The Politics Thread (PLAY NICELY!)

Well, a lot of people are making assumptions about a lot of folks. You did so in your post, above. I'm trying to be different from my usual anal self and letting them slide a bit because we're all aware that this is a complicated topic (or at least, I hope so) that there are no easy answers to.

I mean, what extra things are being given? As far as I can see the only laws that pass in favour of minorities are to prevent the discrimination that causes the inequality in the first place. Affirmative action as I've already talked about is a very specific policy that can be misused (much like any other policy).

As for reverse racism, I'll just roll with Wikipedia because it's 4.30pm on a Friday:

Does this match your definition?

Because that doesn't seem to match "being nice to a minority just because they're a minority" and I'm struggling to follow that logic in the first place. I mean, I believe we should try to be nice to people regardless but also being nicer / more cautious / more aware of potential hurt to already-hurt minorities can help. It doesn't always, and there are people that misuse being cautious to be deliberately obtuse or condescending, but again, that doesn't void the ideal of being nicer in the first place.

I'd be nicer to someone who was just in a car accident compared to someone who wasn't. Or to someone that caused the accident directly with no remorse. That's how empathy tends to work, in my experience. The same goes for those who suffer racism. But then we go back to the ability to enforce racism, which comes with power, and the status quo is so overwhelmingly white / male / upper-middle class that actually enforcing reverse racism seems to be to be a relative impossibility outside of niche use cases that don't really support the state of the world as it stands today.

When I talk about giving extras I'm not really talking about government policies. Though with third wave feminism's agenda some things that hurt majority groups are a possibility. For example when they attempted to ban criticism by contacting the UN....

I'm more so talking about on the private level or education level. Where we see schools giving scholarships to a particular minority group simply because.

Or for example the creation of a female only league in CS. An esport in which men and women should be of equal ground. Women having their own league undemines the achievement of women who play in a combined league, as well as the men in said league. By giving prizes to people of equal or lesser skill because there is a smaller skill ceiling in a smaller grouping. This also means the best of this smaller grouping, LDLC Red I believe won't improve because they dominate their female league. And SOOOOO we won't see women in high tier CS. Because they take the easy route through a female league.

I actually talked with a female pro about the above topic. I'd like you the thread, but it was on HLTV.org a pretty cancer site otherwise.

I recognize because this is on the private level there's nothing I can do about it. I'm just trying to say I don't agree with this mindset. Personally.

See it gets really hard to not make assumptions sometimes.

1. Third-wave feminism isn't solely defined by a handful of women that spoke to the UN. Much like second-wave feminism isn't solely defined by TERFy behaviour. A lot of people demonise third-wave feminism and it's like nobody ever read a history book.

2. They didn't attempt to ban criticism. I hate to raise the spectre of GamerGate but you are literally parotting their disinformation there.

3. Schools give scholarships just because? Are you sure it isn't because said minorities earn less and have less opportunities in life and thus suffer in education especially in countries where it costs a lot of money (like the US. As bad as the UK is going, I thank the heavens we're better than the US).

I'm not as familiar with the CS kerfluffle, but I'd imagine that stems from a lot of harassment than women gamers get, and how to fix that. Not all solutions will be ideal. A women-centric CS league might be different in context to what Blizzard were doing with their Starcraft or Hearthstone tournies.

However, I fail to see how an optional video game competition focusing on women at all demeans the achievements of women who win in another (mixed) league. Given that we know context, everyone knows that assuming all statements are true, the trophy awarded to the women's only league means less than a trophy awarded at a combined event. Like some how competitions are more prestigious than others. That doesn't mean no other competition should exist.

Remember when this thread wasn't the only thing we talked about here? Good times. Allow me to solve literally everything so we can go back to the good times:

Donald Trump is a cartoon character. And not even a good one. Like, drunk-Family-Guy-writer level bad.

Trying to patrol your border with ever-present drones or walls, or SWAT teams, or whatever, just makes your country look like xenophobic and paranoid arseholes who are so afraid of "them" they'll blow up anything that doesn't have a passport.

Instead of deporting people, why don't you try figuring out what drove them to jump boarders in such a hurry and if their intentions are clean, , give them a green card or whatever it's called, and let them stay. Because that's just one more taxpayer and one more person in your workforce.

Girls in video games: Stop pointing them out. Stop pointing out the players, stop pointing out the characters, just stop. If you want it to be normal you won't achieve that by throwing a parade every time it happens. By all means call out bikini armour and other sexist nonsense but praising normal just makes it abnormal.

'NUFF SAID.

Dude ever try fighting the Borg or Cylons? There's no reasoning with them. Wiping them out is entirely justified.

Logic: They are hell-bent on destroying anyone or anything that isn't them. They do not bargain, they do not show mercy. The only way to protect your civilization and others is by eliminating them.

MY LOGIC IS UNDENIABLE.

Unfortunately for your argument, we have yet to meet a sentient species that is hell-bent on wiping out entire civilizations for personal gain.

that shouldn't be our responsibility though, that should be the responsibility of whatever country those people are leaving from

Yes, however, it's our responsibility to enable them. Part of the issue is that the process is convoluted and slow, and so they get impatient.

Humans have shown to be willing to do that countless time throughout history

Individuals with charisma, sure. Humans in general? No.

I dont think impatient is the right word. We aren't *causing* the problem with a slow immigration process. And Geers - we have kinda done that. Most just want jobs, the rest are drug gang members or just criminal leeches. Doesn't really change the fact that they need to go :/

are you doing any investigating here?

or you just blindly sending back any alien?

what if it turns out that none of them are drug gang members or criminal leeches and that those where among green card citizens?

does it not mean at that point you've accomplished the opposite of what you wanted?

would you still be content?

would you not concede that it would have been prejudiced to kick 'em out at that point?

@Gorbles & @arseface some incredibly good points. Both of you.

Pretty good summation of LITERALLY ANY CITY POPULATION ANYWHERE EVER.

Except:

These folks have a lower standard of living and will therefore work for very little wages.
They didn't enter the country legally.

Last I checked, unexpired green cards aren't a form of illegal immigration, so we wouldn't even touch them.

This isn't a discussion of hypothetical situations. The conditions I described are not fiction. Druggies and criminals are illegal crossing the USA's border. Desperate families and poor kids, too. Doesn't excuse the fact that they broke the law.

Fix the law then.

But colin, as we know, all laws are perfect and without fault. They're most certainly not sometimes designed for specific benefits for the lawmakers, nor can they be designed to target some demographics over others. How preposterous!

I lol'd

So, our open immigration policies are somehow designed to target Mexicans? What?

We allow pretty much anyone to move to the USA, as long as they aren't, ya know.....criminals or terrorists.

What else do you want from us? I can give the poor people all my money and live in squalor like Africa. I guess that will solve the problem. No, WAIT! Let's just have the government steal the money from the richest folks so we don't have to sacrifice! AWESOME! /s

******* leeches. GTFO.

Of course! Rich people shouldn't pay taxes! They're better than us!

You could give all of your money to poor people in a country of your choosing and your quality of life would still be above that of regular homeless people in your country, nevermind people in Africa.

You just don't understand these concepts, that's fine. But no need to go OLOL I GOT U LEECHES instead of, y'know, admitting that.

And yes, something being called "open immigration" does not, in fact, guarantee its openness. I can write a function that says "doTheThing()". It doesn't actually have to do the Thing. Names are names.

Oh shiz so that's why it won't compile! Finally, I can finish the program of my dreams.

HelloWorld.exe

This is meeeeeEEEEeeee. Life should beeeeee, fun for every one!