The Gaming Den

Crissa wrote:Why would there be more draw if they're less likely to get in trouble?

Immigrants who come here to work end up getting very labor-intensive jobs with low pay, few benefits, and no shred of stability. Or, they could get a job that's higher-paying, has minor benefits, guaranteed breaks, and no threat of INS sending them home.

You would have to be an idiot to not want the better option.

Crissa wrote:And remember, while the plurality of illegals are latino, there are illegal Canadians, Europeans, Asians, etc.

You don't have to tell me that. None of the illegal immigrants I have been acquainted with have been from Mexico (and the Mexicans I know are legal). Russian, yes. Japanese, yes. German, yes. Spanish, yes. Anywhere in Latin America? No. But then, I live far away from the southern border of the country, so it makes a bit of sense.

Crissa wrote:Yes. It's called 'News'. When you use Google, it should be up top-left next to 'Images' and 'Web' etc.

Are you sure you're not hitting the "blog" button?

FrankTrollman wrote:No. Sex is chromosomes. A single cell can - and often is - male or female. This is the realm of facts. And the fact is that sex is not mutable at the level of the whole human without killing that human.

And this is some of the shit that doctors say, which is ridiculous. Cells don't have sex. Most of the chromosomes in a cell don't do anything, and even when they do, they just say where the cell got made in the first place. Other things can intervene and put the wrong cell in the right place.

This is why we don't car of the sex of a patient when we do transplants. Cells don't have fucking sexes. They're just cells. Yeah, they have extraneous data which may or may not match their purpose. But that's not sex, either.

Frank, you're a poor doctor if you assert such nonsense as this. There are literally people out there with one set of chromosomes and functional gonads of the other sex. It's not common (intersexed is reported like 0.018% of births, and functional is even less common), but it is in the realm of real, living results.

Genetics aren't destiny. They're a blueprint which almost certainly won't be followed to the letter.

And as far as real science is concerned, gender is just as immutable as sex - doctors can't change or choose and have it come out as they like.

Honestly, Frank, shit on your preconceptions and learn about the world before you go traipsing half-truths on the internet.

-Crissa

/tgd/ - transgendered

But seriously, maybe we should have a dedicated thread about sex and gender because this nonsense seems to be slopping over into every other thread that exists.

Maj wrote:

Crissa wrote:Why would there be more draw if they're less likely to get in trouble?

:wtf:

Uh... I have no idea what I meant. I had to go back to read it to figure it out... And I can't really phrase if better, because it was phrased so horribly in the first place. I'll just have to scrap it:

As it stands, in most (by area) of the US, this law already stands. If someone here illegally goes to the police, they're likely to be deported. Or reports illegal conditions to their jobs. They don't come here because it's safe here (though some do, but not the majority from hispanic countries). They come here for jobs.

Basically, the draw is economic. This is why they're called economic migrants. Just like you or I would move to another state if we were out of work, but offered a job in another state. We probably wouldn't move to that other state if we weren't offered the job there. Merely making it less likely they'll be deported on someone's whim won't make them more or less likely to come here, because that's not their draw.

Sure, they'd love to come here for jobs that are safer, pay more, and follow labor conventions. But wouldn't those already here prefer jobs that are safe and legal, too? At no point do they say, 'gosh, I could be deported!' when they choose to come here. They say, 'there are jobs there, I should go there!'

Jobs require an employer. They don't require an immigrant. Why should we make it easier for employers to hire illegally, by doing their enforcer work for them (deporting those who complain)?

Maj wrote:Are you sure you're not hitting the "blog" button?

I'm sure. The two search engines were merged a few months back. The blog button is there, but there's no longer a way to search 'news' without 'blogs'. The 'news' search page has the option to search only blogs, and looks more like the blog page did a year ago than the news page did.

-Crissa

Kaelik wrote:a law that prohibits the playing of D&D or buying of LotRs is just as bad as a law enforcing slavery.

This is so getting sigged.

Crissa wrote:Well, have there been times when you were told/inferred you could not do something because of your race, gender, or sexual preference, even though you were physically/mentally capable of it?

Well, there was this one time i was told I couldn't do something because of my race...



But I got over it. Seriously though, I don't think so. Being a straight, white male in a predominantly straight, white, male dominated culture will do that.

Crissa wrote:And this is some of the shit that doctors say, which is ridiculous. Cells don't have sex. Most of the chromosomes in a cell don't do anything, and even when they do, they just say where the cell got made in the first place. Other things can intervene and put the wrong cell in the right place.

