[noemon]

I’m not chastising you lol, you are entitled to your opinion My opinion is that your opinion is harsh.

My view that this policy is racist is a bit more than my opinion and I do not think I am being "mean" and "silly" for expressing it. In fact if this policy is not called out for what it is, it will only become worse and worse.

If you have skin in the game then you have my sympathies indeed.

Indeed I do, but why should it matter?

And if by populist, you mean the average Joe, then maybe it was time someone started listening to them. All the stuff happening now in the US, the UK and Europe in general was very, vvvery predictable.

I am not sure I understand you correctly, but if you intend to say that just because the politicians you elected have been arrogant and ignoring the average Joe, that does not mean it's right to take out your entire collective anger for their arrogance on the European and/or British Caribbean population or other foreign people.

[One Degree]

You repeatedly claim that conservative libertarians care more about community rights than liberals who supposedly care more about individual rights than libertarians. But your argument is simply not true, conservative libertarians care more about individual rights than classical liberals.

I have never claimed anything about conservative libertarians. I am stating the reality of how modern democracies are suppose to work and the real difference between liberals and conservatives at least in the US. I won’t claim what I don’t know but would be very surprised if this doesn’t hold true in the UK and elsewhere.

I am not arguing that the UN should overrule anyone, the UN definition of racism is the working definition that all countries in the planet have collectively agreed, the UN has not overruled them in any way, the countries of the world have made this definition. And this definition does not overrule anything, nor does it have any legal effect on anyone. Has your own unknown definition any legal effect on anyone?

My definition is from the dictionary. Neither of our definitions have any force of law, but mine actually has more claim to consensus than yours since it is based upon ‘common usage’, and not a few bureaucrats writing something down.

No dear, I am not a hypocrite and I am not altering any ideology of mine to suit my purposes like you are. I have not made any statement that local government should overrule national government or that national should overrule transnational government or vice-versa. You made the argument that local government should overrule national government, but in the example I gave you about California deciding locally what to do with immigrants, you disagree with California and insist that Trump at federal level should overrule California's local rights, meaning that your ideology is as good as single-use toilet paper whenever it is convenient to you.

This is just deflection. Your world government doesn’t exist and my citystates aren’t the norm. This means your argument of ‘human rights’ has no more validity then mine of ‘local autonomy’. If California wants to secede and do things their way, I am all for them. That is not the current reality however.

Unless that area is called California and unless she decides that they do not have any human rights.

They don’t have any rights other than what the government allows them. Your argument of human rights is based upon the fallacy the government can not take them away. This is pure delusion.

Once again conservatives are "individual-rights advocates", you seem to be calling human-rights advocates as "individual-rights" advocates which is also wrong.

I don’t care what labels you choose, it doesn’t change the two basic forces involved in modern democracy that separates liberals and conservatives.

And what balance is that? What are the balanced rights in your example?

I don’t understand what you are asking? The balance is between the community’s rights to pass laws and the individual’s rights the community grants. We try to find a balance between not abusing minorities and having a common culture. The balance of these two are determined by how ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ the people are. Another way to express it might be how centralized or decentralized they want their government to be.

You did not agree that I merely produced a definition, you explicitly said:



So drop the act. It's not good being so dishonest about your own statements.

Your reading something into it that I did not say is not an act. The fact you produced validation for your argument does not mean I accept your argument.

And you are a conservative libertarian mouthpiece that seeks to defend racist policies. Your argument is entirely based on semantics and victimisation. Why should we go with your individual definition of racism whatever that is and not with the definition that 192 countries and their elected governments have collective agreed upon? Besides ad-hom-ing the UN does not attack the definition one bit. What is wrong with the definition of racism? You haven't said. You are doing the exact thing that you whine daily of others doing to you without even bothering to address the definition itself quite unlike all these others. You are seeking to categorise it as "liberal" and dismiss it while spending numerous pages literally whining that liberals categorise you as "racist" in order to dismiss you. But noone has called you racist, we have called this UK government policy racist and have proved why that is so. It is your individual choice to defend this racist policy and assume this position without even attempting to show why that policy is not racist.

You resorting to labeling as an argument is proof you have lost the argument. I have clearly explained my position and it has nothing to do with race. The government can pass any laws it wants to whether it hurts you or not. All you have is an opinion those laws should support your view. There is nothing requiring them to do so.

[noemon]

I have never claimed anything about conservative libertarians. I am stating the reality of how modern democracies are suppose to work and the real difference between liberals and conservatives at least in the US. I won’t claim what I don’t know but would be very surprised if this doesn’t hold true in the UK and elsewhere.

The real difference between conservatives and liberals in the US is that conservatives are libertarians who argue about individual rights while liberals are willing to forgo some individual rights such as gun ownership for the bettermen of their communities, while conservatives will have none of that.

My definition is from the dictionary. Neither of our definitions have any force of law, but mine actually has more claim to consensus than yours since it is based upon ‘common usage’, and not a few bureaucrats writing something down.

192 countries in this planet can hardly be called bureaucrats, and that still remains ad-hom, you are not attacking the definition at all, nor are you saying what is it that you take issue with.

This is just deflection. Your world government doesn’t exist and my citystates aren’t the norm. This means your argument of ‘human rights’ has no more validity then mine of ‘local autonomy’. If California wants to secede and do things their way, I am all for them. That is not the current reality however.

What world government and what city-states? I have never argued for world government. This is quite ridiculous, so tell me One Degree until your ideology become reality, whose rights should take precedence, California's or Trumps according to your own ideology of course. Should California decide locally? Or should government impose her decisions on her? Similarly should other states decide locally about abortion, gun rights or should national government impose her decision on them? You are flipping on whatever side suits you on demand.

They don’t have any rights other than what the government allows them. Your argument of human rights is based upon the fallacy the government can not take them away. This is pure delusion.

Pointing out your extreme hypocrisy as above by stripping out your massive contradictions must be really painful if there are so many delusions in place.

I don’t understand what you are asking? The balance is between the community’s rights to pass laws and the individual’s rights the community grants.

What is the balance between California wanting to protect immigrants and Trump wanting to deport them? You said that California is protecting community rights on a local level while Trump is trying to argue for individual rights through central government. What is the balance between? What is your optimum outcome?

Your reading something into it that I did not say is not an act. The fact you produced validation for your argument does not mean I accept your argument.

I gave you the definition of racism as per the UN and you said verbatim:

I was not aware of this definition existing. I don’t accept it, but it does justify your claims.

Which claims does it justify? Because I only make and made one claim, that this policy is racist. You were saying one thing yesterday and another today and obviously you will say another tomorrow which makes this entire exercise with you utterly pointless.

