Opinion of Rfayette (read quote before answering)

[RFayette]

First, the context of the quote is in that many folks here (who happen to be Democrats) have gotten extremely giddy over favorable demographic trends for Democrats, such as the re-enfranchisement of felons, post-1965 immigration laws, etc.    It was also in response to absolute fawning over President Obama, which gets under my skin.  When people start treating the man like he's some kind of demigod, it definitely provokes me into saying things I otherwise would not. Many even suggested ideas like bringing all the Syrian refugees to swing states, "maintaining population balance" by deporting white males for every immigrant let in, etc. I was going the other way with it and see what the reaction would be.  No one believes in a truly universal franchise (no one thinks death row inmates or 5-year-olds should vote), I was just floating the idea that maybe some more restrictions on voting isn't such a bad idea.

That being said, a poll tax is unconstitutional and would obviously never happen, and I know this.  Was it trolling?  Partially.  The goal was definitely to get a rise out of people, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't like to see a more R-friendly electorate.  That would be an, err, extreme way to do it.  I suppose if someone thinks a voter ID equals a poll tax, then I suppose it would be a $25 poll tax or something.  I would never back a $1000 poll tax or something that would be too large of an expense though....that would be insane.

[RFayette]

Just a child who will, in all likelihood, see things through eventually.  Though I question if it would be more appropriate to blame the education system for that unfortunate post.

Funny you mention that.  One of my high school teachers happened to be a massive libertarian and had indeed floated the idea of how much better America would be if we went back to restricting the vote to property owners.  

[RFayette]

Despite my furious posts towards him, I still like him as a person. However, this is also predicated on the idea that he will come to his senses on this. Supporting voter suppression is undemocratic, indecent and an abomination to any society that prides itself on the idea of freedom.

Not voting for now.

No hard feelings at all.   I tend to say things that could be seen as pretty crazy had I voiced them in real life (which I would never do), so I don't take criticism personally when I push the edges of respectability a fair amount.

I'd imagine you and I have different opinions about what constitutes "voter suppression" though.  My personal opinion (though obviously this would never become law) is that unlawful discrimination would be voting restrictions against immutable characteristics - such as gender, race, etc.  Where we differ is with respect to changeable characteristics:  having a photo ID, having a felony conviction, etc.  I tend to err more on the restrictionist side for selfish reasons, though an out-and-out poll tax was me being a bit ridiculous about it, admittedly.

[RFayette]

nice guy

I voted FF for this reason, and also because he could easily change again.  However, he certainly has voiced many outrageous viewpoints.

I intentionally post things a bit provocatively (even if they do reflect viewpoints) in order to get a bit of a reaction.  You can "troll" while being semi-serious at the same time.

What I find amazing is that we have posters who literally say that people holding a particular ideology should be shamed and are "terrible human beings," and they never seem to get polls about them for the comments they make. 

[RFayette]

Yes, if one consistently spouts hateful and dehumanizing rhetoric, it obviously reflects on them as a person. Opinions don't exist in a vacuum.

Have you ever gone on Free Republic?  None of the opinions I express here would be controversial at all there.  You leftists are incredibly intolerant of people who hold opinions differing from yourself.  I never said I wanted you deported, but of course in your dishonesty you make that implication.

[RFayette]

nice guy

I voted FF for this reason, and also because he could easily change again.  However, he certainly has voiced many outrageous viewpoints.

I intentionally post things a bit provocatively (even if they do reflect viewpoints) in order to get a bit of a reaction.  You can "troll" while being semi-serious at the same time.

What I find amazing is that we have posters who literally say that people holding a particular ideology should be shamed and are "terrible human beings," and they never seem to get polls about them for the comments they make. 

Many of your actual viewpoints seem pretty troubling, but I don't think you're a terrible human being.

Don't read Ann Coulter then. I think you'd be more than a little troubled.

[RFayette]

I've never gone on Free Republic just as I've never been on Stormfront. It would be nice if you would actually attempt to defend your repugnant statements instead of pleading that you have the right to make them, but I suppose that would require a level of concern for other people that you obviously lack.

I'll let this speak for itself and let you twist yourself into knots attempting to defend what it means:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a fair statement - parts of Paris and Brussels are real trouble.  Islam has a lot of issues associated with it, and it's fair to limit the percent of people who are Muslim in the country, and it's the right of a nation to do so.  If my belief is so radical that it makes me "like an ISIS member" or "radically hateful," then why is it that at least 40% of Americans believe it?  It's not saying that Muslims currently in the country are deported, it just means that we as a nation shouldn't let more of them in.

[RFayette]

I'd imagine you and I have different opinions about what constitutes "voter suppression" though.

