Is it justifiable to hate migrants?

[Whitney Edwards]

I came across this black dude making a video on the migrant crisis. His language wasn't exactly palatable. Deep hatred for migrants? I don't understand why. Yes they can be a strain on resources. But they can turn it around, do important low tier jobs and actually sustain the economy. Don't see why that should be a problem. Is he insecure that black neighborhoods will be taken over or just jealous that migrants are getting more benefits over black communities. How do you rationalize where he is coming from? 

 

[PurpleTree]

imo it’s ok to close borders and not let them in

it‘s ok to kick them out

but it’s not ok to hate them, they are just humans living the human struggle trying to have a better life

[Danioover9000]

@Buck Edwards

26 minutes ago, Buck Edwards said:

I came across this black dude making a video on the migrant crisis. His language wasn't exactly palatable. Deep hatred for migrants? I don't understand why. Yes they can be a strain on resources. But they can turn it around, do important low tier jobs and actually sustain the economy. Don't see why that should be a problem. Is he insecure that black neighborhoods will be taken over or just jealous that migrants are getting more benefits over black communities. How do you rationalize where he is coming from? 

 

   Similarly to @PurpleTree  and his:

 

21 minutes ago, PurpleTree said:

imo it’s ok to close borders and not let them in

it‘s ok to kick them out

but it’s not ok to hate them, they are just humans living the human struggle trying to have a better life

   But I'll have a different take on this issue.

   Is it justifiable to hate migrants, or anyone, or even anything? Yes. Yes, because hatred, or hate, is a conglomerate of many similar and different negative feelings/emotions that could range from some apathy(depression, laziness, boredom defeat), to grief(lose, sadness, guilt, betrayal, hurt), to fear(terror, insecurity, worry, nervousness, and many types of phobias), to Lust(greed, possessiveness, obsession, cravings, pleasure, frustration), to anger(annoyance, disgust, rage, contempt, masking of hurt, revenge), to pride(feeling icy, cold, stoic, judgmental, intellectual/moral superiority, hubris, aloof), less towards the upper more higher conscious emotions like courage(confidence, creativity, happiness, security), to love( feeling of glowing, love, joy, passion), and peace(holistic, grounded, emotionally fluid, calm, serenity, integrated). Hatred is much similar to disgust, repulse, contempt, and revenge. Because you ask if it's ok to feel hatred toward someone or something, then yes allow yourself to feel that hate. It's mostly not healthy to resist and suppress certain emotions in you, which builds up emotional catharsis that has to resolve later on, sooner or later.

   However, if you worded the question like: Is it justifiable to hate migrants AND act hateful, express hatred, towards them behaviorally? I'd say it's highly dependent on context and situation you are in relative to that migrant who is now the source of your hate. For example, you walk and you witness a sexual assault of a woman by a migrant, I'd say you are justified to both feel some hatred and even righteous anger and take some action. If you are in a situation when you got jumped by a migrant, got your stuff stolen and a family member got hurt, you are justified to feel hateful to that particular migrant, and justified in feeling vengeful. I'd normally say no, and generally better not to act out of hate, but then I'd sunk cost fallacy myself as there might be some exceptions when a situation is so bad and evil, involving a migrant attacking you or someone you love in someway that then questions me telling you what to think or feel, as who am I to tell you if it's right or wrong, if it's fine or not to FEEL and THINK in HATE that it's like me thought and emotion policing you. So, highly depends on context, and don't beat yourself up for feeling hateful.

[bebotalk]

1 hour ago, Buck Edwards said:

I came across this black dude making a video on the migrant crisis. His language wasn't exactly palatable. Deep hatred for migrants? I don't understand why. Yes they can be a strain on resources. But they can turn it around, do important low tier jobs and actually sustain the economy. Don't see why that should be a problem. Is he insecure that black neighborhoods will be taken over or just jealous that migrants are getting more benefits over black communities. How do you rationalize where he is coming from? 

 

No group should get more benefit over another, without due course or need.