You resorting to labeling as an argument is proof you have lost the argument.

Since you did it before I did, then you accept by default that you have indeed lost the argument, no?

This:

And you are a conservative libertarian mouthpiece that seeks to defend racist policies.

Is in direct response and quoting this:

basically nothing other than a liberal mouthpiece

I have clearly explained my position and it has nothing to do with race. The government can pass any laws it wants to whether it hurts you or not. All you have is an opinion those laws should support your view. There is nothing requiring them to do so.

The government can indeed pass racist laws as it has clearly done and it is my right to call them racist when they are discriminating against other people based on race, nationality, ethnicity and religion. There is nothing requiring me not to call these policies racist or their shameless defenders as racist, too. If you do not want me to call these policies racist, then you will have to explain why they are not so.

[One Degree]

The real difference between conservatives and liberals in the US is that conservatives are libertarians who argue about individual rights while liberals are willing to forgo some individual rights such as gun ownership for the bettermen of their communities, while conservatives will have none of that.

Arguing superficial discrepancies does not alter the basis for their differences. I can only argue from my view, not from every conceivable view a conservative or liberal may hold today. My view is in understanding the very basis instead of arguing the superficial differences.

192 countries in this planet can hardly be called bureaucrats, and that still remains ad-hom, you are not attacking the definition at all, nor are you saying what is it that you take issue with.

I have no need to attack their definition, I simply reject it as irrelevant because it has no enforcement.

What world government and what city-states? I have never argued for world government. This is quite ridiculous, so tell me One Degree until your ideology become reality, whose rights should take precedence, California's or Trumps according to your own ideology of course. Should California decide locally? Or should government impose her decisions on her? Similarly should other states decide locally about abortion, gun rights or should national government impose her decision on them? You are flipping on whatever side suits you on demand.

You are arguing based upon human rights and UN definitions. What would you call that other than arguing from a world government view?
I am not flipping at all. All decisions should be made locally that are practical to do so in our current reality. Immigration is commonly agreed as to be strictly the highest government’s domain. I have no problem with this being changed, but it is extremely unlikely without secession.

Pointing out your extreme hypocrisy as above by stripping out your massive contradictions must be really painful if there are so many delusions in place.

Since there was no hypocrisy, there was no pain or delusions. Finding out I was guilty of either however would not be painful or surprising for me.

What is the balance between California wanting to protect immigrants and Trump wanting to deport them? You said that California is protecting community rights on a local level while Trump is trying to argue for individual rights through central government. What is the balance between? What is your optimum outcome?

See my above comment on immigration.

I gave you the definition of racism as per the UN and you said verbatim:



Which claims does it justify? Because I only make and made one claim, that this policy is racist. You were saying one thing yesterday and another today and obviously you will say another tomorrow which makes this entire exercise with you utterly pointless.

Your claim the policy is racist based upon an irrelevant UN definition is still just an opinion. The U.K. does not need abide by the definition or your opinion.

Since you did it before I did, then you accept by default that you have indeed lost the argument, no?

This:

Going back to claim who said what first is a meaningless game.

The government can indeed pass racist laws as it has clearly done and it is my right to call them racist when they are discriminating against other people based on race, nationality, ethnicity and religion. There is nothing requiring me not to call these policies racist or their shameless defenders as racist, too. If you do not want me to call these policies racist, then you will have to explain why they are not so.

Simple. You only call them racist and your opponents racist to give artificial authority to your arguments. If you had strong arguments, you would have no need to label people with vile accusations. You have no valid argument other than your opinion, so you bolster it by dehumanizing.

[noemon]

Arguing superficial discrepancies does not alter the basis for their differences. I can only argue from my view, not from every conceivable view a conservative or liberal may hold today. My view is in understanding the very basis instead of arguing the superficial differences.

Aside from your view being false according to everything we know about American conservatives and liberals, you claim that American liberals care more about individual rights than conservatives when we know for a fact that it's false, it's also inconsistent and swinging. When it suits you, it's this way, when it doesn't it's the other way.

I have no need to attack their definition, I simply reject it as irrelevant because it has no enforcement.

a) The definition of racism is not irrelevant to our argument.
b) Dismissing the definition of racism is something that only racists would do so that they can get away with racism.
c) Forum Rule 3 is a copy/paste from the UN definition and is in full force and effect in this forum.

You are arguing based upon human rights and UN definitions. What would you call that other than arguing from a world government view?

Taking the agreed upon definition that the countries of the world use to define racism, does not mean that I am arguing for world government.

I am not flipping at all. All decisions should be made locally that are practical to do so in our current reality. Immigration is commonly agreed as to be strictly the highest government’s domain. I have no problem with this being changed, but it is extremely unlikely without secession.

Of course you are flipping as Heisenberg and myself have already showed beyond any doubt, you only use "community rights" as a mask to excuse whatever is convenient to you at any given moment. You want local government but not in the case of California, you want more community rights but not at the expense of gun rights, you want community rights but not for Black people, Mexicans, gays or transgenders.

Heisenberg's post which you ignored is quite illuminating:

My objection to your standard spiel about "community rights" and "individual rights" is that you invariably appeal to whichever one allows you to justify something transparently awful.

If we're talking about Charlottesville, the individual rights of the out-of-town neo-Nazis apparently trump the rights of the local "community" to lodge a counterprotest.

But when we're talking about a police officer manhandling a nurse for refusing to take a blood sample without a warrant, then the "right" of the "community" to carry out arbitrary and illegal seaches trump her right to be left unmolested by the state when she is innocent of any wrongdoing.

Similarly, you'll appeal to "community rights" to defend the harassment of a gay or black person in a town full of bigots, but call for us to respect "individual rights" when a business in that community refuses to serve said gay or black person.

All we want is a little consistency.

See my above comment on immigration.

Your comment does not answer the question, I repeat for you:

You said that California is protecting community rights on a local level while Trump is trying to argue for individual rights through central government. What is the balance between? What is your optimum outcome?

Your claim the policy is racist based upon an irrelevant UN definition is still just an opinion. The U.K. does not need abide by the definition or your opinion.

Why should I abide by your imaginary definition of racism? You are taking issue with me trying to tell me the words I am using are wrong, you are also telling me that you do not have to tell me why the word is wrong, you can just dismiss it because....it has no enforcement when in fact it does, but even if it didn't it would still be irrelevant.

Going back to claim who said what first is a meaningless game.

Not meaningless for you apparently.

Simple. You only call them racist and your opponents racist to give artificial authority to your arguments. If you had strong arguments, you would have no need to label people with vile accusations. You have no valid argument other than your opinion, so you bolster it by dehumanizing.