Well, when it comes to voter suppression from the govt, I think this works: If they institute new regulations or purposefully sabotage/neglect the system with any belief that it will reduce voter participation from undesired voters. This can mean instituting photo id, or repealing same-day registration primarily for an advantage. Both actions have been seen quite a lot by Republicans in the past 4+ years.

There are legitimate reasons to believe in certain restrictions (felony disenfranchisement, for instance), but I would hope one has a good reason for it. If it is not necessary at all and makes voting more annoying or difficult, then it should be done better so it doesn't make things more difficult. Everyone should have a chance to participate as easily as reasonably possible.

I would certainly love it if America was run by a Democratic president and a liberal Democratic Congressional supermajority, but achieving that by using positions of power to manipulate elections / reduce voter participation is too corrupt and unfair

Fair enough.  If I were advocating a $1,000 poll tax, I'd agree that would be absolutely ridiculous.  The connection of voter IDs to poll taxes is probably the disagreement in terms of ease of voting.  I'm opposed to states like Alabama making it too hard to get a driver's license or ID card.  I certainly don't want to make it artificially difficult; it's just my opinion the barrier isn't too high.

[RFayette]

Yeah, see, you keep trying to speak in abstractions because otherwise you have to actually confront the bile that you're spewing. You'd rather that I not be in this country because of my religion. I'm not sure why it's so difficult for you to admit that. If you're going to be a hateful bigot, you need to own it.

Islam is a religion - it's a religious system (radicalized by Wahabis, but with violent roots throughout history).  It's not a race, and opposing it does not make one a bigot, nor does it make one a bigot to support the prevention of the rise of that system. 

I don't want to live in a country where "Sharia Now" is a major political party, as it is in Brussels.  

Here's my question:  if you hate people who think like me so viscerally, why are you in the United States?  You do know that at least 1 in 3 people around you in your nation is a Trump supporter...it may be lower in your location, but if you spew so many nasty words toward me, then I don't know what to say.

As far as "you living in my country" goes, you're confusing support for more immigration of a group with believing that all members of a group should be kicked out.  Surely you have deires about what immigration levels should be in the United States, and you quite frequently speak negatively of "white America" and the like.  So my mere statement of a preference is now complete bigotry when posters like d12321 say they flat out "hate white people."  Double standards galore, as is typical with the left.

[RFayette]

Why exactly are you in America? This is my country.

I hope that someday perhaps you can find Jesus, seeing as that everything you say is utterly devoid of love for your fellow man. I'll pray for you.

I'm not against you being in America,, for the last time.  Yes, this is our country, and we all have opinions about issues.

[RFayette]

RFayette, would you ask a black person in the 1920s what they were doing in America?  Blacks probably did not appreciate that many Americans were racist against them.  Hating the bigotry that many Americans hold does not equate to hating America.

Institutional racism based on an immutable characteristic is a whole lot different than simple opposition to a belief system and a certain immigration policy.  All I'm saying is that Xahar says lots of nasty things about "white America" and how racist a huge chunk of the country is.  There are no signs in restaurants that say "No Muslims Allowed," nor are there discrimination with respect to jobs, housing, etc. to those of a specific faith.  

Also, Muslims don't have to stay Muslim.  Blacks don't really have that option, unless they're err...Michael Jackson.

[RFayette]

You know RFayette, just becasue something is a "right" for nations to do doesn't necessarily mean it's a good policy to pursue, and just talking about how many people agree with your view is not actually making an argument in favor of them.

True, but being called a "hateful bigot" for holding those views isn't exactly going to improve my views of them.  Unless you believe that it's inherently immoral for a country to set its own immigration laws, there's no reason to call someone a "hateful bigot" for wanting a certain set of policy parameters with respect to who comes in the country.

As far as reasons for holding the opinion I do on the subject, look at Derpist's post. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyotLRHMOIk

[RFayette]

I don't want you or anyone like you to think positively of me, and in fact I would have to reevaluate myself if your ilk did, seeing as that you've already established that you think I'm a "primitive wacko". My posts are merely a public service announcement for other members of this community.

Oh yeah, screw those racist bigoted white Americans. More enlightened, liberal-minded people would be different!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, the popularity of an opinion does not mean it is right. When a group however fails to integrate pretty much everywhere it goes, you start running out of different ways to explain how everyone is racist/bigoted/hateful.

Not to mention the fact that someone who professes the faith of Islam is really throwing stones at glass houses if they are calling other views bigoted.  Considering the fact that more women than men are in hell and that the testimony of two women equals one man is hardly some paragon of tolerance.

[RFayette]

There are ways to disapprove of Islam without being a racist ass and telling a Muslim that he should be banned from the country.