Immigration is a complex topic, and often the issue is a lack of integration. This is both the fault of migrants and governments alike. 

Even though migrants often do low-skilled/low-pay jobs, it still can cause issues down the line. 

[Whitney Edwards]

51 minutes ago, Danioover9000 said:

However, if you worded the question like: Is it justifiable to hate migrants AND act hateful, express hatred, towards them behaviorally? I'd say it's highly dependent on context and situation you are in relative to that migrant who is now the source of your hate. For example, you walk and you witness a sexual assault of a woman by a migrant, I'd say you are justified to both feel some hatred and even righteous anger and take some action. If you are in a situation when you got jumped by a migrant, got your stuff stolen and a family member got hurt, you are justified to feel hateful to that particular migrant, and justified in feeling vengeful. I'd normally say no, and generally better not to act out of hate, but then I'd sunk cost fallacy myself as there might be some exceptions when a situation is so bad and evil, involving a migrant attacking you or someone you love in someway that then questions me telling you what to think or feel, as who am I to tell you if it's right or wrong, if it's fine or not to FEEL and THINK in HATE that it's like me thought and emotion policing you. So, highly depends on context, and don't beat yourself up for feeling hateful.

I don't think that the video depicts anything closer to what you're describing. It's literally a dude just hating migrants for being migrants. It is full of hate and not fair. His reasoning is simply - they're taking over. And? 

[Danioover9000]

@Buck Edwards

2 hours ago, Buck Edwards said:

I don't think that the video depicts anything closer to what you're describing. It's literally a dude just hating migrants for being migrants. It is full of hate and not fair. His reasoning is simply - they're taking over. And? 

   My reply is much deeper than the video, and answering from the basis of if it's justifiable to FEEL and THINK hatred of someone or some groups, not if it's justifiable to act and behave from hatred, which I covered in that second half of the reply. Short answer is yes, give yourself permission to feel so in the context of emotions and feelings, and your inner dialogue. In another context of thinking/feeling, and taking action, that is highly dependent on the situation. For example in the video the guy's expressing his hatred through speaking, which gives us a peak into how he might think and might feel via statement analysis, tonality and body language, and also allows us to approximate his value system, cognitive and moral patterns, personality and psychology, his ego development, his general state of being/becoming and shadow aspects of his psyche, other lines of development, ideology, self biases and preferences, all indoctrinated from culture, family upbringing, interactions with peers and others in his community, information intake from news, TV, radios, videos, social media, other points in this internet ecology we're in. Him expressing that bit of hate in himself also allows us to compare and contrast if we wholly or partly relate with him, and what shadows we have hiding in our subconscious minds, and tests our understanding and empathy for such people with hate.

   So, short answer, speaking for me, is probably no, not okay to express hate via behavior and speaking, but I am not ignorant to want complete thought policing, otherwise how would I know if I'm wrong, or biased, or have shadows in me if I don't get to witness another ego that contains that which I deeply suppress in me?

[bebotalk]

14 hours ago, Buck Edwards said:

I came across this black dude making a video on the migrant crisis. His language wasn't exactly palatable. Deep hatred for migrants? I don't understand why. Yes they can be a strain on resources. But they can turn it around, do important low tier jobs and actually sustain the economy. Don't see why that should be a problem. Is he insecure that black neighborhoods will be taken over or just jealous that migrants are getting more benefits over black communities. How do you rationalize where he is coming from? 

 

This person is a racist black supremacist. So he has his own angle in the vid and his rhetoric here. 

[bebotalk]

It's not justifiable to hate migrants.

If people have issues with migrants, then blame governments. They allow migrants in, and formulate and implement policies on how to handle them.

 

[zazen]

8 minutes ago, bebotalk said:

It's not justifiable to hate migrants.

If people have issues with migrants, then blame governments. They allow migrants in, and formulate and implement policies on how to handle them.