The Windrush scandal in the UK is not an artificial argument. It is a despicable thing born out of a racist policy titled Hostile Environment. You have never addressed why that is not the case because you have no argument at all. The only position you assume is that you are the victim because you are defending such scandals without even producing any argument to that effect. You have spent much energy merely asserting that this policy is not racist and nothing else. Aside from your highly questionable opinion for all these obvious reasons, is there anything else, anything more? And to make matters worse, I did not speak to you or about you. I was talking about this racist policy and you came along to tell me that it's not racist because if it was that would mean that you too are racist and that simply cannot be. But you are the only person talking about yourself and others and trying very hard from early on to make this personal(us vs them, liberals vs conservatives, anti-racists vs pro-racists) while totally ignoring the actual matter at hand in the process:

You have not said a word about why this policy is not racist, nay instead you have explicitly agreed that it is in fact racist, yet here you are trying to defend it, change your words and swing around with no compass or purpose. You have not said a word about why you think the definition of racism is wrong. Nada, your only argument is that you are the victim of this affair and as a victim you require special treatment which is yet to be determined. What is it that you are hoping to achieve exactly aside from receiving some psychological satisfaction from posing as the victim? I was under the impression that people of the opposite gender would assume outrageous positions to get the negative attention because any kind of attention is good.

[ness31]

My view that this policy is racist is a bit more than my opinion and I do not think I am being "mean" and "silly" for expressing it. In fact if this policy is not called out for what it is, it will only become worse and worse.

Ok.

Indeed I do, but why should it matter?

It’s a social norm to empathize. I see my empathy is misplaced.

I am not sure I understand you correctly, but if you intend to say that just because the politicians you elected have been arrogant and ignoring the average Joe, that does not mean it's right to take out your entire collective anger for their arrogance on the European and/or British Caribbean population or other foreign people.

That is not what I said. But a dispassionate conversation isn’t going to eventuate here.

Good luck Noemon

[One Degree]

Aside from your view being false according to everything we know about American conservatives and liberals, you claim that American liberals care more about individual rights than conservatives when we know for a fact that it's false, it's also inconsistent and swinging. When it suits you, it's this way, when it doesn't it's the other way.

You mean everything you know which is not the same thing as what everyone knows. Liberals inability or refusal to understand conservatives is so you can decide who they are. In the past I have made repeated references and sourced the book written by the liberal politician who decided to find out what conservatives really thought. His research is part of the basis for my description.

a) The definition of racism is not irrelevant to our argument.
b) Dismissing the definition of racism is something that only racists would do so that they can get away with racism.
c) Forum Rule 3 is a copy/paste from the UN definition and is in full force and effect in this forum.

It may not be irrelevant in your view, but it is in mine because my arguments have nothing to do with race. The forum rules are not the basis for my world view. Deciding my views are something they are not is not proof of anything.

Taking the agreed upon definition that the countries of the world use to define racism, does not mean that I am arguing for world government.

Then why do you give it final authority? I don’t.

Of course you are flipping as Heisenberg and myself have already showed beyond any doubt, you only use "community rights" as a mask to excuse whatever is convenient to you at any given moment. You want local government but not in the case of California, you want more community rights but not at the expense of gun rights, you want community rights but not for Black people, Mexicans, gays or transgenders.

You are giving me positions you assumed rather than my actual positions. I have never denied community rights for anyone other than when arguing the current reality. Your argument I am inconsistent is ridiculous. It is based upon my view not being the current reality. I can hold more than one view. I am not a blind ideologue.

Heisenberg's post which you ignored is quite illuminating:

I didn’t ignore it. I never saw it. It is the same as yours. Giving me positions I never argued instead of trying to understand what my arguments really are. This is why none of you can back up your accusations with actual posts of mine. I have never taken a position based upon race.

Your comment does not answer the question, I repeat for you:

You said that California is protecting community rights on a local level while Trump is trying to argue for individual rights through central government. What is the balance between? What is your optimum outcome?

I don’t recall making any such statements but I assume you are back to mixing reality with philosophy to try to invent an argument where none exists. My positions are based upon who the autonomous government is. You also are trying to give me positions I do not hold. Your positions are based upon your opinions of right and wrong. My position is based upon the autonomous community can decide anything they want and not on my views of right and wrong other than I believe decentralization is the right way to go. Your confusion about my positions is due to you not understanding I am usually not arguing from a personal view of right and wrong. This is why you don’t think I am answering your question. You expect me to make moral decisions when that is not the basis of my position.

Why should I abide by your imaginary definition of racism? You are taking issue with me trying to tell me the words I am using are wrong, you are also telling me that you do not have to tell me why the word is word you can just dismiss it because....it has no enforcement when in fact it does, but even if it didn't it would still be irrelevant.

No, I said it’s irrelevant because race is not the issue. You just want it to be.

:

lol: Not meaningless for you apparently.



The Windrush scandal in the UK is not an artificial argument. It is a despicable thing born out of a racist policy titled Hostile Environment. You have never addressed why that is not the case because you have no argument at all. The only position you assume is that you are the victim because you are defending such scandals without even producing any argument to that effect. You have spent much energy merely asserting that this policy is not racist and nothing else. Aside from your highly questionable opinion for all these obvious reasons, is there anything else, anything more? And to make matters worse, I did not speak to you or about you. I was talking about this racist policy and you came along to tell me that it's not racist because if it was that would mean that you too are racist and that simply cannot be. But you are the only person talking about yourself and others and trying very hard from early on to make this personal(us vs them, liberals vs conservatives, anti-racists vs pro-racists) while totally ignoring the actual matter at hand in the process:

My arguments have nothing to do with race. Your insistence they do does not make it fact. I have repeatedly explained my views on this were based upon community rights versus individual rights. I see no validity in making it about race. Race has no bearing on my argument. It does not depend upon whether the policy is racist or not, though I don’t see it as so. As you agreed, they can pass racist laws if they want. Race is not the issue.

You have not said a word about why this policy is not racist, nay instead you have explicitly agreed that it is in fact racist, yet here you are trying to defend it, change your words and swing around with no compass or purpose. You have not said a word about why you think the definition of racism is wrong. Nada, your only argument is that you are the victim of this affair and as a victim you require special treatment which is yet to be determined. What is it that you are hoping to achieve exactly aside from receiving some psychological satisfaction from posing as the victim? I was under the impression that people of the opposite gender would assume outrageous positions to get the negative attention because any kind of attention is good.

It doesn’t matter if it is or not, but I have explained it is not racist because it is directed at illegals of all races. Race is not the issue on whether or not this policy is valid. You are simply arguing laws must be designed to match your moral opinion. They don’t.

