• Xenforo Cloud is upgrading us to version 2.3.8 on Monday February 16th, 2026 at 12:00 AM PST. Expect a temporary downtime during this process. More info here

WAR ROOM LOUNGE V12: Mao With Noir

Status
Not open for further replies.
That appears to be a meaningless distinction. If you perceive a change to be coming, and you think it will be positive, it's fair to say you want it.

Incorrect. Did Drago want Apollo to die?

My thinking is that it's good to see that it's not freaking people out, particularly the people you'd most expect to be freaked out. And I think the thinking of most people who think it will be mostly positive is that it will help the process of color-blindness (which is, and has always been, my position).

That's a pipe dream. Hasn't even happened in Brazil of all places.

Happened in Japan, though. I understand it's hard, but it's not impossible, and even if we don't get the total success that Japan has had, we can move in that direction.

You didn't describe ethnonationalism as unAmerican. You described the belief that projected demographic changes will be mostly negative as unAmerican. There's a wide gulf there that you overlooked.

Sure, I wasn't writing a dissertation. I am now describing ethnonationalism as unAmerican as a way to help you understand my point. Evidence of a low level of ethnonationalism is good. If you agree, you should also be happy about the poll results.

Because you're losing this argument badly and you resorted to mischaracterizing my position in a desperate attempt to gain back ground.

Don't be silly.
 
*football
200.gif
 
Incorrect. Did Drago want Apollo to die?

That's a poor analogy.

If I think it's going to rain tomorrow, and I think that the rain will be positive on net, it's fair to say I want it to rain.

My thinking is that it's good to see that it's not freaking people out,

First, that's not what you wrote before. You wrote that this was a positive change, but you can't substantiate that any change has occurred.

Also, the data don't show that "it's not freaking people out". It's possible that the 57% are freaking out. (I don't think most of them are, but that's irrelevant.)

I think the thinking of most people who think it will be mostly positive is that it will help the process of color-blindness (which is, and has always been, my position).
Only marginally, in my view.


Happened in Japan, though. I understand it's hard, but it's not impossible, and even if we don't get the total success that Japan has had, we can move in that direction.

I think it's impossible. It's a fantasy.

Japan's land area is 3.6% of ours. It started ethnically homogeneous and subsequent immigrants were genetically close. The small area forced integration. Presently, homogeneity is enforced through strict anti-immigration policy.

Evidence of a low level of ethnonationalism is good. If you agree, you should also be happy about the poll results.

The poll results have nothing to do with ethnonationalism.
 
First, that's not what you wrote before. You wrote that this was a positive change, but you can't substantiate that any change has occurred.

Yes, I'm drawing on experience. You're demanding a poll from the same agency. I'm not even aware if they've polled the question before. I don't think your demand is reasonable so I'm blowing it off. But I continue to believe that it reflects a positive change.

Only marginally, in my view.

That's enough, though! Your view is also that on net the impact is positive, right? So you're on board with 43% of your party and almost two-thirds of all Americans. Hooray!

I think it's impossible. It's a fantasy.

Japan's land area is 3.6% of ours. It started ethnically homogeneous and subsequent immigrants were genetically close. The small area forced integration. Presently, homogeneity is enforced through strict anti-immigration policy.

It's meaningless to say that a place "started ethnically homogeneous." Japan had several waves of immigrants that came from different places and had physical differences. The gov't deliberately began a program of nationalism (which you say you like!), and it's worked spectacularly well. Also led to a lot of intermarriage and thus declining physical differences. The success is so total that people don't even realize it happened. As I said, even if America can't succeed to that extent, we can close the gap (and note that we're already not terrible at it, as evidenced by the poll that has you so upset).
 
Just watched The Second Civil War, a satirical comedy directed by Joe Dante (Gremlins) for HBO in 1997.

It's sort of mind blowing how this was originally conceived as a parody of anti-immigration sentiment in the mid 90's, and was considered borderline fantasy back then.

