bitterness. You have to allow a little leeway for that, but at the same time if all someone is contributing is just a rant about how much they hate Mexicans, Blacks or Klingons from space, then that too is obviously a rule violation. It's okay to be frustrated or even angry, but letting that control you is not civil discourse.
The trend on all of these immigration threads seems to be as follows:
1) Someone posts a thread on illegal immigration story A,B or C.
2) Conservative people respond saying "yeah it's a problem because ________" followed by this or that solution with a few frustrations expressed.
3) A liberal responds by playing the race card and shouting abstract slogans to support their beliefs.
4) each side starts picking at each other
5) each side then starts screaming at each other and the thread devolves into frustrated rants, slurs and personal attacks
6) moderator closes thread with a *sigh* and possibly a few booted members behind the curtain.
The key rule violation that is consistent seems to be personal attacks (on individuals or like minded people).
How about the first person that engages in personal attack (whether via playing the race card, ridiculing someone for their view, etc.) when responding to post gets punished (as the moderator sees fit), the first person who responds to attacker with another personal attack gets punished. In short, when personal attacks are made, ignore it and leave it to the moderator to deal with them (that's their job). Responding to personal attacks only adds fuel to the fire.
Seems to me that you can't stay away from culture, language multiculturalism, melting pot, etc. when talking about immigration of any kind legal or illegal. Different people have different ideas of what the melting pot and America is. Some see us as a "land of immigrants" others see the melting pot as a 20th century political myth that was and is more of a salad bowl than a melting pot.
Many on the liberal end don't think illegals are a problem and see America as a "proposition nation" or "land of immigrants" they say. Illegals contribute more to society than they take, we are told. According to some (not all, some are honest and you can engage in civil discourse) of these, if you believe anything contrary to this, you are labeled a "racist." A loaded word that immediately equates you to the likes of the KKK that hates black people and others for "simply breathing on this earth" at best or Adolph Hitler who slaughtered 6 million Jews at worst.
The conservative end says illegal immigration (especially as massive as it is and from a single country) is dangerous to our cultural makeup and our economy. They say America is a country with a particular people and culture from region to region like any other and has the right to preserve this just like any other country in the world. Some advocate things like setting up snipers on the border considering the illegal crossing no different than invasion sponsored by the Mexican government, others say cutting off benefits that bring illegals will solve most of the problem, not only stopping them from coming but de facto send the ones already here packing and heading home voluntarily.
Then there are some who are in between these sides.
Any of these views should be able to be expressed without getting PERSONALLY ATTACKED for their views (if I remember right, that is a rule of TFL)
People are going to have frustrations and even bitterness. You have to allow a little leeway for that, but at the same time if all someone is contributing is just a rant about how much they hate Mexicans, Blacks or Klingons from space, then that too is obviously a rule violation. It's okay to be frustrated or even angry, but letting that control you is not civil discourse.
The trend on all of these immigration threads seems to be as follows:
1) Someone posts a thread on illegal immigration story A,B or C.
2) Conservative people respond saying "yeah it's a problem because ________" followed by this or that solution with a few frustrations expressed.
3) A liberal responds by playing the race card and shouting abstract slogans to support their beliefs.
4) each side starts picking at each other
5) each side then starts screaming at each other and the thread devolves into frustrated rants, slurs and personal attacks
6) moderator closes thread with a *sigh* and possibly a few booted members behind the curtain.
The key rule violation that is consistent seems to be personal attacks (on individuals or like minded people).
How about the first person that engages in personal attack (whether via playing the race card, ridiculing someone for their view, etc.) when responding to post gets punished (as the moderator sees fit), the first person who responds to attacker with another personal attack gets punished. In short, when personal attacks are made, ignore it and leave it to the moderator to deal with them (that's their job). Responding to personal attacks only adds fuel to the fire.
The whole immigration subject has got to be the single most touchy discussion I ever have the misfortune of participating. I can conduct myself in a civil matter when people are mature enough to understand both sides of the argument. I haven't really noticed ANY form of racial discrimination in the whole time I been a member of this site. However, I'm sure it does exist here somewhere and I just haven't seen it.
I feel that if we as responsible gun owners aren't mature enough to have civil debates about ANY topic without it tuning into a childish, name calling, flame war then I feel we aren't mature enough to be around firearms to begin with. I don't mean to sound condesending, it's just how I feel.
I feel that if we as responsible gun owners aren't mature enough to have civil debates about ANY topic without it tuning into a childish, name calling, flame war then I feel we aren't mature enough to be around firearms to begin with. I don't mean to sound condesending, it's just how I feel.
applesanity
New member
One of the first rules of online communities is, "beware of participation inequality." Those that contribute most tend to be those that are the most passionate, and those that are most passionate tend to be the most biased. The rule of thumb is that in any web group, 90% are lurkers, 9% do something now and then, and 1% contribute the vast majority.
Of the numerous consequences, the 2 basic ones are 1) you never really know what the majority is thinking, and 2) the stuff you're reading is usually very polarized.
So even though the guys ruining it for the rest of us are very few, their contributions add up to a (perceived) disproportionate amount on TFL, both by frequency and extreme awfulness.
For me, I think the bigger issue, more than racism, is the "I-was-here-first,-so-get-yer-stinkin-____-outta-my-backyard" mentality. Well, having citizenship status does technically entitle you to such comments, but I think it's the wrong approach. I don't think anyone here actually is comfortable with letting people just hop the border - just on how to confront them should they try, or if they're already here. Personally, I don't think the average illegal immigrant is looking to rob trains or steal our women; they just want to make a living - it's the 'starving man who stole bread' situation.
