[_opc6]

Liberal by definition is anti-racist. A major tenet of liberalism is egalitarianism and it's what allows free market capitalism.

Maybe you should go educate yourself about what Liberalism is before appointing yourself the racism police on Hackernews.

I'm a liberal and I've said I prefer not having more racists in California with illiberal sentiment. That is the opposite of racist.

There is a long history of America enforcing white racial integrity which you seem to be naive to. As a native Californian I think it's fair to be weary.

I stand by not wanting more transplants in my state and it's not just me.

[dang]

Tit for tat flamewars like this are not welcome on HN. Worse, you've been using the site exclusively for political battle for a long time now. The site guidelines explicitly ask you not to do this, and you've been posting so much of it that I've banned the account. I hate to ban a 10-year-old account, but the pattern here is egregious.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email [e-mail] and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.

[chaostheory]

> Liberal by definition is anti-racist.

1. Just because you feel that you're liberal does not mean that you are actually a liberal.

2. You can identify as a liberal and still be a racist. e.g. your ideals of "egalitarianism" only seem to apply to you fellow "Californios" and no one else

> Maybe you should go educate yourself about what Liberalism is before appointing yourself the racism police on Hackernews.

I've already proven based on your comments alone that you hold racist views. Let me remind you the definition of a racist again, since you keep forgetting and ignoring it.

racist - a person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group with the belief that groups of humans possess different behavioral traits corresponding to physical appearance

How do you not fit the definition of a racist based on your previous comments? Let me remind you that your very first comment for me was essentially, "Leave my home, it only belongs to my people (who are racially / ethnically similar to me)". How is that much different from "Go back to your own country?"

Maybe we should have HN decide who is right and who is wrong? Your views do not belong here.

> There is a long history of America enforcing white racial integrity which you seem to be naive to. As a native Californian I think it's fair to be weary.

You're not wrong that America has a long history of racism in favor of white Anglos. I'm not disputing that. However, I think you're the one who needs a history lesson, instead of believing in your revisionist version. While the Calfornios were mixed, being multi-generational descendants of both conquistadors and indigenous people, they were by and large culturally still the same as their conquistador ancestors. They served European royalty to take and subvert land and native peoples for the Spanish crown by any means necessary. The first Calfornios were soldiers. All of this is well documented.

"Spanish and Mexican rule were devastating for native populations. 'As the missions grew, California’s native population of Indians began a catastrophic decline.' Gregory Orfalea estimates that pre-contact population was reduced by 33% during the Spanish and Mexican regimes. Most of the deaths stemmed from imported diseases and the disruption of traditional ways of life, but violence was common, and some historians have charged that life in the missions was close to slavery."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_genocide

The Spanish conquistadors' descendants were no better than their English counterparts when it came to colonization and brutality. "Californios" are also not the same people as California's native population.

> I stand by not wanting more transplants in my state and it's not just me.

The popularity of a belief does not guarantee that it's actually moral or ethical. Your views are not acceptable on HN and they do not belong on HN.

[dang]

Please do not get involved in tit-for-tat flamewars on HN, regardless of how wrong someone else is or you feel they are. Arguments like this are against the site guidelines and, when people get stuck banging their heads against each other like this, it's extremely tedious for everybody else. The only thing that works is to let go and walk away. I know that can be hard (believe me I know) but adding more mass to the pile only makes it harder.

The place this thread really went off the rails is https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25482753. Your first comment was obviously in good faith, but when you got an obviously bad faith reply, you should not have fed it. This is in the site guidelines: "Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead." When flames aren't fed, they quickly die out.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html