Too bad HBO buried it due to the non-PC script. It's insane how close to reality it is now.

Plot:

The film is set in a United States in which foreign immigration has skyrocketed: The mayor of Los Angeles speaks only in Spanish, Rhode Island is populated mostly by Chinese-Americans, and Alabama has a congressman from India. Politics is openly reduced to a matter of catering to various ethnic groups for their votes - the Alabama congressman will only support the U.S. President if his state receives more money for Hindu temples. When an atomic weapon is used in Pakistan, an international organization makes plans to bring orphans to Idaho.

Idaho Governor Jim Farley (Bridges) orders the state's National Guard to close its borders, as Idaho has already received more than a million refugees; he acknowledges this even though the Governor himself routinely indulges in Mexican food, Mexican soap operas, and an affair with a Mexican-American reporter (Peña). Despite the best efforts of his press secretary Jimmy Cannon (Kevin Dunn), Farley remains largely oblivious to the national crisis he's the center of, since Farley is more concerned with rekindling his romance with his mistress rather than dealing with national matters.

Meanwhile, the President of the United States (Hartman) turns out to be an equally ineffectual leader, ruthlessly exploiting immigration to fill districts and states with those most likely to vote for his own party. He will move more Koreans to New York since Koreans are one of his core constituencies. Reputed as indecisive, the President delegates his decision-making entirely to his advisors, most notably his unofficial chief advisor, lobbyist Jack B. Buchan (Coburn).

Buchan, however, is less concerned with the good of the nation, and more concerned with politics, especially how the President's actions will play on television (resulting, for example, in a 72-hour deadline being shortened to 671⁄2 hours to prevent the news from interrupting Susan Lucci's farewell appearance on the soap opera All My Children). Buchan regularly influences the President's decisions by manipulating his desire to emulate previous U.S. presidents, even going so far as to pepper presidential statements with fictitious "quotes" from President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Meanwhile, the NN cable network is reporting the events and influencing them at the same time. News director Mel (Dan Hedaya) attempts to time events to maximize ratings, while his staff becomes polarized over the political issues involved in the conflict between the Governor and the President. Standard fare for the cable network is to show footage of crying immigrant children, which is done with the Pakistani orphans waiting to move to Idaho.

As the deadline approaches, the Governor and the President call in, respectively, the Idaho National Guard and the United States Army. Tensions rise when the commanders of both units turn out to be bitter rivals from the Gulf War. Meanwhile, governors from other states send in their own National Guard units to aid one side or the other, causing the conflict to escalate into the national arena. Mexican-American pro-immigrant rioters bomb the Alamo, while anti-immigrants retaliate by bombing the Statue of Liberty because of its plaque, stating that "We no longer want your tired, your poor or your huddled masses."

Eventually, the Governor's girlfriend convinces him to back down from the conflict and resign, but a series of misunderstandings and mutinies leads to a major battle between anti- and pro-immigrant armed forces at the Idaho border, culminating with the president's decision to invade Idaho in what becomes the Second American Civil War. At the movie's close, news reports indicate that hostilities have ceased, but the immigration issue is unresolved.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Second_Civil_War
 
Just watched The Second Civil War, a satirical comedy directed by Joe Dante (Gremlins) for HBO in 1997.

It's sort of mind blowing how this was originally conceived as a parody of anti-immigration sentiment in the mid 90's, and was considered borderline fantasy back then.

Too bad HBO buried it due to the non-PC script. It's insane how close to reality it is now.

Dante is one of the most underrated directors ever, IMO. Rosenbaum used to beat the drums for him all the time. Great example here:

https://www.jonathanrosenbaum.net/1998/07/cutting-heroes-down-to-size/

And, remember CA went through the same shit that the country as a whole was going through in the '90s, when illegal immigration was legitimately a problem. The CA right birthed odious creatures like Miller, who are now spreading their sickness wider. But they eventually lost here, and they'll lose the nation-level fight, too.
 
