You’re right, but one thing I’d like to point out about nature of voting in a democracy (and this isn’t about immigration itself): voter turnout is never 100% for anything, and winners are often decided by a handful (local elections) or couple of thousands of votes (state, federal).

Do you think that if leftists completely dropped any support for DEI and CRT that their opponents would suddenly support programs that aggressively attack wealth inequality?

No, but US wealth inequality is going to worsen now because of the US Dept. of Education being gutted, which is worse than DEI going away. I think education and welfare programs will make easier policies for majority of voters to vote for. More of the US population is poor than a minority of some kind. The danger I was alarmed by (admittedly a knee jerk reaction) is that increasing polarization is going to be used by authoritarians to win and install their own preferred systems. Poverty reducing efforts like in the Nordic model will be popular, but also something some types of politicians cannot favor because of their prior party stance.

You’re right, that’s why Title VII and VIII were written to address those aspects

I meant politicians will abuse the intention of these policies to gain favor from poor white voters, and that nation state actors will cause polarization by highlighting the growing discontent in various ways.

I think policies in the Nordic model are more along those lines, tbh.

I am not angry about anything, and I didn’t look them up now, tbh. The issue I find is that well-meaning and useful policies are painted as something they’re not, or used by others to create polarization. So, my pov is that leftists and progressives are better off focusing on poverty alleviation. If minorities face generational wealth issues (they do) then poverty alleviation policies that don’t single them out in particular will be harder to attack by political opponents.

Okay, so about immigration I’ll just make this point, from another thread:

So, let’s say a democratic country favors pro-choice policies, but then has an influx of immigrants who are anti-abortion, and now that population is greater. That’s a change of values because the population shifted to a majority opinion which favors a different view point. If a country has an idealized view of how it wants to be, then I think it’s fair to expect immigrants to integrate and assimilate. I don’t think that has anything to do with xenophobia or not excluding different cultures, as long as the core values of a country are maintained. For example, if a country wants to maintain a democratic socialist society, and a greater population of capitalists immigrate to it, then I think that socialist society would want to restrict immigration as well.

The above point is to demonstrate how democracies are fragile, and that not all immigration policies are necessarily xenophobic or racist.

I added it.

Okay, I’ll add those.

It’s in the OP.

Look, if I am wrong I want to know. I said I won’t respond to those posts because it’s not meant to be an argument.

It’s shared in the OP.

The state owns it in a Marxist society. Or are you saying that a group of farmers in China can go tell the PRC what to do

The alien assumes a property cannot be owned because it in fact can not be owned.

Why? If someone pays for the resources to build it, then who owns it? If the labor could build it to begin with, then why didn’t it? Then labor could be the owner. But if labor relies on resources to build mechanisms of productivity, then it’s fair to say that those who build the mechanisms are justly due some compensation for their input.

We already tried armed conflict over resources, the pieces of paper were what we decided was a better alternative.

So I say somewhere else that one shouldn’t bother with this comic because its assumptions are flawed, but let’s point out exactly how because otherwise Marxists will live in the flawed understanding that their pov is unchallenged or inherently correct.

— the alien assumes for some magical reason a property cannot be owned, specifically a factory. A factory is not a natural product of the world, there’s not tree growing factories. Someone put in an investment to create it, and the work they allocate in that factory is a recoupment of that factory building investment.

— the workers obey “pieces” of paper because that’s what society decided is civilized behavior. The alternative is one where a factory owner decides to kill people for trying to take what’s theirs, or the workers decide to kill the factory owner to take over. Either way, there is violence and bloodshed.

Marxist believe, for whatever magical reasons, that the violence will stop once they seize the means of production. But why should it? Why wouldn’t another subgroup of Marxists constantly want to challenge the committees who want to run that specific factory? The answer is that without a rule or agreement (piece of paper), various groups will constantly try to seize what they think should be theirs.

— the alien believes that agreeing to work with someone is slavery. Here I have two things to say: 1) for someone who doesn’t want to work, then any kind of work will appear to be slavery, and that’s not a a capitalism problem, that’s a self actualization problem for some people. 2) in reasonable economies, people have choices for places to work, or unions which ensure that employers cannot abuse them, or laws which ensure protections.

The fact is simply this, whenever two people interact, they will have disagreements. We make laws to not kill each other over those disagreements. If you want to experience what it’s like living in an authoritarian state, try living in china or Vietnam. Rule of law means little or nothing in such places, whereas in democracies you can still get some recourse via the courts, or via regulations. Have kleptocrats and oligarchs ruined democracies, yes definitely.

— being a larger class doesn’t necessarily mean anything in violent conflict. I think any philosophy which relies on violent conflict to achieve its goals is tacitly admitting that it cannot win the hearts and minds of people via ideas alone.

Edit to say, I have a busy day ahead so I wont be responding lol, but doesn’t mean I agree or don’t want to challenge this vapid Marxist pov

And once more: lol @ downvoters constantly butthurt that their Marxist pov is challenged

But nepotism only relates to family or friends, I believe. Not necessarily to someone who’s unrelated. That’s why I suggested the term “familiarity hire” or “cronyism hire”

It’s not my circle of friends, and I am not taking about myself. I am about talking other people and speaking for other people

Hire POCs, raise awareness regarding double standards