 

A worthy read I came across on Twitter:

“Mass Immigration:

Economic migrants do not emigrate at scale to places which aren't already prosperous, therefore the countries they flock to were great before they even turned up. They are redundant rather than necessary, which is why the powers that be who profit from their arrival at the expense of the national interest repeatedly bleat about how necessary they are - because if you keep repeating the same thing over and over again, people start to believe it regardless of its validity.
 

Pioneers are different. Pioneers emigrate somewhere that is undeveloped, or at a low level of development - with the promise opportunity awaits IF ONLY they work to build the nation. They are seduced by the prestige of being heralded as nation builders, the greater freedom that comes from living in a less developed and therefore less tightly regulated state, and the potential for massive growth that can only be found in places which haven't been built up yet.

They are not there to benefit from an already developed society, and set up mini parallel societies in the form of ethnic enclaves which take money out of the economy in the form of remittances sent to their families abroad, but to build up the country and become a citizen. Their loyalties lie with the land they're in, not some far flung foreign land from which their genes derive. Pioneers are nation builders, the very first generation to usher in greatness through the sweat of their brow to build a great country.

 

Economic migrants on the other hand are simply opportunists. They are generally not there because they love you or your people and want to become one of you, but because your country is richer than theirs and they want some of your money. They want a better life, which is understandable - who doesn't? But their pursuit of a better life shouldn't come at the expense of your way of life, which it inevitably and invariably does if the limits on how many are permitted entry aren't sufficiently restrictive.
 

Mass immigration is a lazy way of dealing with a declining birth rate to prop up tax revenues, a way for big business to depress wages and prop up asset values (thus directly lowering the quality of life for a society's poorest and most vulnerable) and when it comes to skilled migration, a toxic way of compensating for an inadequate education system by poaching brilliant people from much less developed nations.

If you had a skills shortage in a non-globalised world, how would you deal with it? You'd improve your education system and filtering processes for identifying cognitive brilliance and train up more of your own people to become doctors and teachers, instead of try to entice the best people from less fortunate and more struggling lands to abandon their people in order to come and make an already successful society even more successful.

 

If your people weren't making enough babies, what would you do? Take a long hard look at your economic and cultural practices, identify the elements which are suppressing fertility (eg: high real estate prices, lack of religiosity, feminism etc), and set about correcting them to reverse the trend - stated more generally, you would incentivise family formation amongst your own people, rather than replace yourselves with foreigners because you're greedy and not having enough babies.
 

You mould your population to what you need them to be through the actions of your policies, with the identity and culture of your people placed in the front and centre of your mind - this is what it is to put your country and people first, as opposed to sacrificing your people's identity and interests on the altar of economic prosperity.
 

Good governance is about serving the people, not the economy, and although the people certainly benefit from a strong economy, there are particular policy choices such as open door mass immigration which sacrifice the long-term prosperity, identity and cultural integrity of a people for nothing more than short-term economic gains.
 

A good leader and his party does not simply think about how to solve the problems of today, but likewise of the unintended consequences and second, third and forth order effects of how the solutions implemented today form the paradigm of tomorrow. They view a branching tree with multiple effects deriving from a cause, and then those effects becoming causes which too branch out to have their own effects. They do their best to predict, to be psychic, to anticipate what will come and to prevent worst case scenarios whilst trying to optimise for the best case and there are hopes that AI can aid in this endeavour, but stated in a simple manner: they try to problem solve a highly complex system with branching pathways (society) across time.
 

One of my favourite leaders I studied was known for planning at least 50 years ahead of time. The Chinese, likewise, as questionable as their regime may be, likewise appear to operate on long timescales both internally and geopolitically.

 

A good leader is more practical than ideological, but that does not mean he should be unpatriotic - for a leader is, by definition, there to further the interests of his people through the nation's improvement - and a man cannot devote himself to a country that he does not love, which is why men who love other lands are hard pressed to devote themselves to yours.”

 

[Danioover9000]

@bebotalk

8 hours ago, bebotalk said:

This person is a racist black supremacist. So he has his own angle in the vid and his rhetoric here. 