@noemon , most people think in terms of what is morally right or wrong. I believe this is the basis of conflict and authoritarianism. My arguments are based upon allowing different people to be left alone to decide their own views of right and wrong. This results in others assuming I hold moral positions I don’t. I am not thinking in those terms. I am not debating on my view of morality.

[noemon]

It’s a social norm to empathize. I see my empathy is misplaced.

The question "why should it matter" if I am personally affected, translates to "what about the victims of this racist policy"?

Indeed what about them, ness31? Aside from your empathy, will you outright condemn this policy? Or this is asking too much of you?

That is not what I said. But a dispassionate conversation isn’t going to eventuate here.

You are more than welcome to tell me what you want to say instead of being cryptic and unwilling to conversate.

You mean everything you know which is not the same thing as what everyone knows. Liberals inability or refusal to understand conservatives is so you can decide who they are. In the past I have made repeated references and sourced the book written by the liberal politician who decided to find out what conservatives really thought. His research is part of the basis for my description.

You are not saying anything, just wasting my time again. I have posted evidence that conservatives care more about individual rights than liberals using your own source. If you want to argue otherwise post evidence to that effect.

It may not be irrelevant in your view, but it is in mine because my arguments have nothing to do with race.

Which arguments? Show me an argument that you have expressed on the topic that has nothing to do with race.

Then why do you give it final authority? I don’t.

I am not giving authority to anyone. Why are you pretending that I am?

You are giving me positions you assumed rather than my actual positions. I have never denied community rights for anyone other than when arguing the current reality. Your argument I am inconsistent is ridiculous. It is based upon my view not being the current reality. I can hold more than one view. I am not a blind ideologue.

How do we do that? explain because merely asserting something is not the same as addressing it. We have given you our arguments, simply screaming that "it ain't so" does not change anything. Explain why we are wrong.

I don’t recall making any such statements but I assume you are back to mixing reality with philosophy to try to invent an argument where none exists. My positions are based upon who the autonomous government is. You also are trying to give me positions I do not hold. Your positions are based upon your opinions of right and wrong. My position is based upon the autonomous community can decide anything they want and not on my views of right and wrong other than I believe decentralization is the right way to go. Your confusion about my positions is due to you not understanding I am usually not arguing from a personal view of right and wrong. This is why you don’t think I am answering your question. You expect me to make moral decisions when that is not the basis of my position.

Who is the autonomous government and how does any of this apply as to whether this racist policy is actually racist?

You said there must be balance between what you term "individual rights" vs "community rights". What is it that you are talking about, will you ever explain I wonder? Give a real world example and then give an example of such an optimum balance. I am trying to figure out what you are talking about and instead of trying to explain to me, you are trying to tell me why my mind cannot grasp your "wisdom". Get a grip and speak like a normal person to another.

My arguments have nothing to do with race. Your insistence they do does not make it fact. I have repeatedly explained my views on this were based upon community rights versus individual rights. I see no validity in making it about race. Race has no bearing on my argument. It does not depend upon whether the policy is racist or not, though I don’t see it as so. As you agreed, they can pass racist laws if they want. Race is not the issue.

Which arguments have you made and what is this argument about community rights vs individual rights in the case of the Windrush scandal, the only thing you have done is scream how you dismiss the definition of racism. You have not made any other argument.

It doesn’t matter if it is or not, but I have explained it is not racist because it is directed at illegals of all races

Nope you have never made such an argument, this is the first time you do.
The policy is evidently racist even by your definition because it is directed at legal people of another race such as the Windrush victims.

@noemon , most people think in terms of what is morally right or wrong. I believe this is the basis of conflict and authoritarianism. My arguments are based upon allowing different people to be left alone to decide their own views of right and wrong. This results in others assuming I hold moral positions I don’t. I am not thinking in those terms. I am not debating on my view of morality.

I don't think you can ever be honest about either yourself or your intentions or your arguments which is very disappointing.

[One Degree]

@noemon , I don’t know how I can explain it any clearer than simply repeating myself.
Civilization is based upon groups of people getting together and deciding what is allowed and what isn’t. They then decided they needed to also have some protection for those with a minority opinion. Finding a balance between common laws to protect a common culture and also protecting individuals with a minority opinion is always in conflict because they protect opposites. Each autonomous community must find their own balance between these. My view of what that balance should be is a moral opinion and irrelevant if you accept not everyone has to find the same balance.
When you argue a law is unfair because it is racist in your opinion, then you are just arguing for what you think the balance should be. Insisting others must agree with your opinion of the balance is not a factual argument, but a moral argument based on your opinion. You are attempting to deny others the right to decide the balance differently based upon their moral opinion.
You have the opinion illegals should be removed and you have the opinion it is not fair to individuals to do this. This is the community’s right to decide versus the rights of the minority. I do not see this as a moral question for me, but simply a decision the autonomous community needs to make. I am not arguing people should be harmed, I am arguing someone will be harmed no matter what you decide. Not everyone can get what they want.
You interpret my positions as being in opposition to yours when actually we are talking about entirely different things. I am not taking a moral position.

[noemon]

When you argue a law is unfair because it is racist in your opinion, then you are just arguing for what you think the balance should be.

No I am not, when I am telling you what I am wearing is black and you sample the colour and you prove that the colour is indeed black, that becomes a fact and is no longer about whether we should rename "black" to grey.

When I am saying that the Hostile Environment policy is racist, I am not making any moral argument on whether racist policies should or should not exist. I am stating that based on the definition of racism, this policy is racist. Full Stop, no morality entailed into this statement of fact. For some people making racist laws is moral for others it isn't, that's another matter alltogether.

Insisting others must agree with your opinion of the balance is not a factual argument, but a moral argument based on your opinion. You are attempting to deny others the right to decide the balance differently based upon their moral opinion.

I am not insisting that you must agree with me whether this racist policy is good for the country or not. That is your prerogative, but I am pointing out the fact that you have already agreed with me that according to the definition provided this policy is racist, indeed. I don't know what can or should be said about you telling me one thing one day and another the next.

You have the opinion illegals should be removed and you have the opinion it is not fair to individuals to do this. This is the community’s right to decide versus the rights of the minority. I do not see this as a moral question for me, but simply a decision the autonomous community needs to make. I am not arguing people should be harmed, I am arguing someone will be harmed no matter what you decide. Not everyone can get what they want.

I am not following you here at all, so I will not even attempt an interpretation because if I do you will then call my interpretation wrong anyway, so make yourself clear.

You interpret my positions as being in opposition to yours when actually we are talking about entirely different things. I am not taking a moral position.

