Check Your Privilege Holocaust Survivors

Posted by khalling 10 years, 11 months ago to Culture
166 comments | Share | Flag

I am not a tweeter by habit-but this is ridiculous (MSNBC). My favorite retweet-they got free healthcare and all!

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 6.
  • Posted by Rozar 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I could say you're right, it isn't tyrannical, but I would say it's heading in that direction.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Mimi 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No. That’s irrational. That’s like saying I’ll stop using the ’N’ word when you stop acting like one.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -3
    Posted by Maphesdus 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    How about this: We'll stop saying it when people stop being prejudiced. Sound fair?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Tyrannical would be to impose an oppressive power, and oppressive would be unreasonably burdensome or severe. I don't see that a nation expecting to control the immigration into the nation as being unreasonable or severe, therefore, it does not meet the definitions for being tyrannical.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Mimi 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    “Check your privelege” is a tocsin reminder of “Kill Whitey”
    I hate the term. I am insulted by the term and I want people everywhere to stop using it. Save your rationale.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Rozar 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'll just say it doesn't have to be inherently racist or xenophobic. You could have border control for economic reasons as well. But yeah I agree it's tyrannical in any case.

    You have the strangest collection of positions lol.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Maphesdus 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree. Voluntary donations work for welfare organizations, but not for government functions like police or firefighters.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by Maphesdus 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It is inherently racist and xenophobic to pass laws which declare immigration to be illegal. Immigration should never be a crime. Ever. People ought to have the freedom to live where ever they want. One of the defining characteristics of a totalitarian dictatorship is that you cannot enter or exit the country without the government's permission. Thus, all forms of border control are inherently tyrannical and despotic.

    And nations do not need to prevent people from entering the country in order to maintain their so-called "national sovereignty." A government can function perfectly well without tracking every single individual who wants to reside within its borders.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "Private welfare funded by voluntary donations is really the best way to go, in my opinion."
    Would the same thing be true for policing? I say no because someone who doesn't pay still receives the benefit of policing. Suppose we find that we could get some of the benefits of policing from a well-design welfare or education program. It seems like everyone should have to contribute to that too. Otherwise we arrive that absurd (IMHO) position that it's okay to use gov't to solve a problem if the solution involves guns and clubs but not if it involves food and education.

    I agree, though, overall I'd like less gov't focus to solve problems. If it would work, I'd rather have voluntary contributions and just live with some free riders who don't pay their way.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "wear a victim note on your sleeve and let's watch you falsely prosper"
    What does this mean? I believe just focusing your disadvantages makes you less likely to succeed. It makes you think about things you can't change instead of things you can. I don't think very many people win consistently by focusing on their disadvantages.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    If they aren't here by a legal means, then they aren't "citizens."

    And you are mistaken that illegal immigrants do not receive government payments. You are also incorrect that it is impossible for an illegal immigrant to obtain a social security number. Whether that number is valid or not is another issue.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    And how could preventing illegal immigration be inherently racist? And how do you figure that immigration should be unregulated/uncontrolled? By what theory of nationality? To not have any controls is to effectively lose national sovereignty.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I believe it is a very bad way of alerting people to this. It's better to focus on the reasoning. Assigning a motivation to someone, "you're saying that because XZY", just challenges them say "no, no, no" without even thinking it through. Maybe they are making a logical error that involves racial bias. Maybe by chance they're right and there's some mistake in your reasoning. You won't know unless you drill down into the facts and proceed logically from there.

    I've never actually heard someone say it but it sounds like basic poisoning the well. I really reject it.

    +1, as if anyone gives a whit, for explaining a controversial position.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Maphesdus 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The welfare problem could potentially be solved by saying only citizens who have been living in the country for a minimum of 20 years are eligible to receive welfare. Alternatively, it could also be solved by abolishing state welfare funded by taxes. Private welfare funded by voluntary donations is really the best way to go, in my opinion.

    By the way, illegal immigrants actually don't receive any welfare. There are many Hispanic people on welfare, yes, but they are legal immigrants, not illegal ones. Getting on welfare requires a social security number, which an illegal immigrant wouldn't have.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by Maphesdus 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That's the whole purpose behind the statement, "Check your privilege." It's essentially a way of alerting people to the fact that they AREN'T focusing on content of character, and that they should make a greater effort to do so.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You're saying having closed borders is inherently racist? We cannot restrict the flow of people who want to come here in anyway, or it's racist? That doesn't make sense b/c the set of people wanting to come here is mixed race and the set of citizens here is mixed race. One country of immigrants and indigenous peoples wanting to control who comes here is racist? I don't understand why.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo