• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Digital

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
1,166
Um

What does this mean, exactly? Sounds a bit racist.
It's not. It's something I've learned in my foreign policy classes. It's an objective fact that Chinese and Indian immigrants are exceptionally smart and talented, and that the diversity quota is specifically designed to prevent one or two countries from dominating in terms of immigration.
 

FeistyBoots

Member
Oct 27, 2017
3,506
Southern California
It's not. It's something I've learned in my foreign policy classes. It's an objective fact that Chinese and Indian immigrants are exceptionally smart and talented, and that the diversity quota is specifically designed to prevent one or two countries from dominating in terms of immigration.

This still reads as if immigrants from countries other than those can't be as smart and intelligent.
 

CrankyJay

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
11,318
It's not. It's something I've learned in my foreign policy classes. It's an objective fact that Chinese and Indian immigrants are exceptionally smart and talented, and that the diversity quota is specifically designed to prevent one or two countries from dominating in terms of immigration.

This technically falls under the definition of racism, because it's ascribing certain qualities to all peoples of these races.
 

LiquidSword

Member
Oct 25, 2017
501

CrankyJay

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
11,318
Huh? How does the attacker saying he did it for ISIS disprove Trevor's point about Trump and Republicans hypocrisy?

It doesn't disprove the first part of the statement about Nazis, but it sort of does about Muslims. I just think this particular event was a bad example to give to prove this particular point.
 

Famassu

Member
Oct 27, 2017
9,186
Is this true though? I thought it was immediately clear the attacker did this in tribute of ISIS.

https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/n...t-sayfullo-saipov-recently-fell-under-n816741
In this case it was clear it was ISIS, in others Trump has been just as swift to judge and demand action immediately. And the point still stands about his & everyone's hesitance to change gun laws no matter how many mass shootings pile up on White House's front door while every & any case of muslims doing something wrong is used as proof of needing tighter immigration control.
 

LiquidSword

Member
Oct 25, 2017
501
It doesn't disprove the first part of the statement about Nazis, but it sort of does about Muslims. I just think this particular event was a bad example to give to prove this particular point.
Did you watch the video? It's not about Trump assuming this guy was Muslim. If that is your thinking from just reading the quote posted with the video. Having a hard time figuring out what you mean.

Edit: It's about the difference in response by Trump which I think is pretty self evident if you just look at his twitter and the fact that this is immediately being used as an excuse to cut down immigration, but liberals are condemned for "politicizing" after mass shootings.
 
Last edited:

CrankyJay

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
11,318
Did you watch the video? It's not about Trump assuming this guy was Muslim. If that is your thinking from just reading the quote posted with the video. Having a hard time figuring out what you mean.

Yes, my statement was based off of the quote above the video. Headlines/quotes are important though!

edit: I'm acknowledging your edit and I agree with that part of it. I really am just nitpicking the quote/headline.
 

Digital

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
1,166
Huh? How does the attacker saying he did it for ISIS disprove Trevor's point about Trump and Republicans hypocrisy?
Because his motives are now clear?

This technically falls under the definition of racism, because it's ascribing certain qualities to all peoples of these races.
Can a fact be racist? If it makes you feel any better, their exceptionalism is born from their education rather than any genetic superiority.
 

bruhh

Member
Oct 26, 2017
270
It's not. It's something I've learned in my foreign policy classes. It's an objective fact that Chinese and Indian immigrants are exceptionally smart and talented, and that the diversity quota is specifically designed to prevent one or two countries from dominating in terms of immigration.
"I'm not being racist but people from these countries are not talented/smart."

Nah, that's pretty racist.

edit: a fact can't be racist. You're not stating facts. You stated that a meritocracy means only two races would get in. That's not a fact. I'm guessing you looked at a statistic and converted it to an extreme statement (which has become racist).
 

LiquidSword

Member
Oct 25, 2017
501
Because his motives are now clear?

But his motives are not a subject of discussion in that video at all?

Yes, my statement was based off of the quote above the video. Headlines/quotes are important though!

edit: I'm acknowledging your edit and I agree with that part of it. I really am just nitpicking the quote/headline.

Yeah I figured that was the confusion. Quotes are important! It's also important to see them in their full context. In the full context it's pretty clear Trevor meant that this guy being Muslim is the only fact Trump needs to respond the way he is responding vs a Nazi using the same tactic to kill someone.
 
Last edited:

bruhh

Member
Oct 26, 2017
270
Never said that, but okay. Whatever. Keep putting words in my mouth and being that kind of toxic poster.
You said:
"if you went merit based, only two types of people would be getting into this country: Indians and Chinese."

And went on to say that they are exceptionally smart, implying that other races wouldn't get through a merit based system because they don't fit that criteria. Saying that people from certain countries end up in higher paying jobs (or something similar) is absolutely fine, because like you said, facts can't be racist. When you say "only two types of people would be getting in" you end up with an opinion and not fact.
 