I interpret your statements as they are and as they come.

[One Degree]

No I am not, when I am telling you what I am wearing is black and you sample the colour and you prove that the colour is indeed black, that becomes a fact and is no longer about whether we should rename "black" to grey.

When I am saying that the Hostile Environment policy is racist, I am not making any moral argument on whether racist policies should or should not exist. I am stating that based on the definition of racism, this policy is racist. Full Stop, no morality entailed into this statement of fact. For some people making racist laws is moral for others it isn't, that's another matter alltogether.

The morality is inherent in the definition you choose to accept. If you accept a definition things are racist that have nothing to do with race then that is just an attempt to obfuscate your opinion.
I do not accept this definition because it deliberately is designed to legitimize a political view. This does not make it a fact. This makes it political propaganda. Racism is a belief in racial superiority.

I am not insisting that you must agree with me whether this racist policy is good for the country or not. That is your prerogative, but I am pointing out the fact that you have already agreed with me that according to the definition provided this policy is racist, indeed. I don't know what can or should be said about you telling me one thing one day and another the next.

I have repeatedly shown this is not true. Simply ignoring my arguments is not proof of yours.

I am not following you here at all, so I will not even attempt an interpretation because if I do you will then call my interpretation wrong anyway, so make yourself clear.

Your not following me here is the crux of you labeling me incorrectly. You don’t understand my arguments are not based upon a moral position, so you assign me one. You then argue against this assigned position instead of my actual position. This is apparently the result of only seeing the world through an ‘individual rights’ perspective. When you restrict your view, like many have today, you destroy ‘community culture’ by not considering it. This is out of balance. The other extreme is to ignore ‘individual rights’ and you become authoritarian with no room for dissent. If you can’t recognize the importance of balancing these two, then you are headed for disaster.
There is really no need for us to even try to debate if you can’t understand what I am describing.

I interpret your statements as they are and as they come.

I disagree. As explained you assign me a position because you don’t understand my position. You admitted to this above.

[noemon]

The morality is inherent in the definition you choose to accept. If you accept a definition things are racist that have nothing to do with race then that is just an attempt to obfuscate your opinion.

So, it is not inherent when you are arguing that this policy is not racist as you are currently doing, but it is inherent only when I am saying that this policy is racist. You are not taking a moral position arguing against it, but I am taking a moral position calling it as it is. Right, as everything else your arguments seem to apply only against those you are arguing, and not to yourself, nor to the crazy guy that rammed over the people in Charlotevilles, nor to the nurse that was manhandled by the police-officer.

I do not accept this definition because it deliberately is designed to legitimize a political view. This does not make it a fact. This makes it political propaganda. Racism is a belief in racial superiority.

First, explain how the UN definition disagrees or contradicts with your own vague definition, that is your argument after all.
Second, explain to me how the lives of British Caribbean's affected by this policy are not inferior because of their race.

I have repeatedly shown this is not true. Simply ignoring my arguments is not proof of yours.

You have not shown anything, you merely assert something. It is impossible though to discuss with someone that does not stand by what he said yesterday. I have already quoted what you said and this is a reminder:

I was not aware of this definition existing. I don’t accept it, but it does justify your claims.

Which claims does it justify? because I did not claim anywhere that such a definition exists, I claimed that this policy is racist. Eh?

Your not following me here is the crux of you labeling me incorrectly. You don’t understand my arguments are not based upon a moral position, so you assign me one. You then argue against this assigned position instead of my actual position. This is apparently the result of only seeing the world through an ‘individual rights’ perspective. When you restrict your view, like many have today, you destroy ‘community culture’ by not considering it. This is out of balance. The other extreme is to ignore ‘individual rights’ and you become authoritarian with no room for dissent. If you can’t recognize the importance of balancing these two, then you are headed for disaster.
There is really no need for us to even try to debate if you can’t understand what I am describing. As explained you assign me a position because you don’t understand my position. You admitted to this above.

You speak some incoherent nonsense, I ask you to clarify because I do not want to interpret anything and be accused of misrepresenting you. I ask you kindly to clarify what it is you mean and instead of being a gentleman and clarifying your position, you are again accusing me of misunderstanding, and misrepresenting you and even admitting of doing so as well.

So I am not allowed to ask you what your position is, I am not allowed to interpret it either because you will claim I am misinterpreting you, so what are my options here? to lie to you that I understand you and that you are correct in everything?
Will that make you feel any better? but more importantly will that make you actually right? The first possibly, but the second definitely not.

[Drlee]

You mean everything you know which is not the same thing as what everyone knows. Liberals inability or refusal to understand conservatives is so you can decide who they are. In the past I have made repeated references and sourced the book written by the liberal politician who decided to find out what conservatives really thought. His research is part of the basis for my description.

This argument is weak for three reasons.

The first is that the term "liberal" has become virtually meaningless. I give as evidence Barak Obama. He is about as far from classic liberal as can be. Or Hillary Clinton. In the Nixon era she would be thought of as an arch conservative.

Since you do not know what a liberal really is, your arguments are failing miserably.

Which is this? Classic Liberal or Classic conservative?

... the term used to designate the ideology advocating private property, an unhampered market economy, the rule of law, constitutional guarantees of freedom of religion and of the press, and international peace based on free trade.

Then you mistakenly juxtaposition liberals and conservatives as if all Americans fit one of the two categories. If you knew what they were you would still be wrong. Why? Because in America the overwhelming majority of people are neither. They defy stereotype. Witness the election of Trump, arguably the least demonstrably religious person every to be president, by white evangelicals. Or the vote for Barak Obama by people who would describe themselves as "conservative".

Finally. For me your argument fails most profoundly not because you do not know what a liberal is but because you do not know what a conservative is.

But there is a recurring theme which you keep taking up. (As @Neoman points out.) That is the issue of your so-called "local community". Whenever you argue for it (and you usually just proclaim it rather than argue for it) the leading feature you present is one of exclusivity. You believe that people should be allowed pretty much anything as long as the majority agree that they want it. This notion is at the very heart of racism. That is precisely how the whole mess started. Even after slavery was pounded down at the cost of half a million American lives it continued. And on what basis did it continue? The right of groups of people to exclude other groups of people. Evidence. Jim Crow laws and separate but equal. There appears to be absolutely no difference between the prerogatives you grant to your small states and those claimed by the individual states in the Jim Crow south. You simply can't, or more likely won't, see it.

One Degree wrote:
The morality is inherent in the definition you choose to accept. If you accept a definition things are racist that have nothing to do with race then that is just an attempt to obfuscate your opinion.