This is why we don't car of the sex of a patient when we do transplants. Cells don't have fucking sexes. They're just cells. Yeah, they have extraneous data which may or may not match their purpose. But that's not sex, either.

Frank, you're a poor doctor if you assert such nonsense as this. There are literally people out there with one set of chromosomes and functional gonads of the other sex. It's not common (intersexed is reported like 0.018% of births, and functional is even less common), but it is in the realm of real, living results.

Genetics aren't destiny. They're a blueprint which almost certainly won't be followed to the letter.

And as far as real science is concerned, gender is just as immutable as sex - doctors can't change or choose and have it come out as they like.

Honestly, Frank, shit on your preconceptions and learn about the world before you go traipsing half-truths on the internet.

-Crissa

I think I'd believe the doctor-to-be over the person who reads a lot of blogs and keeps shooting herself in the foot with her own links.

Red_Rob wrote: I cannot recall a time that I was made to feel that my sex, race or sexual preference was inferior to someone elses. What is your definition?

Red Robin wrote:

Crissa wrote: Well, have there been times when you were told/inferred you could not do something because of your race, gender, or sexual preference, even though you were physically/mentally capable of it?

I don't think so. Being a straight, white male in a predominantly straight, white, male dominated culture will do that.

Nobody's ever referred to you as a "Fucking white boy" or "This white muhfukker over here..."

Or the stealth one: "You're a straight white man. You can't possibly understand me/my culture/what I've been through."

If you have not, then our lives have been very different, and I apologize and withdraw my unkinder remarks.

Game On,
fbmf

None of those examples would be bigotry or racism, as the people in power are white guys, fbmf. So it would be sarcasm.

And your second one, 'you couldn't understand' is not racism, either. White males are not universally empathetic or omniscient, nor is any human. We should not expect to understand the feelings of someone in a different situation, but we can totally be aware of them and take them into consideration.

-Crissa

Crissa wrote: And Ceilingcat may not be changing her sex, but she did change her gender. As I understand it, RC is arguing that sex is immutable and gender isn't real, so we shouldn't respect her changing her gender because it isn't real.

The problem is that we don't really care about gender as a society. When someone asks you "are you a boy or a girl?" they're wondering what your sex is, not your gender. I honestly can't imagine any place where anyone would ask what your gender is without actually meaning sex.

In fact, many people don't even know the difference between gender and sex. And even if people did, nobody uses it that way. The stay at home dad who cooks, cleans and takes care of the kids does all the "woman" stuff, does not refer to himself as female, even though he's really taken on what is classically a female gender role. A woman whose all into sports and career minded doesn't refer to herself as male.

In fact, the only times I ever see gender referenced at all in this weird ass way is the wordplay that Transsexual people want to use to justify calling themselves a girl. Flat out, gender is a joke, especially now that career women are common and the gender roles have been blurred anyway. Seriously nobody gives a shit about gender, at least not in America anyway.

What matters is sex, and that's a scientific thing. And that's what people actually care about. In common conversation, you never use "her" and "him" to refer to gender, you use it to refer to sex. If you called the male gendered dominant career-minded woman a "him", you would be insulting her, and rightfully so. Do you call Scottsmen in kilts women because they're wearing skirts? Seriously. Frankly the whole idea of gender is pretty damn insulting.

The whole concept of gender is a load of horse shit. It's vaguely defined, loaded with sexism and it really needs to go.

fbmf wrote:

Crissa wrote:None of those examples would be bigotry or racism, as the people in power are white guys, fbmf. So it would be sarcasm.

Uhm...no. You're making up a definition based on your liberal agenda.

Racism is "hatred or intolerance of another race or other races." So says the dictionary.

Whether or not they can deny me a job, loan, whatever has nothing to do with it. In fact, I would say that because some other indefinite white person, has POSSIBLY in the indefinite past denied these or other things to them or others of their race, and they are taking it out on me just because I am the same color as the hypothetical person that put the screws to them is prejudicial and racist.

And your second one, 'you couldn't understand' is not racism, either. White males are not universally empathetic or omniscient, nor is any human. We should not expect to understand the feelings of someone in a different situation, but we can totally be aware of them and take them into consideration.

-Crissa

Bullshit!

When someone AUTOMATICALLY assumes that I am incapable of something BECAUSE OF MY RACE, that is racism. Period.

If they know that I can not empathize/sympathize because they have taken the time to get to know me and I am an asshole*, that's different.

*- Automatically assuming that I am an asshole because I am white is prejudicial and racist.