Digital

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
1,166
You said:
"if you went merit based, only two types of people would be getting into this country: Indians and Chinese."

And went on to say that they are exceptionally smart, implying that other races wouldn't get through a merit based system because they don't fit that criteria. Saying that people from certain countries end up in higher paying jobs (or something similar) is absolutely fine, because like you said, facts can't be racist. When you say "only two types of people would be getting in" you end up with an opinion and not fact.
My apologies. I assumed it was obvious that I was being hyperbolic in response to Trump. Still, the percentage of Indian/Chinese immigrants would be absurdly high compared to those from other countries, which I don't think is good for the country.
 

Hecht

Blue light comes around
Administrator
Oct 24, 2017
9,734
bruhh Digital

One is implying things the other didn't say, and the other is making an argument that needs evidence to back it up.


That said, I don't see how your argument has anything to do with the topic at hand.

EDIT: Seems to have worked itself out :)
 

bruhh

Member
Oct 26, 2017
270
My apologies. I assumed it was obvious that I was being hyperbolic in response to Trump. Still, the percentage of Indian/Chinese immigrants would be absurdly high compared to those from other countries, which I don't think is good for the country.
Ah ok. Yea I would for sure to expect certain countries to be disproportionately promoted with a a greater merit based system.

US immigration isn't a problem overall though. It's already incredibly strict and getting in is extremely difficult. This whole "we gotta lock our immigration" is just nonsense to seem tough on terror.

edit: alright maybe I shouldn't infer from different statements. Just felt that the first comment was a bit strongly worded.
 

Digital

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
1,166
Ah ok. Yea I would for sure to expect certain countries to be disproportionately promoted with a a greater merit based system.

US immigration isn't a problem overall though. It's already incredibly strict and getting in is extremely difficult. This whole "we gotta lock our immigration" is just nonsense to seem tough on terror.
For sure. One of our best competitive advantages is that so many very smart people want to live in the US. Giving that up to China or Canada would be the beginning of the end.
 

kmfdmpig

The Fallen
Oct 25, 2017
19,373
Never said that, but okay. Whatever. Keep putting words in my mouth and being that kind of toxic poster.
You may not have meant to, but your "only two types of people..." is an absolute, which doesn't recognize the many people from other countries that would perform well enough to get in based on a merit-based system. There are other countries besides India and China that educate people well and prepare them to be great contributors in a wide range of fields.

Edit: Nevermind - already addressed.
 

IPSF

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
345
Because his motives are now clear?


Can a fact be racist? If it makes you feel any better, their exceptionalism is born from their education rather than any genetic superiority.

Nonsense. You're talking about two of the most populous countries on earth, pure stats says they'll also have the most talent.

What's racist is you taking that numerical truth and spinning it out to be about their race not the size of their cohort.
 

Digital

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
1,166
You may not have meant to, but your "only two types of people..." is an absolute, which doesn't recognize the many people from other countries that would perform well enough to get in based on a merit-based system. There are other countries besides India and China that educate people well and prepare them to be great contributors in a wide range of fields.
See above. It was hyperbole. Still, I would expect something like 75-80% Chinese/Indian if the diversity quota was gone. The quota is already being pushed to allow 20-40% (can't remember which) Chinese/Indian.
 

Digital

Banned
Oct 28, 2017
1,166
Nonsense. You're talking about two of the most populous countries on earth, pure stats says they'll also have the most talent.

What's racist is you taking that numerical truth and spinning it out to be about their race not the size of their cohort.
What's actually racist is you ignoring the progress that both the Chinese and Indians have made in their education systems to cultivate so many bright people.

Obviously I am being satirical. Sadly, you are not. We can fling this shit back and forth all day.
 

DarthWoo

Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,662
I had the misfortune of catching the breaking news of Trump's statement regarding the attack while I was eating lunch at work yesterday. I think we can all agree that he's never been a particularly good speaker, but this one was just beyond the pale. There was of course the instant politicization of the attack, immediately jumping to attacking one party and stigmatizing all immigrants. He was just aggravating to watch as a matter of his inability to read a prepared statement without his entire face being practically glued to the script below his face. Any time he actually looked up, there was a pretty good chance he was about to go off-script. That "it's not good...it's not good" moment made him seem like a Star Trek Pakled. Then his talk about scrapping the justice system because it's too slow made him just seem all the more fascist than he already is. Constitution? What's that?
 

Mammoth Jones

Member
Oct 25, 2017
12,310
New York
This technically falls under the definition of racism, because it's ascribing certain qualities to all peoples of these races.

And it's often utilized as a tool of racists against black people and say "See, they're good and they just got here it's obviously an intrinsic flaw with you and not anything to do with systemic racism that's been pervasive throughout history"