As for racism, I don't think the issue is as taboo as so many try to make it out to be. Funny how the people least comfortable to talk about race issues are those who have been accused of it. Like how some men get really riled up when when their sexuality is questioned.
We are humans, and we harbor prejudices - it's natural. It can be something as seemingly harmless as having a preference for blondes, or joking about how white people can't dance, to real, outright hatred. I actually believe that the former is more dangerous, because it's the kind that nobody is willing to admit or talk about, not even to themselves. We cannot play one giant denial game, pretending that we're all objective, unbiased, and indiscrimate. We're only human. At least the latter come bearing torches and bedsheets over their heads, so we can pick them out.
"I'm not racist. How dare you accuse me of being racist. Stop playing the race card! Some of my best friends are not of my race, so there!"
I see no problem in talking about race issues, if conducted with civility. Too many members are too quick to accuse racism, while others play the "race card" card (not a typo). It's better to confront the issues than to pretend they don't exist. Remember when that book, "the bell curve" came out? Everyone was so quick to play the race card or the anti-race card, that nobody really stop to consider the consider the consequences or underlying causes for the findings.
But I see no place on TFL for illegal immigration. It has no track record of maintaining civility. In fact, after one poster implied that he was itchin to go shoot aliens, I quit reading any thread about the subject.
I'm just guessing here, but I bet that at the current moment, there are more active threads about aliens than... gun holsters. On a gun forum. this alien topic (nice pun, huh?) is only going to get bigger and bigger I feel... until the L&P forum has to renamed to "illegal immigration&L&P"
At the risk of sounding racist.....
I am starting to be very offended by the easily offended
Are they an ethnic group?????
No...then I guess I am still ok
Seriously....I think in many/most cases what is touted as "racism" is the thinned skinned and logically outgunned taking offense where none is meant
It is not just discussions of immigration where people go out of their way to be offended
I made a comment in another thread....If the shoe fits wear it...if not...why so testy???
So...in effect...what I am saying is that we should be able to discuss anything if act like adults
I am starting to be very offended by the easily offended
Are they an ethnic group?????
No...then I guess I am still ok
Seriously....I think in many/most cases what is touted as "racism" is the thinned skinned and logically outgunned taking offense where none is meant
It is not just discussions of immigration where people go out of their way to be offended
I made a comment in another thread....If the shoe fits wear it...if not...why so testy???
So...in effect...what I am saying is that we should be able to discuss anything if act like adults
applesanity
New member
Even when none is meant, ignorance is still a possibility. You can be offended by ignorance. Worse yet is the kind of racism you can't even admit to yourself or see.
How many of you have inadvertantly shook hands with a black guy, but like the way rappers do it?
Or noted that Colin Powell is sooo "well-spoken?"
Or asked a successful minority doctor/ lawyer/ professional how it feels to be a sucessful minority in a white-dominated profession?
When I watch sports news, and the guy talks about golfing, I get the feeling that the only golfer that matters is Tiger Woods. Because he's so special.
I suppose an example - imagine if the news anchor lady is talking about a crime, and the field reporter gives a description of the suspect who fled the scene:
"He was a black male in his 20's" - totally fine, it's just a description.
"He appeared to be a young brotha from da 'hood" - ahem.
I think the worse thing of all (note, Imus) is this perceived notion of a double-standard over the N-word. There is no double standard. If you're not black, then you'll never know what it feels like to be called a n____. Don't try to understand, pity, or empathize. That's just condescending.
Illegal immigation is a huge topic, and it should be debated. Racism is a politically correct label and should not be grounds for being suspended. Please understand me I am not racist nor do I tolerate it in my presence. Yet it is a viewpoint for some and as such it may be expressed under the first amendment. If you deny a person his first amendment rights how can you insist on his second amendment rights?
If a person wants to be racist, let him. It only decreases him, not us. Race is used as a whipping boy by all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons. It is repugnant to many, but it is a viewpoint for some. And I would rather know where a person is coming from than have to guess.
Let 'em talk, It is their right. You don't have to read it, and you don't have to like it. But if you let them say it and ignore it you are increased, and they are decreased.
If a person wants to be racist, let him. It only decreases him, not us. Race is used as a whipping boy by all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons. It is repugnant to many, but it is a viewpoint for some. And I would rather know where a person is coming from than have to guess.
Let 'em talk, It is their right. You don't have to read it, and you don't have to like it. But if you let them say it and ignore it you are increased, and they are decreased.
JuanCarlos
New member
The problem is that when people spout racist/ignorant nonsense on a forum like this, it makes all gunowners look bad. Perhaps some people don't realize this, but hanging around a lot of "liberals" I've noticed one of the reasons most either support gun control or simply don't support gun rights is the impression they have that firearms enthusiasts are just a bunch of ignorant hicks anyway; the kind of people you wouldn't want to have guns.
Everybody has a right to free speech, but not in a private place/forum. Which this is. It's up to the moderators to decide of open racism/ignorance is welcome in their house. But part of the reason it probably shouldn't be is that when people act that way here they're just validating the stereotype of gunowners that makes us so hard to defend in the first place. Let them go hang out on Stormfront, I say.
Actually, if you PM a mod (at least some of them) before it permeates the entire thread (so while it's still a small enough tumor to excise) often they'll do this.
WeedWacker
New member
So being white and having a black man call me a cracker is ok. I see.
- Status