Liberals seem to have no premise for anything they say. Their arguments will leap from premise to premise as long as it supports diversity.
For example, they’ll cite history if it supports diversity. I had a liberal tell me “If the white people didn’t want diversity, then they shouldn’t have brought the blacks over in chains”. So I pointed out that the blacks weren’t brought over to create diversity, the blacks were brought over as little more than farm animals, to do manual labour. They weren’t supposed to be citizens, and most white people wanted them shipped back to Africa after they were freed. I pointed out that the Founding Fathers didn’t envisage America as a rainbow melting-pot of diversity, they envisaged it as a white country, an off-shoot of Europe. And then all of a sudden he tells me “I don’t give a shit what the Founding Fathers wanted, they were racist pieces of shit”. Hang on, you seemed to care a great deal about what historical white Americans wanted when you thought they wanted diversity. Now suddenly you don’t care what they wanted.
He also said I was a “racist” because I opposed diversity. But he wasn’t neutral on the subject of diversity, he thought diversity was superior to homogeneity, he actively wanted more racial diversity. He wasn’t just indifferent, it was an active goal for him. so race did matter to him. Isn’t that racist too? Why is it “racist” to say racial diversity is bad, but not racist to say racial diversity is good? The neutral, non-racist position would be “racial diversity is no better or worse, so I don’t particularly support or oppose it”.
If you think race doesn’t matter, then surely your position on racial diversity would be indifference? How can you say that race doesn’t matter, and then say that we need more racial diversity? The positions are inconsistent. If someone was really non-racist, then they wouldn’t mind a racially homogenous country, since race doesn’t matter.
Liberals also seem to conflate totally different groups of people. Like they’ll raise the issue of the Native Americans and the blacks, and say things like “the Native Americans were here first”, and “the blacks were forced to come here, so it’s white people’s fault”. Now that’s fine, there is a debate to be had about the Native Americans, and there is a debate to be had about the black slaves. But this has NOTHING to do with a bunch of Arab, Somali, Chinese, Mexican immigrants entering the modern US today! America was about 90/10 white/black, with a few Native Americans. But Liberals look at that and say “look! diversity! we were always diverse!”. If 90% white is diversity, then I don’t have a problem with diversity. But liberals obviously don’t mean that.
It’s true that the Native Americans were there first. But no one’s complaining about Native Americans being there. No one’s complaining about Native American immigration. It’s true that the blacks were taken to America 400 years ago. But the black immigrants arriving from Africa today aren’t being forced. The Arabs aren’t being forced. The Mexicans aren’t being forced. So let’s have an honest argument here, one with a consistent premise. And let’s not just say “diversity” for any and all ethnic groups. Australia had Aboriginals, then whites. But until 1973 it had a White Australia immigration policy. So one racial majority and one racial minority is not “diversity” the way the liberals want it.
Although, this particular liberal I’m talking about also keeps telling me he doesn’t know anything about other countries and doesn’t care about other countries, he only cares about his own country. While also telling me he’s against countries and thinks we shouldn’t have borders. He says the American borders are “imaginary”, but they seem to exert a very real influence on his concerns. That’s the problem with American liberals, they think America = the world. So if white people are the majority in America, they must be the majority in the world. If white people have white privilege in America, they must have white privilege in the world. What I’m trying to explain to you is that it’s okay for there to be some countries for white people, because there are other countries for non-white people. We don’t want to rule the world, we just to rule our own countries.
Complaining about White Privilege in White Countries makes as much sense as complaining about Fish Privilege in the ocean. If you don’t want to live somewhere with Fish Privilege, don’t move to the ocean. Fish Privilege isn’t everywhere, nor is White Privilege. Isn’t it interesting that White Privilege is apparently so evil, but everyone wants to live in the places it exists? Maybe white privilege is good for a country, it seems to correlate very strongly with stability, prosperity and freedom. If white privilege is so bad, then the world’s immigrants would be queuing up to get into enlightened, modern, non-racist countries like Somalia and Pakistan. But they’re not, they’re queuing up to get into countries with white privilege.
This is the guy I was debating with. A self-proclaimed Christian Anarchist.