   So because someone is racist, that justifies then their suppression of hate and other feelings towards some people and the world? Justifies deep denial of their humanity, understanding and empathy? Again, not justifying their expressions and behaviors, that highly dependent on situation, but to me it's unjustifiable to tell someone how to think and feel about someone or something or the world. It's wrong of me to tell you to stop crying, feel sad, feel guilty over the death of your family in an avalanche, or to tell you to stop feeling hate, anger, revenge, disgust, frustration, or any negative feelings/thinking of the perpetrator that murdered and raped your daughters or sisters, or your mother.

   It's even worse when we dogmatically force people to not express, mostly in speech and sometimes in behavior, their other parts of their psyche, and to fake a saintly, good Samaritan image, and make them fake those signals and lie to themselves, make them then build trauma that they will later have to deal with, with their inauthentic selves sealed deep in their shadows. 

[Danioover9000]

@zazen

31 minutes ago, zazen said:

A worthy read I came across on Twitter:

“Mass Immigration:

Economic migrants do not emigrate at scale to places which aren't already prosperous, therefore the countries they flock to were great before they even turned up. They are redundant rather than necessary, which is why the powers that be who profit from their arrival at the expense of the national interest repeatedly bleat about how necessary they are - because if you keep repeating the same thing over and over again, people start to believe it regardless of its validity.
 

Pioneers are different. Pioneers emigrate somewhere that is undeveloped, or at a low level of development - with the promise opportunity awaits IF ONLY they work to build the nation. They are seduced by the prestige of being heralded as nation builders, the greater freedom that comes from living in a less developed and therefore less tightly regulated state, and the potential for massive growth that can only be found in places which haven't been built up yet.

They are not there to benefit from an already developed society, and set up mini parallel societies in the form of ethnic enclaves which take money out of the economy in the form of remittances sent to their families abroad, but to build up the country and become a citizen. Their loyalties lie with the land they're in, not some far flung foreign land from which their genes derive. Pioneers are nation builders, the very first generation to usher in greatness through the sweat of their brow to build a great country.

 

Economic migrants on the other hand are simply opportunists. They are generally not there because they love you or your people and want to become one of you, but because your country is richer than theirs and they want some of your money. They want a better life, which is understandable - who doesn't? But their pursuit of a better life shouldn't come at the expense of your way of life, which it inevitably and invariably does if the limits on how many are permitted entry aren't sufficiently restrictive.
 

Mass immigration is a lazy way of dealing with a declining birth rate to prop up tax revenues, a way for big business to depress wages and prop up asset values (thus directly lowering the quality of life for a society's poorest and most vulnerable) and when it comes to skilled migration, a toxic way of compensating for an inadequate education system by poaching brilliant people from much less developed nations.

If you had a skills shortage in a non-globalised world, how would you deal with it? You'd improve your education system and filtering processes for identifying cognitive brilliance and train up more of your own people to become doctors and teachers, instead of try to entice the best people from less fortunate and more struggling lands to abandon their people in order to come and make an already successful society even more successful.

 

If your people weren't making enough babies, what would you do? Take a long hard look at your economic and cultural practices, identify the elements which are suppressing fertility (eg: high real estate prices, lack of religiosity, feminism etc), and set about correcting them to reverse the trend - stated more generally, you would incentivise family formation amongst your own people, rather than replace yourselves with foreigners because you're greedy and not having enough babies.
 

You mould your population to what you need them to be through the actions of your policies, with the identity and culture of your people placed in the front and centre of your mind - this is what it is to put your country and people first, as opposed to sacrificing your people's identity and interests on the altar of economic prosperity.
 

Good governance is about serving the people, not the economy, and although the people certainly benefit from a strong economy, there are particular policy choices such as open door mass immigration which sacrifice the long-term prosperity, identity and cultural integrity of a people for nothing more than short-term economic gains.
 