Won't fly. Far too shallow. Ideas, actions or laws that facilitate racism are racist. For example. One thing that sends me up a wall is the notion that a business might "reserve the right to deny service to anyone". So is that racist? On the face of it, no. In practice yes. Suppose your small state passed a law that said, "any business may refuse to provide service to anyone". Would that law be racist? You might argue no because race was not mentioned. It could be anything that triggers the owner to exercise his "right" against anyone. I say yes because it codifies the right of every business to act in a racist manner. Fortunately most of the world agrees with me.

You don’t understand my arguments are not based upon a moral position, so you assign me one.

Gibberish. Just proclaiming that you are not arguing from a "moral position" does not mean that you are not making moral judgments. Gibberish because it is an absurd thing to say.

[One Degree]

So, it is not inherent when you are arguing that this policy is not racist as you are currently doing, but it is inherent only when I am saying that this policy is racist. You are not taking a moral position arguing against it, but I am taking a moral position calling it as it is. Right, as everything else your arguments seem to apply only against those you are arguing, and not to yourself, nor to the crazy guy that rammed over the people in Charlotevilles, nor to the nurse that was manhandled by the police-officer.

We read Animal Farm and believe we understand what is meant by changing the writing on the barn wall, but we fail to recognize it in real life. Why was it necessary to invent a new definition for racism? They literally rewrote the definition to match a political view. This does two things, it institutionalized the political view and it greatly increased the number of people who could be accused of racism. This allows for labeling and ostracizing opposing political views. You are literally being duped into authoritarianism by propaganda on a level a child can understand it in book form.
Your arguments are also still strictly based upon rights of individuals which is why your two examples are irrelevant.

First, explain how the UN definition disagrees or contradicts with your own vague definition, that is your argument after all.

I explained above, but it seems pretty simple. Racism was defined as a specific type of bigotry requiring a belief in racial superiority. That doesn’t allow for many people to be ostracized so it was expanded to include more people who could be labeled and silenced.

Second, explain to me how the lives of British Caribbean's affected by this policy are not inferior because of their race.

Individual rights argument so irrelevant. However, they aren’t the only ones targeted so it is not directed at them specifically.

You have not shown anything, you merely assert something. It is impossible though to discuss with someone that does not stand by what he said yesterday. I have already quoted what you said and this is a reminder:

What do you hope to gain by asking me to repost the same refutation over and over? I gave a full explanation of why this accusation is not correct. Is there something specific in my explanation you did not understand?

Which claims does it justify because I did not claim anywhere that such a definition exists, I claimed that this policy is racist. Eh?

And we both agreed that was irrelevant, so why do you keep bringing it up? Again, you are trying to apply a moral position to me instead of addressing my actual arguments. You are insisting in every part of your post that this must be discussed as a moral issue of racism. It is not and I am not discussing it as such, only you are.

You speak some incoherent nonsense, I ask you to clarify because I do not want to interpret anything and be accused of misrepresenting you. I ask you kindly to clarify what it is you mean and instead of being a gentleman and clarifying your position, you are again accusing me of misunderstanding, and misrepresenting you and even admitting of doing so as well. :?:

So I am not allowed to ask you what your position is, I am not allowed to interpret it either because you will claim I am misinterpreting you, so what are my options here? to lie to you that I understand you and that you are correct in everything?
Will that make you feel any better? but more importantly will that make you actually right? The first possibly, but the second definitely not.

I am sorry you believe I was trying to be offensive or refusing to elaborate. I was not. I am fully aware of my inability to explain in a vocabulary that will help you understand. I would elaborate if I could think of a better way to explain it to you. The problem is it is crystal clear to me and simple to understand. You might consider though that not all the communication problem is due to me. You are relatively young and therefore well indoctrinated into only seeing things from the individual rights view, as your posts demonstrate by only dwelling on that aspect. This view is institutionalized today resulting in the minority view always seen as the correct view. This is wrong as I have tried to point out. It is only half of a civilized society, but you have been taught it should dominate. There is no valid reason for this and it is actually destructive when you lose sight of the other half. Individual rights must be denied sometimes to maintain a peaceful culture. You can’t decide everything on how fair it is to a few individuals.
I am not arguing the ‘right or wrong’ done to an individual. I am arguing why this is sometimes necessary and desirable.
That is the best I can explain it. If someone understands what I am saying and can explain it differently, then I would appreciate you doing so.

[One Degree]

This argument is weak for three reasons.

The first is that the term "liberal" has become virtually meaningless. I give as evidence Barak Obama. He is about as far from classic liberal as can be. Or Hillary Clinton. In the Nixon era she would be thought of as an arch conservative.

Since you do not know what a liberal really is, your arguments are failing miserably.

Which is this? Classic Liberal or Classic conservative?



Then you mistakenly juxtaposition liberals and conservatives as if all Americans fit one of the two categories. If you knew what they were you would still be wrong. Why? Because in America the overwhelming majority of people are neither. They defy stereotype. Witness the election of Trump, arguably the least demonstrably religious person every to be president, by white evangelicals. Or the vote for Barak Obama by people who would describe themselves as "conservative".

Finally. For me your argument fails most profoundly not because you do not know what a liberal is but because you do not know what a conservative is.

But there is a recurring theme which you keep taking up. (As @Neoman points out.) That is the issue of your so-called "local community". Whenever you argue for it (and you usually just proclaim it rather than argue for it) the leading feature you present is one of exclusivity. You believe that people should be allowed pretty much anything as long as the majority agree that they want it. This notion is at the very heart of racism. That is precisely how the whole mess started. Even after slavery was pounded down at the cost of half a million American lives it continued. And on what basis did it continue? The right of groups of people to exclude other groups of people. Evidence. Jim Crow laws and separate but equal. There appears to be absolutely no difference between the prerogatives you grant to your small states and those claimed by the individual states in the Jim Crow south. You simply can't, or more likely won't, see it.



Won't fly. Far too shallow. Ideas, actions or laws that facilitate racism are racist. For example. One thing that sends me up a wall is the notion that a business might "reserve the right to deny service to anyone". So is that racist? On the face of it, no. In practice yes. Suppose your small state passed a law that said, "any business may refuse to provide service to anyone". Would that law be racist? You might argue no because race was not mentioned. It could be anything that triggers the owner to exercise his "right" against anyone. I say yes because it codifies the right of every business to act in a racist manner. Fortunately most of the world agrees with me.



Gibberish. Just proclaiming that you are not arguing from a "moral position" does not mean that you are not making moral judgments. Gibberish because it is an absurd thing to say.

Please note I usually take the time to write Liberals and Conservatives in quotes. You can’t argue a term is meaningless and then argue your definitions. Yes, they are meaningless but are the best we have for applying to generalized groups. The rest of you arguments are irrelevant as you are simply claiming all decisions must be based upon whether you consider them racist or not. That is egocentric idiocy.

