Am I?
Honestly, I dont mind Japanese/Korean/Chinese/Vietnamese immigration as long as it doesnt get completely out of hand. I dont mind the typical Indian programmer or businessman. I dont even mind muslim immigration if they really belong to the few who take their faith as seriously as most younger Europeans take theirs (i.e. 'not at all').



I guess what I am strongly against is

- low education level/poverty immigration
- immigration of strongly religious persons
- immigration of people from archaic, underdeveloped cultures and societies


If these views make me a racist or proponent of a "white ethnostate" in your eyes (or those of fender lol), then so be it.

Starting on Monday, minors in Spain will be allowed to leave their homes from 9am to 9pm, so long as they are accompanied by an adult, show no coronavirus related symptoms, and stay within a 1km radius of their homes.

Groups of maximum 4 people (1 adult and up to 3 children) are allowed, and all of them must belong to the same household (no meeting with friends or neighbors).

Recreation parks and playgrounds where kids tend to gather are out of bounds, but playing with toys in the streets or public areas is allowed, and children living in the countryside will be able to play freely in the open.



Children will also be allowed to accompany their parents as they carry out the essential chores, like shopping, going to the bank or pharmacy, walk the dog, etc.

This post was edited by zarkadon on Apr 23 2020 08:50am

And 5 days later, we will all be allowed to go out for a walk or jog. Finally.

How gracious by your government.

After the pandemic is over, I'm really looking forward to comparisons between countries with strict lockdowns and those without them. The way the numbers developed in Italy/Spain/France/New York, it doesnt feel to me as if this kind of strict lockdown (where you cant even go for a walk or job anymore) had a noticeable impact on the spread of the virus (when compared with milder lockdowns).

I think so too (I mean the second part of you're comment, not the gracious part lol). It will be interesting to see the comparisons... honestly, I feel like our government's handling of the crisis has been overall awful so far. Aside from the regional elections in Euskadi, Galicia and Cataolina, they won't be facing elections anytime soon... so we won't really know how the society feels about this. Polls so far, show a stagnation of PSOE, but a notable drop for UP (which probably means that PSOE is dropping but compensating it by stealing votes from UP) and an increase by PP (probably because it's seens as the only alternative to the government, but the awful Casado is still the candidate, so that's probably holding them back).

This post was edited by zarkadon on Apr 25 2020 12:53pm

The issue you're having is the issue of dogwhistling in general.

Let's take civil rights in America. When flagrant racism went out of style in America, they had to come up with new words. They replaced the usual rhetoric with "neutral" or "objective" words and phrases. Phrases like "inner city", "state's rights", etc. etc. Now, some people genuinely believe in states rights, and think there's significant problems in the inner city. However, there's also a significant portion of the population saying those things because they are thinly coded messages for "fuck over black people".

You are probably one of the people who genuinely believes in "limiting immigration", but you also need to acknowledge that there is a significant and vocal portion of people using those things as code words.

It's like if I go around the office saying "today is Wednesday", no matter what day it is. After a while you notice that people only say "Today is Wednesday" when Carol from HR comes around, and only people with a particular distaste for Carol. Now, when you say "Today is Wednesday" and it happens to be Wednesday, you can forgive some people for mistaking your statement saying Carol is a good person who doesn't deserve your shit.


This is also why giving fascists a platform isn't a good idea. When they make an argument, they aren't actually making that argument. They're making a totally separate argument that only certain groups will actually clue into. You don't actually gain anything by debunking fascists. You only give them a greater spread.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Apr 25 2020 12:58pm

would be interesting indeed, but your premature conclusion already suggests how you're going to spin it. you can't just compare countries based on their measures, you obviously have to put that into the context under which those measures were implemented. the examples you listed all resorted to strict lockdowns after they already had unusually high infection rates, for various reasons (in spain for example because they initially didn't take it seriously at all). so what do you want to compare them with?

What seems to be the rule is that testing >>>>>>>>>> lock-downs.

South Korea was the gold standard and avoided strict lock-downs by implementing mass testing right away.

It's not gonna be cut and dry though, because those massive lock-downs were implemented because the spread rate was already insane and testing wasn't' available on a wide enough scale to see how far the spread had already gone. So when we get an analysis that says "hard lock-downs are ineffective" it's going to have a big caveat that the media isn't going to mention. and it will be that those areas with hard lock-downs already had huge spread numbers before it was implemented which largely invalidated the lock-down in the first place.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Apr 25 2020 02:22pm

Well, the situation in America is very different and complicated when it comes to racism. A lot of the tensions imho come from the fact that one half of the country (rightfully!!!) forced the other half to abandon slavery and its racism-based social model against its will, but was unsuccessful in changing their minds and hearts. White Southerners were forced to abandon slavery, but the Reconstruction era failed at convincing them that doing so would be best for everyone in the long run, themselves included. A tremendous number of seeds of racist belief survived that era, and to this day they keep popping up and manifesting themselves in ever-changing form. The situation in the US is made so much more complicated by the poisoned heritage of the country's racist past...

Anyway, my point is that you cant suppress racist thought by suppressing speech, and labelling neutral words as inapproriate or politically incorrect or dog whistling, that's just not a promising approach. As long as people have racial resentment or outright racist viewpoints, this worldview will always find a way to express itself, through words or direct actions (beating people up) or life choices (e.g. white flight).

Imho, the only way to push back against racist thinking in the long run is to dry out the things which feed it. For example, an open, thorough and honest debate about why crime rates in inner cities are so high would go a long way at "detoxing" those who are still redeemable. This would definitely be more helpful than saying "talking about inner cities - racist dog whistling". And yes, this debate would have to start on neutral grounds, not under the pretense of one side being right and the other side being wrong on every single point. Liberals/non-racist people shouldnt have to fear such an open debate since they should have the far better arguments.


Debunking actual fascists might be futile, because there are of course the truly "irredeemable ones" - but those imho make up only a relatively small percentage of the larger group of people who exhibit some degree of racial resentment or prejudice.

This post was edited by Black XistenZ on Apr 25 2020 02:30pm

It's not surprising why it's labeled as a dog-whistle, when it is often used as a dog-whistle. Somebody isn't in the wrong for telling you to stop being mean to Karen because most of the time when he hears "It's Wednesday" it's not actually Wednesday.

You're a person who bought into the "objectively sounding" arguments, without realizing the people weren't actually making those arguments, they were using thinly coded language. You hear somebody saying "It's Wednesday" on a Wednesday and nod your head in agreement. Then when you hear it on a Thursday you say "they just got some details wrong, but sometimes they're right".

You need to look a bit deeper, because when it comes to things on the right you tend to go out of your way to introduce reasonable doubt in their favor.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Apr 25 2020 02:52pm