A good leader and his party does not simply think about how to solve the problems of today, but likewise of the unintended consequences and second, third and forth order effects of how the solutions implemented today form the paradigm of tomorrow. They view a branching tree with multiple effects deriving from a cause, and then those effects becoming causes which too branch out to have their own effects. They do their best to predict, to be psychic, to anticipate what will come and to prevent worst case scenarios whilst trying to optimise for the best case and there are hopes that AI can aid in this endeavour, but stated in a simple manner: they try to problem solve a highly complex system with branching pathways (society) across time.
 

One of my favourite leaders I studied was known for planning at least 50 years ahead of time. The Chinese, likewise, as questionable as their regime may be, likewise appear to operate on long timescales both internally and geopolitically.

 

A good leader is more practical than ideological, but that does not mean he should be unpatriotic - for a leader is, by definition, there to further the interests of his people through the nation's improvement - and a man cannot devote himself to a country that he does not love, which is why men who love other lands are hard pressed to devote themselves to yours.”

 

   That's a very nice tweet, one of the rare ones from twitter.

[MarkKol]

Depends on the context, there is a lot of people who come to the United States that genuinely have a passion for the country, others don’t and they come only for economic reasons, a lot of the times these people aren’t willing to bend their value systems just because they don’t mix very nicely with the majority.

The US is much more lenient on Europe and Canada then the rest of the world, going as far as creating special visas for them. Because their value systems are more or less the same with some differences.

 

And don’t kid yourself, this discussion is definitely about values and beliefs, otherwise you can look at each American and track back their origins to another country, unless you still dance around a tiki statue and worship the sun. Then you’re 100% American, you have the right to complain about almost everybody walking around on your territory.

[bebotalk]

6 hours ago, zazen said:

A worthy read I came across on Twitter:

“Mass Immigration:

Economic migrants do not emigrate at scale to places which aren't already prosperous, therefore the countries they flock to were great before they even turned up. They are redundant rather than necessary, which is why the powers that be who profit from their arrival at the expense of the national interest repeatedly bleat about how necessary they are - because if you keep repeating the same thing over and over again, people start to believe it regardless of its validity.
 

Pioneers are different. Pioneers emigrate somewhere that is undeveloped, or at a low level of development - with the promise opportunity awaits IF ONLY they work to build the nation. They are seduced by the prestige of being heralded as nation builders, the greater freedom that comes from living in a less developed and therefore less tightly regulated state, and the potential for massive growth that can only be found in places which haven't been built up yet.

They are not there to benefit from an already developed society, and set up mini parallel societies in the form of ethnic enclaves which take money out of the economy in the form of remittances sent to their families abroad, but to build up the country and become a citizen. Their loyalties lie with the land they're in, not some far flung foreign land from which their genes derive. Pioneers are nation builders, the very first generation to usher in greatness through the sweat of their brow to build a great country.

 

Economic migrants on the other hand are simply opportunists. They are generally not there because they love you or your people and want to become one of you, but because your country is richer than theirs and they want some of your money. They want a better life, which is understandable - who doesn't? But their pursuit of a better life shouldn't come at the expense of your way of life, which it inevitably and invariably does if the limits on how many are permitted entry aren't sufficiently restrictive.
 

Mass immigration is a lazy way of dealing with a declining birth rate to prop up tax revenues, a way for big business to depress wages and prop up asset values (thus directly lowering the quality of life for a society's poorest and most vulnerable) and when it comes to skilled migration, a toxic way of compensating for an inadequate education system by poaching brilliant people from much less developed nations.

If you had a skills shortage in a non-globalised world, how would you deal with it? You'd improve your education system and filtering processes for identifying cognitive brilliance and train up more of your own people to become doctors and teachers, instead of try to entice the best people from less fortunate and more struggling lands to abandon their people in order to come and make an already successful society even more successful.

 

If your people weren't making enough babies, what would you do? Take a long hard look at your economic and cultural practices, identify the elements which are suppressing fertility (eg: high real estate prices, lack of religiosity, feminism etc), and set about correcting them to reverse the trend - stated more generally, you would incentivise family formation amongst your own people, rather than replace yourselves with foreigners because you're greedy and not having enough babies.
 