1. Islam is not a race.
2. Xahar lives in the USA already, so I'm not saying he should be banned from the country.
3.  Wanting to control immigration levels of those of a certain belief system isn't "racist."  It's just looking at what's happened to parts of Germany, Belgium, and France, and responding accordingly.  Sharia Now is a major political party in Brussels.  I don't want that to happen in America.  Nothing racist about that.

[RFayette]

Also, here's a bit of food-for-thought from Google Dictionary, on the definition of a bigot:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just leaving it out there.

[RFayette]

Also, here's a bit of food-for-thought from Google Dictionary, on the definition of a bigot:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Just leaving it out there.

Oh, man, this is just like when Scott proved that I was the real racist.

You're not a racist. Just an arrogant douche with a superiority complex who should go and fuck himself with a rusty spoon.

I think Xahar is a fine person though, just misguided and hostile toward who he perceives as enemies.  He is probably nice IRL.  There's a reason we don't talk politics IRL for the most part  - it makes us all angry and ginned up.

[RFayette]

There are ways to disapprove of Islam without being a racist ass and telling a Muslim that he should be banned from the country.

1. Islam is not a race.
2. Xahar lives in the USA already, so I'm not saying he should be banned from the country.
3.  Wanting to control immigration levels of those of a certain belief system isn't "racist."  It's just looking at what's happened to parts of Germany, Belgium, and France, and responding accordingly.  Sharia Now is a major political party in Brussels.  I don't want that to happen in America.  Nothing racist about that.

"Major" = 2% of the vote in Brussels? (Assuming you're talking about the ISlam Party, not 'shariah now').

And yes, Islam is not a race. Neither are Catholics, but we recognise in retrospect that the panic about subversive papists was racist blather.

I have no problem with Arab Christians emigrating to the US.  So explain how opposing Muslim immigration makes me a racist?

[RFayette]

There are ways to disapprove of Islam without being a racist ass and telling a Muslim that he should be banned from the country.

1. Islam is not a race.
2. Xahar lives in the USA already, so I'm not saying he should be banned from the country.
3.  Wanting to control immigration levels of those of a certain belief system isn't "racist."  It's just looking at what's happened to parts of Germany, Belgium, and France, and responding accordingly.  Sharia Now is a major political party in Brussels.  I don't want that to happen in America.  Nothing racist about that.

"Major" = 2% of the vote in Brussels? (Assuming you're talking about the ISlam Party, not 'shariah now').

And yes, Islam is not a race. Neither are Catholics, but we recognise in retrospect that the panic about subversive papists was racist blather.

I have no problem with Arab Christians emigrating to the US.  So explain how opposing Muslim immigration makes me a racist?

Jesus.  You really don't get it, do you.

I'll try and make this as easy as possible for you to comprehend.  Religion is more than just a mutual set of beliefs and values; it is, quite significantly, harmonic with race: an integral part of a person's identity.  It is one of the very first aspects of culture that human beings are exposed to along with their race.  And it should go without saying that for, well, most people, one's faith is far more important to them than their race.

And I understand that this is obviously harder to appreciate for someone born into a developed society that more or less shares their values - as I believe you were.

So, are you a "racist" because you oppose Muslim immigration?  Technically, by that account, no.  But the fact that religion is malleable, and race is not, does not give you a free pass to impose religious litmus tests.  Because, as with racism, you are instituting something that inevitably separates a person from their culture and you are using that marker to disparage them or treat them as something less than a human being.

In short: you're really just thinking along the same lines as a racist.  Which makes you no better.

If the US were an open-borders state where we let everyone in and then imposed litmus tests, I could understand this point.  But since we're choosy anyways, I don't see why we can't choose as a society, the beliefs of the people who are coming in, or discriminate therein.  And there are valid reasons to oppose Muslim immigration.  Just look at how the Europeans feel about it (and the increased risk of terror attacks), as Derpist pointed out. This doesn't mean all Muslims coming in are bad, but when you have a greater % of rotten apples (i.e. radicals), it causes problems.  Furthermore, those values do shape and change the society, and I don't want a more Islamized society.  I don't want to go down the same path that Europe's gone down.

[RFayette]

Funny you mention that.  One of my high school teachers happened to be a massive libertarian and had indeed floated the idea of how much better America would be if we went back to restricting the vote to property owners.  

I feel compelled to point out that most libertarians don't think this way.

He also joked about Muslims after a terror attack - "totally a religion of peace, guys" - so he wasn't exactly your standard libertarian.

[RFayette]

Also, isn't it amazing that supporting the same position as the main leader of one of the two major political parties in the United States now gets you branded as some evil monster?  

That being said, I think Xahar is fundamentally a good person.  I don't think poorly of all Muslims, as much as I dislike the religion and what it stands for.  We disagree strongly on many issues, but I want to make it clear that I do not hate him.  He can hate me, and that is fine.