Dante is one of the most underrated directors ever, IMO. Rosenbaum used to beat the drums for him all the time. Great example here:

https://www.jonathanrosenbaum.net/1998/07/cutting-heroes-down-to-size/

And, remember CA went through the same shit that the country as a whole was going through in the '90s, when illegal immigration was legitimately a problem. The CA right birthed odious creatures like Miller, who are now spreading their sickness wider. But they eventually lost here, and they'll lose the nation-level fight, too.
Aye. It's still interesting how much of the film's content is supposed to be satire, and yet it has gotten much closer to current events.
 
Yes, I'm drawing on experience. You're demanding a poll from the same agency. I'm not even aware if they've polled the question before. I don't think your demand is reasonable so I'm blowing it off. But I continue to believe that it reflects a positive change.

At least you're admitting that Republicans might have become less approving of the projected change. My view is that your premise there was baseless. That's part of the reason I thought your original post was a troll post. You're usually more careful than that.

That's enough, though! Your view is also that on net the impact is positive, right? So you're on board with 43% of your party and almost two-thirds of all Americans. Hooray!

Again, I'm not sure what the views of Constitution Party members are on this issue.

Also, I would have refused to answer the question. If anything, I would have chosen "negative".

It's meaningless to say that a place "started ethnically homogeneous."

Relatively homogeneous compared to the US. The founding populations of Japan were the Yaoyi and the Jomon. They have had over 2,000 years to integrate with one another. That's plenty of time in small place like Japan.

Japan had several waves of immigrants that came from different places and had physical differences

Correct. Always from nearby and never in disruptive numbers.

which you say you like!

That never happened.

As I said, even if America can't succeed to that extent, we can close the gap (and note that we're already not terrible at it, as evidenced by the poll that has you so upset)

Eliminating physical differences is not one of my goals. I guess you think that's a necessary part of "working toward color blindness". Since I think that ideal is a pipe dream in the US context, I think I'll leave it here.

Also, it's bad form to assume that your internet debate partner is "upset", particularly in the absence of any evidence.
 
At least you're admitting that Republicans might have become less approving of the projected change.

Was I? I supposed it's possible, but I don't believe it to be the case.

Also, I would have refused to answer the question. If anything, I would have chosen "negative".

Why?

Relatively homogeneous compared to the US.

At founding?

That never happened.

You're not a "nationalist"?

Eliminating physical differences is not one of my goals. I guess you think that's a necessary part of "working toward color blindness". Since I think that ideal is a pipe dream in the US context, I think I'll leave it here.

It's not a goal, but I think it's an inevitable result of color-blindness. If people don't perceive strong barriers between their in-group and out-group, they will have more babies with people outside their group. That's one of the fundamental problems I have with the "diversity inevitably leads to conflict" theorists. In instances where diversity doesn't lead to conflict, the perception of there even being any diversity disappears. So it's something of a tautology.

Also, it's bad form to assume that your internet debate partner is "upset", particularly in the absence of any evidence.

But assuming trolling is jake? Or does it depend on whose ox is being gored?
 
That appears to be a meaningless distinction. If you perceive a change to be coming, and you think it will be positive, it's fair to say you want it.
Not necessarily. If you perceive that change to be positive because its a correlate of something else that is positive then its not the change itself that you want but you're willing to accept it.
 
Not necessarily. If you perceive that change to be positive because its a correlate of something else that is positive then its not the change itself that you want but you're willing to accept it.

I was referring to a situations in which the observer thinks the net benefit of a particular change of state is larger than any other possible change (including the null change) . In that case, the observer really does "want" the state, unless one wants to quibble about the emotional content of the term "want" or the agency problem.

The change we're referring to allegedly generates something that Jack wants (more "color blindness"). Vis a vis other changes/states, he views this change as being positive on net. Given this, I think it's reasonable to say that he "wants" this change to occur.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top