You mould your population to what you need them to be through the actions of your policies, with the identity and culture of your people placed in the front and centre of your mind - this is what it is to put your country and people first, as opposed to sacrificing your people's identity and interests on the altar of economic prosperity.
 

Good governance is about serving the people, not the economy, and although the people certainly benefit from a strong economy, there are particular policy choices such as open door mass immigration which sacrifice the long-term prosperity, identity and cultural integrity of a people for nothing more than short-term economic gains.
 

A good leader and his party does not simply think about how to solve the problems of today, but likewise of the unintended consequences and second, third and forth order effects of how the solutions implemented today form the paradigm of tomorrow. They view a branching tree with multiple effects deriving from a cause, and then those effects becoming causes which too branch out to have their own effects. They do their best to predict, to be psychic, to anticipate what will come and to prevent worst case scenarios whilst trying to optimise for the best case and there are hopes that AI can aid in this endeavour, but stated in a simple manner: they try to problem solve a highly complex system with branching pathways (society) across time.
 

One of my favourite leaders I studied was known for planning at least 50 years ahead of time. The Chinese, likewise, as questionable as their regime may be, likewise appear to operate on long timescales both internally and geopolitically.

 

A good leader is more practical than ideological, but that does not mean he should be unpatriotic - for a leader is, by definition, there to further the interests of his people through the nation's improvement - and a man cannot devote himself to a country that he does not love, which is why men who love other lands are hard pressed to devote themselves to yours.”

 

Seems like some pap some American conservative wrote. Full of half-truths and mis-steps. 

Birth rates are falling globally. And in countries that are more religious than the West. And also way less feminist or egalitarian. The X user who wrote this badly-constructed prose should ask him/herself why birth rates are falling in much of Africa, the Middle-East, and other cultures that value gender equality. Such as in Iran or Sudan, for instance. 

It also ignores that rich countries often want people from poorer countries to migrate, to fill jobs that natives don't want to do. 

Edited December 7, 2023 by bebotalk

[bebotalk]

16 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

@bebotalk

   So because someone is racist, that justifies then their suppression of hate and other feelings towards some people and the world? Justifies deep denial of their humanity, understanding and empathy? Again, not justifying their expressions and behaviors, that highly dependent on situation, but to me it's unjustifiable to tell someone how to think and feel about someone or something or the world. It's wrong of me to tell you to stop crying, feel sad, feel guilty over the death of your family in an avalanche, or to tell you to stop feeling hate, anger, revenge, disgust, frustration, or any negative feelings/thinking of the perpetrator that murdered and raped your daughters or sisters, or your mother.

   It's even worse when we dogmatically force people to not express, mostly in speech and sometimes in behavior, their other parts of their psyche, and to fake a saintly, good Samaritan image, and make them fake those signals and lie to themselves, make them then build trauma that they will later have to deal with, with their inauthentic selves sealed deep in their shadows. 

Well, given his views, one has to question his motivations and intentions in highlighting migrants. All emotions have value, but this doesn't mean that all expressions of emotions are valid. The fact he is a black supremacist means that his views will be invariably tainted by his ideology, which I do not support or value. 

 

[Danioover9000]

@bebotalk

39 minutes ago, bebotalk said:

Well, given his views, one has to question his motivations and intentions in highlighting migrants. All emotions have value, but this doesn't mean that all expressions of emotions are valid. The fact he is a black supremacist means that his views will be invariably tainted by his ideology, which I do not support or value. 

 

   What if we have 2 black supremacists. 1 has self awareness, and allows himself to feel and think his feelings, but doesn't act out his hatred. the 2 allows himself to feel and think hate, but acts out his hatred. Which one is justifiable the more moral black supremacist? Who is the healthier one, and how do we know?  