Game On,
fbmf

fbmf, people aren't empaths or omniscient. Therefore, you cannot expect to 'understand'. Be aware, and that's about all you can do. This is what I said.

Yes, this is probably a leftist position.

Telling someone that you understand them when they say you do not? That's not their racism - it's your presumption you can understand everything. Privilege in a nutshell.

-Crissa

And I'm not going to even argue with an idiot who thinks gender identity has anything to do with skirts or that we're in some sort of post-sexism era. Scottish transmen wear kilts.

Shut up Crissa. A woman like you couldn't possibly understand what it's like to be a white man؟

Crissa wrote:fbmf, people aren't empaths or omniscient. Therefore, you cannot expect to 'understand'. Be aware, and that's about all you can do. This is what I said.

And if they had said, "You can't understand me because you didn't just cast detect thoughts", I would agree.

They said I couldn't do it BECAUSE I AM A WHITE MAN.

Do you not see the difference?

Game On,
fbmf

CatharzGodfoot wrote:Shut up Crissa. A woman like you couldn't possibly understand what it's like to be a white man؟

Yeah Crissa, you pretty much set yourself up for this every time you say anything for as long as the gaming den exists, and you have no business whatsoever getting upset because it is exactly identical to what you call not racism and/or sexism.

When do I get an answer to my PM?

Crissa seriously believes that you can't be racist to whites?

*facepalms*

Kaelik wrote:

CatharzGodfoot wrote: When do I get an answer to my PM?

[The Great Fence Builder Speaks]
Crissa is perfectly within her rights to ignore your PM.
[/TGFBS]

Not all discrimination is equal. While it's really hard to compare some categories of racism/bigotry against each other (does a gay white male have it worse off than a straight black female) there are still groups that overall have it better off than others. And the sad fact of the matter is that straight white (Christian, non-poor) males in the United States just have it flat out better than other minorities. Even though the straight white male is a minority category in of itself, they receive disproportionate privilege to other minorities. Honestly, the concerns of SWMs, while justified, just don't come close to the fact that women get paid 3/4ths of what men get and are disportionately targeted for violence or the fact that the black poverty rate is twice that of whites or that heterosexual Americans can marry according to their sexual preferences.

Yes, there is racism against whites and sexism against males. It doesn't just exist, but it can in fact can be extremely devastating to both groups (see the entire sordid history of unionism and homosexuality) but quite honestly both tropes are used more for the 'see, we're suffering, too! So now shut up' effect.

Crissa of course took it too far but I hope the underlying point doesn't get lost. Cries of reverse-racism or reverse-sexism run an extremely huge risk of coming across as facile, self-serving, or buck-passing, because frankly they're not just as bad.


Now I'm not saying you are using it in that way fbmf, it's just one of those instant-suspicion phrases like 'politically incorrect' or 'I read Ayn Rand'.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Cries of reverse-racism or reverse-sexism run an extremely huge risk of coming across as facile, self-serving, or buck-passing, because frankly they're not just as bad.

Nobody has done any reverse-racism though. People have said that immigration laws are unfair or racist. I have said the Democrats are hypocrites for playing the race card for Hispanics and Blacks but not for Asian-Americans in the immigration issue.

But nobody is seriously claiming that Hispanics or African-Americans are racist by calling other people racist.

However, what is happening is that the crazy uber left-wing members of the Den immediately assumed that racism or reverse racism was happening. And they immediately started calling other people racist.

Which comes off as facile, self-serving, and hypocritical. And it does nothing to aid minorities because these crazies keep mis-using the word racism so much that its original meaning is in danger of being lost, and that it instead becomes a synonymous with "meaningless left-wing idiot bash".

In the real world, we only have a limited number of political and economic resources dedicated to correcting racial/sexual/gender issues. It would be fucking awesome if everything turned out as egalitarian as TNG, but we can't make it that way, so we have to prioritize our concerns. For example, right now in the United States men are rapidly falling behind women in college attendance rates. Right now the latter group is higher than the others and something will have to be done about this sooner or later. But even though it's a looming problem, it's frankly just not on the same level of 'let's fix this shit' as the fact that women still get paid 3/4ths as much as men.

For the record, if I had my druthers I'd first focus on eliminating gender inequality since that will go a long way towards eliminating pressure on other minorities--giving women equal pay to white men would cut the black poverty rate almost by a third overnight just because most black households are headed by a single female. But that's just my opinion.

Zinegata wrote: Because the blacks and Hispanics should shut up.