[Drlee]

Please note I usually take the time to write Liberals and Conservatives in quotes. You can’t argue a term is meaningless and then argue your definitions. Yes, they are meaningless but are the best we have for applying to generalized groups. The rest of you arguments are irrelevant as you are simply claiming all decisions must be based upon whether you consider them racist or not. That is egocentric idiocy.

You now. I think this stuff is just too advanced for you. You are arguing points you do not understand and then when someone explains them you simply ignore the definitions and proclaim them "your idea".

Further. Do you understand that where you are making your mistake is in trying to lump "all__________" into one label? You have accused me of being a liberal in the past and I am more conservative than you are. You have listened to Fox News and Rush Limbaugh to the point that you do not use the term "liberal" as a definition of a political compass but rather as a tribal name for anyone whose opinion of the day disagrees with you.

I asked you to identify a specific set of views and you refuse. Why? Because you fear a trap?

The rest of you arguments are irrelevant as you are simply claiming all decisions must be based upon whether you consider them racist or not. That is egocentric idiocy.

Idiotic.

First. Show me where my definition of racism varies one iota from the textbook definition. Show me. You can't yet you spout idiotic shit like this. Just dismiss the evidence because it does not fit your world view. Good for you though. Trump counts on people just like you.

[noemon]

We read Animal Farm and believe we understand what is meant by changing the writing on the barn wall, but we fail to recognize it in real life. Why was it necessary to invent a new definition for racism? They literally rewrote the definition to match a political view.

First of all, why are you still ranting against a definition when you have provided your own and even by your own definition the policy still remains racist:

You claimed:

It doesn’t matter if it is or not, but I have explained it is not racist because it is directed at illegals of all races

And I responded:

The policy is evidently racist even by your definition because it is directed at legal people of another race such as the Windrush victims.

This does two things, it institutionalized the political view and it greatly increased the number of people who could be accused of racism. This allows for labeling and ostracizing opposing political views.

So your issue is that aside from race, it also includes ethnicity and religion right? Poor you, first they took away from you the privilege of arguing against the human rights of Black people, now they have taken away from you the privilege to be arguing against the human rights of Jews, Greeks and Italians. What's next, right? What is this world coming to One Degree? More people you cannot be openly bigoted against....

I explained above, but it seems pretty simple. Racism was defined as a specific type of bigotry requiring a belief in racial superiority.

For the victims of racism, the excuse of the oppressor is totally irrelevant, a victim is never defined by the beliefs of the oppressor. Otherwise murderers would get to argue that in their own mind they are cleansing society or doing community service and hence "no murder" at all. A racist might believe that he is doing God's work or economic work or like in your case you might believe that you are doing a 'community service' as you keep arguing, but for the Black British Carribbean's who are being deported from their country, cut off from their families and denied their own home, your excuse for denying them their legal rights as people is totally irrelevant.

You:

"Hey guys I voted, supported and argued for the removal of your rights to live in this country but not because I think you are inferior, I just don't like you you know perhaps you are even superior to me even so that dont make me racist, hope you don't call me racist, cause you are ostracising* me guys and that's not cool at all, my feelings are hurt and my community rights challenged, we need to have balance between my community rights and your personal rights and the balance means that you don't get to have any rights to live near me cause my community of bigots(I repeat not racists but bigots, yeah, Bigots) decided so".

*ostracising is someone being forcefully removed from their community, which is exactly what you want for these people. You want them removed, yet you are literally whining that you are being ostracised when expressing these views. The irony does not even bother you which makes this whole exercise totally shameless.

People who argue that foreign people of other races, religions, and ethnicities should not have the same rights as them, are most usually motivated by the belief that these other people do not deserve equal rights as themselves because they are inferior but that is not necessary.

That doesn’t allow for many people to be ostracized so it was expanded to include more people who could be labeled and silenced.

It's funny that you are arguing that people should be ostracised such as the case of the Black Caribbean people in the UK, just because you feel like it. Because other people get ostracised too by the same policy and not just Black Carribeans that makes it all good, the others being all non-English of course.

Individual rights argument so irrelevant.

What do you mean that individual rights are irrelevant for British Black Caribbean people?

What do you hope to gain by asking me to repost the same refutation over and over? I gave a full explanation of why this accusation is not correct. Is there something specific in my explanation you did not understand?

Below you claim that you never refuted anything but you instead agreed with me that its irrelevant.

And we both agreed that was irrelevant, so why do you keep bringing it up? Again, you are trying to apply a moral position to me instead of addressing my actual arguments. You are insisting in every part of your post that this must be discussed as a moral issue of racism. It is not and I am not discussing it as such, only you are.

It is not at all irrelevant because you keep denying that you agreed with me. If you agree with me and then go around pretending that you did not and even telling me into my face that you did not when you did, that means you are totally incapable of carrying a conversation because one minute you will say one thing and another minute another.

I will be asking you until you are honest. Did you or did you not agree with the fact that this policy is racist?

Your "refutation" that you allegedly only agreed with me that this definition exists is false because I never made any such claim.

So when you write:

I was not aware of this definition existing. I don’t accept it, but it does justify your claims.

Which claims does it justify? Speak and explain your own words. Because clearly however one reads your statements, you always end up denying you meant it, making this totally futile.

I am sorry you believe I was trying to be offensive or refusing to elaborate. I was not. I am fully aware of my inability to explain in a vocabulary that will help you understand. I would elaborate if I could think of a better way to explain it to you. The problem is it is crystal clear to me and simple to understand. You might consider though that not all the communication problem is due to me. You are relatively young and therefore well indoctrinated into only seeing things from the individual rights view, as your posts demonstrate by only dwelling on that aspect.

Once again instead of trying to explain your own position in simple terms with a real life example, you are attacking me instead. What can I say really?

This view is institutionalized today resulting in the minority view always seen as the correct view. This is wrong as I have tried to point out. It is only half of a civilized society, but you have been taught it should dominate. There is no valid reason for this and it is actually destructive when you lose sight of the other half.

Which minority view is the correct view? What have I been taught should dominate?

Individual rights must be denied sometimes to maintain a peaceful culture. You can’t decide everything on how fair it is to a few individuals. I am not arguing the ‘right or wrong’ done to an individual. I am arguing why this is sometimes necessary and desirable.

The individual rights of the British Black Caribbean community should be denied? Why? Why is it desirable in general and why is it desirable to you?

