| > 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. |
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