I have relatives in the United States who belong to another minority. The Asian-American minority. Specifically, the Filipino-American minority. Do you ever see Asians marching up and down the streets demanding more "civil rights" even though their grandparents were regularly under the threat of being lynched for being "yellow", or that their grandma was sent to a fucking internment camp just because they're Japanese? Hell, the only issue Filipino-Americans were ever sore about was the WW2 veteran's backpay issue.

Zinegata, I never want to hear you whine about racism being thrown out willy-nilly ever again. Nor do I want to hear you complain about people being hypocritical.

In conclusion, shut up forever.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:In the real world, we only have a limited number of political and economic resources dedicated to correcting racial/sexual/gender issues. It would be fucking awesome if everything turned out as egalitarian as TNG, but we can't make it that way, so we have to prioritize our concerns. For example, right now in the United States men are rapidly falling behind women in college attendance rates. Right now the latter group is higher than the others and something will have to be done about this sooner or later. But even though it's a looming problem, it's frankly just not on the same level of 'let's fix this shit' as the fact that women still get paid 3/4ths as much as men.

The real world has limited resources. But again, we've got about a million illegal immigrants going over the border every year. Every other country in the world has to follow a strict quota system that lets about 20,000 or so people to immigrate to the US.

So why is clamping down on illegal immigration "racist", but preventing the masses of the world from getting in because of an arbitrary quota system not racist?

Mexico isn't even the poorest country in the world. So you can't claim that Mexicans need it more than say, Liberians.

The fact is, the Democrats are arbitrarily playing the race card only when THEIR minorities are under fire. But if it's Asians, or Ukrainians, or anyone else, it's not "racism". And that's hypocritical.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:

Zinegata wrote: Because the blacks and Hispanics should shut up.

I have relatives in the United States who belong to another minority. The Asian-American minority. Specifically, the Filipino-American minority. Do you ever see Asians marching up and down the streets demanding more "civil rights" even though their grandparents were regularly under the threat of being lynched for being "yellow", or that their grandma was sent to a fucking internment camp just because they're Japanese? Hell, the only issue Filipino-Americans were ever sore about was the WW2 veteran's backpay issue.

Zinegata, I never want to hear you whine about racism being thrown out willy-nilly ever again. Nor do I want to hear you complain about people being hypocritical.

In conclusion, shut up forever.

No Lago, I'm only gonna shut up when you people stop whining about racism. Or rather, your own bullshit definitions of racism where it's racist if it's a crime against Hispanics or African-Americans, but it's totally cool if it's bad against Asians.

If it's against a particular group of people, it's racism. Not just because it's a minority that votes for the Democrats.

Zinegata wrote: So why is clamping down on illegal immigration "racist", but preventing the masses of the world from getting in because of an arbitrary quota system not racist?

Because as Count pointed out, people are choosing methods that result in people getting profiled rather than actually attacking the problem.

If they were really concerned about curbing illegal immigration they would remove the incentive for people to hire illegal workers. But they're not pursuing that avenue. They chose to pick a method that harasses and intimidates people without solving the underlying problem; illegal immigration WILL STILL HAPPEN, probably still at around the rate that creates downwards pressure on wages. But they also have the new problem of upsetting Latino minorities. If this program somehow miraculously made it so that no illegal immigrants ever get hired again, then they would at least be able to point to that. But it won't do that.

Why would someone intentionally choose a program that doesn't do what it's supposed to do but has the new dysfunction of harassing a specific group of people? You'd either have to be extremely stupid or evil. And as far as I'm concerned, sufficiently willful stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.

And of course since this kind of crap follows a clear pattern, it's not really much of a stretch to say that the underlying motive is racism.

Zinegata wrote:The fact is, the Democrats are arbitrarily playing the race card only when THEIR minorities are under fire. But if it's Asians, or Ukrainians, or anyone else, it's not "racism". And that's hypocritical.

This is stupid and you should feel stupid for making that argument, especially since Count specifically told you why this is the case.

The reason why the United States has the bulk of illegal immigration come from Mexico stands for two reasons:

A) Relative poverty rates of each country. Why don't we have a lot of illegal immigration from Canada despite having an even longer demilitarized border? Because their wealth is about on the same level as the United States. Why would they come here for jobs when they could work in a spot closer to their family, culture, and with a social safety net?

B) Geography. Why don't we have a lot of illegal Cuban immigration? Partly because of the United States' foreign policy towards that country, partly because it's just harder to cross the ocean than the border. African immigration will never be quite the same problem as it is in Europe just because they have the Mediterranean Sea separating the countries and the international traffic isn't as free.