[One Degree]

@noemon , you ask me to elaborate on my position and then you claim I am attacking you? Pointing out why you may not be getting what I am saying is not an attack.
I am not bothering replying point by point because you still insist upon assigning me the position of wanting people discriminated against when I have taken no such position. You are imagining it, so you can continue to make it about racists versus non racists.
Repeating my position, this is a conflict between the government (community rights) wanting to force people to self deport and ‘individual rights’ advocates saying this is unfair. This is not a decision of right versus wrong or racism, but a conflict between two rights that are essential for modern democracy.
I don’t care which way they decide. You just insist I do. My argument is pointing out this is not the one sided moral issue you insist on making it.
There is nothing wrong about the U.K. wanting to deport illegals and there is nothing wrong with you thinking they shouldn’t. There is something very wrong when people can no longer see it for what it really is and use racism to batter opponents with, as if racism is the determinate of all right and wrong based upon a political definition of racism. This is the tactic of authoritarian propagandist carried out by indoctrinated disciples.
Decisions are not all decided based upon someone’s definition of racism. That is the thinking of ideologues, not objective reasoning. People have a right to maintain their culture anyway they want. You are trying to place an overriding caveat on this and people are now rebelling against it because it is not rational or practical.

[noemon]

@noemon , you ask me to elaborate on my position and then you claim I am attacking you? Pointing out why you may not be getting what I am saying is not an attack.

I am asking to explain your position and instead of explaining it you are telling me "I am too young to get it".

I am not bothering replying point by point because you still insist upon assigning me the position of wanting people discriminated against when I have taken no such position. You are imagining it, so you can continue to make it about racists versus non racists.

So what is your position? Speak it. What should happen to these British Carribbean people in your opinion because you have been given evidence of their racist mistreatment and the one and only thing you have said is that "racist" should not be used to describe their experience.

Repeating my position, this is a conflict between the government (community rights) wanting to force people to self deport and ‘individual rights’ advocates saying this is unfair. This is not a decision of right versus wrong or racism, but a conflict between two rights that are essential for modern democracy.

Okay for starters here is an example that government does not always represent what you consider community rights such as for example government wanting to to put bigoted people in prison for expressing views that impede on the health, safety and right to life of others and those "individual rights" activists telling her, not to. What does the One Degree balance say there? What is the optimum solution and why would the racists and bigots individual rights trump the community rights?

I don’t care which way they decide. You just insist I do.

I do not insist on anything about you mate, you are the one taking issue with me reporting the news and trying to censor the words I use. I am not taking any issue with you nor had I spoken to you at all. You are the one who is trying to insist that I do not use words in my dictionary because they offend your feelings.

Decisions are not all decided based upon someone’s definition of racism.

Indeed, so what's your issue then? Because you are taking issue with the definition of racism, not vice-versa.

That is the thinking of ideologues, not objective reasoning.

Indeed it is and you should not be doing it, especially when you are so aware of what it is you are actually doing.

My argument is pointing out this is not the one sided moral issue you insist on making it.
There is nothing wrong about the U.K. wanting to deport illegals and there is nothing wrong with you thinking they shouldn’t. There is something very wrong when people can no longer see it for what it really is and use racism to batter opponents with, as if racism is the determinate of all right and wrong based upon a political definition of racism. This is the tactic of authoritarian propagandist carried out by indoctrinated disciples.

Hold on, the only person in here arguing that people should be censored when expressing themselves is you, noone in here is telling you not to defend your political positions whatever they may be, even racist positions, noone is telling you not to use words and definitions, you are the only person who is trying to censor others and demand that they do not use the term racist, ever, even when it is by your own admission a valid term to use to describe such a policy. This is extremely authoritarian and for what reason, really? Why should people be prevented from calling it as it is? Is anyone preventing you from using the term "liberals"? The only people who argue such things are people who wish to proliferate that very thing. Is that not what you really want? It would be nice if you were honest, but I highly doubt it.

Calling a policy that discriminates against other people racially & ethnically, 'racist' is not propaganda dear, it's the truth, not indoctrination, trying to deny it is propaganda so that such racism can be proliferated.

[One Degree]

I am asking to explain your position and instead of explaining it you are telling me "I am too young to get it".

Is there some other reason?

So what is your position? Speak it. What should happen to these British Carribbean people in your opinion because you have been given evidence of their racist mistreatment and the one and only thing you have said is that "racist" should not be used to describe their experience.

Still insisting I take a position on something that has nothing to do with me? Still insisting we discuss racism in a thread titled “community rights versus individual rights” instead of the actual topic? Fine, I believe laws should be enforced to prevent illegal immigration. The U.K. seems to have done that and it includes a process for hardship appeals. I see nothing wrong with that.

Okay for starters here is an example that government does not always represent what you consider community rights such as for example government wanting to to put bigoted people in prison for expressing views that impede on the health, safety and right to life of others and those "individual rights" activists telling her, not to. What does the One Degree balance say there? What is the optimum solution and why would the racists and bigots individual rights trump the community rights?

There are no optimum solutions everyone will agree on. People just make decisions. They don’t have to be ‘right’ by anyone’s personal opinions.

I do not insist on anything about you mate, you are the one taking issue with me reporting the news and trying to censor the words I use. I am not taking any issue with you nor had I spoken to you at all. You are the one who is trying to insist that I do not use words in my dictionary because they offend your feelings.

I never said you couldn’t use any words.

Indeed, so what's your issue then? Because you are taking issue with the definition of racism, not vice-versa.

I already explained this.

Indeed it is and you should not be doing it, especially when you are so aware of what it is you are actually doing.

Mind reading?

Hold on, the only person in here arguing that people should be censored when expressing themselves is you, noone in here is telling you not to defend your political positions whatever they may be, even racist positions, noone is telling you not to use words and definitions, you are the only person who is trying to censor others and demand that they do not use the term racist, ever, even when it is by your own admission a valid term to use to describe such a policy. This is extremely authoritarian and for what reason, really? Why should people be prevented from calling it as it is? Is anyone preventing you from using the term "liberals"? The only people who argue such things are people who wish to proliferate that very thing. Is that not what you really want? It would be nice if you were honest, but I highly doubt it.

Wait a minute. You specifically told me I had to create my own thread Noemon Edit: Rule 16. Now you disregard them here and insist on only racism being discussed.
I never censored anyone. I objected to ‘racist’ being used as a ‘battering ram’ to shutdown opponents on every issue.

Calling a policy that discriminates against other people racially & ethnically, 'racist' is not propaganda dear, it's the truth, not indoctrination, trying to deny it is propaganda so that such racism can be proliferated.

Only according to a new definition invented for that very political purpose. That makes it political propaganda. Why do you not answer my questions? Why did they need a new definition?