[bebotalk]

2 hours ago, Danioover9000 said:

@bebotalk

   What if we have 2 black supremacists. 1 has self awareness, and allows himself to feel and think his feelings, but doesn't act out his hatred. the 2 allows himself to feel and think hate, but acts out his hatred. Which one is justifiable the more moral black supremacist? Who is the healthier one, and how do we know?  

My point is that his views on migrants will be tainted by his overall ideology. Immigration is a complex issue, but he clearly has his own ideals in the mix. The OP assumes he is representative of what most black Americans think. It's not. Not more than the Grand Wizard of the KKK is representative of most white Americans. He's taken what some person with extreme views is saying without seeing the context behind his ideology or worldview. You seem to have issues in seeing context. Is English your first language?

 

Edited December 7, 2023 by bebotalk

[gettoefl]

if you're a hater, migrants is what you will hate, an easy punch bag for you, and it's good proof you're a hater

so, removing the needlessly provocative part, your question actually is, is it justifiable to hate

it's a inborn human emotion

most smart people do hide it but your attitude to migrants will display who you are loud and clear

a beautiful litmus test

 

 

Edited December 7, 2023 by gettoefl

[Danioover9000]

@bebotalk

33 minutes ago, bebotalk said:

My point is that his views on migrants will be tainted by his overall ideology. Immigration is a complex issue, but he clearly has his own ideals in the mix. The OP assumes he is representative of what most black Americans think. It's not. Not more than the Grand Wizard of the KKK is representative of most white Americans. He's taken what some person with extreme views is saying without seeing the context behind his ideology or worldview. You seem to have issues in seeing context. Is English your first language?

 

   So, if we took 2 black Supremacists A and B, and this time we include their ideological beliefs: A is liberal, the other B conservative. Both can feel and think hateful, but A acts on that hate via speech/action, while the other B has discipline and willpower not to. So, which one is healthier: person A or person B? And when we factor in their political ideology, does this change the dynamic?

   I don't think so. I think OP asked the question 'Is it justifiable to hate migrants?' and wants an answer to if it is justifiable to 'hate'(as an emotion), so I answered yes as an emotion, but no and highly depends on context to act out of hatred. You assume this question of OP is him assuming this hate for migrants is representative of the black community, it's not.

   I also agree that emotions have value and are valid, and I agree that expression of hate is not valid, but it's value is context sensitive. What I don't agree on is the thought policing, of guilt shaming others to not hate, or to guilt shame yourself into not feeling hate, that actually will build up resentment not just for others, but for yourself, you see?

[Danioover9000]

@Nabd

1 hour ago, Nabd said:

If you are from a 3rd world country which got exploited by NATO member then it is your absolute right to migrate/seek refuge in NATO country.

   Why is it a good idea? Especially if those immigrants are at the ego stage opportunists/impulsive, and in it for the money and exploiting your fellow citizens and nationalists, and they are not migrating to be loyal and be a citizen of that country? Open borders can be risky for a country, just look at Sweden and it having to deal with many opportunists that migrated there, with their criminal gangs. Are those migrants that are sexually assaulting Swedish women, with no interest in developing Sweden, good for Sweden?

[PurpleTree]

21 minutes ago, Nabd said:

Of course I am all in for strict police and strict sentencing of criminals even if they are refugees.

For example the way the court system in Germany is dealing with rapists or murderes is very lenient even in cases where a gang rape a girl. These people who commit such crimes should be sentenced harshly not just the bs of 1 year in prison which end up being 3 months.

Its also a net positive for European countries to take in refugees. Check Germany where you have the highest or 2nd highest number of doctors coming from Syria and they have like 1 million only.

Europe and the US are basically taking the best of the best from these countries without paying alot and with minimal effort and of course some shitty people will be there too but its absolutely a win for them.

i would say it’s more of a loss in europe. refugees from the middle east, morocco, tunisia etc commit a lot of crimes in places like france, sweden, germany etc. Also right wing getting stronger

Edited December 7, 2023 by PurpleTree