Seriously, Ukrainian illegal immigration isn't a problem because THEY LIVE FURTHER AWAY FROM THE UNITED STATES. Even if you were a poor, desperate worker looking for a better life why would you go to all that trouble when for a fraction of the effort you could end up in, say, Denmark?

You are being a stupid fucking moron by ascribing some kind of minority-coddling motivation as to why Democrats aren't up in arms about Ukranian or Asian immigration. It's because there aren't as many immigrants from those areas. Mexcian illegal immigrations has millions more people and is thus the more pressing issue.

You idiot.

Okay, so now that we've established that the Democrats aren't playing favorites with blacks/hispanics, why are 'they' playing the race card?

Because of stupid laws like the ones in Arizona. I'm honestly not a mind-reader. For all I know the Republicans could have passed the law because Space Jesus told them to. Maybe they have some kind of ingenious Xanatos Gambit in the workers where they get the sympathy of some hidden minority. But the more likely explanations for why they did this is because of blatant willful stupidity or racism. And as people have shown you in this thread there is a racist pattern at play here. So it's not like people are just throwing shit out of nowhere.

The law isn't going to work. We know this because the country at large still hasn't disincentivized people enough not to break the law. But they're going to do it anyway even though it'll end up harassing a minority group.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Because as Count pointed out, people are choosing methods that result in people getting profiled rather than actually attacking the problem.

If they were really concerned about curbing illegal immigration they would remove the incentive for people to hire illegal workers. But they're not pursuing that avenue. They chose to pick a method that harasses and intimidates people without solving the underlying problem; illegal immigration WILL STILL HAPPEN, probably still at around the rate that creates downwards pressure on wages. But they also have the new problem of upsetting Latino minorities. If this program somehow miraculously made it so that no illegal immigrants ever get hired again, then they would at least be able to point to that. But it won't do that.

Why would someone intentionally choose a program that doesn't do what it's supposed to do but has the new dysfunction of harassing a specific group of people? You'd either have to be extremely stupid or evil. And as far as I'm concerned, sufficiently willful stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.

And of course since this kind of crap follows a clear pattern, it's not really much of a stretch to say that the underlying motive is racism.

No, all Count's solution would do is to encourage illegal immigration. Because if you can get in illegally but get a legal job at full pay, then it's more incentive for illegals to go into the country regardless if people would hire them or not.

It doesn't matter if there are *fewer* jobs. As long as they *exist* and pay well, people will come in illegally. Because illegals often don't have jobs in Mexico and elsewhee in the first place.

To stop illegal immigration - effectively - you need to put more guys on the border to keep them from going in, or catch them when they do go in.

Nothing else will stop it.

The reason why the United States has the bulk of illegal immigration come from Mexico stands for two reasons:

Stop right there.

You're a fucking idiot who's raging about a totally irrelevant tangent on geography.

Lots of Mexicans come in because of geography. However, that's not what I said:

The fact is, the Democrats are arbitrarily playing the race card only when THEIR minorities are under fire.

What I am saying is that the Democrats play the race card for Hispanic illegal immigrants for a simple, self-serving reason.

Hispanics vote Democrat.

Over half are registered Dems. Over 70% voted Dem last election. They are a core demographic for Democrats.

So when stuff against "illegal immigration" is passed, the Dems play the race card because they want to protect their Hispanic vote.

Whereas a Ukrainian immigrant probably will end up a WASP.

Geography has nothing to do with it. Politics does. And on the immigration issue, the race card is played not to make things fair for everyone. It's played to keep Hispanics happy and make them continue voting Dems.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:The law isn't going to work. We know this because the country at large still hasn't disincentivized people enough not to break the law. But they're going to do it anyway even though it'll end up harassing a minority group.

The law isn't gonna work because Arizona is but one border state among many.

Again, the "disincentivize" option is not going to work. Mexicans (and many others) live in an environment where there is a slim chance of getting a job, and the pay for it will very be shitty.

With the current laws they stand a slightly better shot at getting a job in the US with a pay that is mostly shitty.

With your proposal they'll have a slimmer shot at getting a job in the US... but the pay would be decent.

Either way, it's better than the deal in Mexico. So they will still come.

Not to mention there is about no fucking way you can implement a "full pay even to illegals" law. Because how can an illegal immigrat complain that they're not fully paid? The moment they do, they'll get fucking deported.

Honestly, Count was polite so I didn't say this to him. But you're an asshole, so I will freely tell you that you are a fucking retard for thinking this will work.

Only way to stop illegal immigration is to put more guys in the border to stop it. Then implement a legal guest-worker program that's not retarded like the current one.