White nationalism is NOT white supremacism.

In reference to society. It's not a big deal. But society has diversity, people have ethnicity. If I used it any other way, I misspoke.

No. In the paragraph you quote I meant what I wrote: diversity.

Not getting your point.

Nonsense. My argument is based on the fact that, thanks to the fact that we welcome diversity, we became the most powerful nation. You seem to be reading a different post, and not the one I wrote. And I have no idea what that one was about

I said no such thing.

 

You actually said exactly that thing. Please see your own post which I quoted in #1102.

Otherwise, as for you "Not getting your point," yep I believe it.

 

Quote it. Because I have no idea where you read such a thing.

But I do have the definite impression that your reading comprehension is pathetic.

 

Sigh...it's on this page...

 

It sure is. But nothing I said looks even remotely what you are fabricating and attributing to me.

 

"Which we have thanks to our diversity. Our acceptance of people of all ethnic groups. Racist Germany rejected the Jewish... and we, a society open to cultural diversity, got Einstein, von Neuman, Bethe, Fermi (his wife was Jewish) and others.... And without them, it is doubtful we would have that "military might" today.
I don't have to "believe" ... I just proved it."

 

Compare to

How in the world could anybody misread and interpret "our" diversity to mean "their" diversity?

This is not the first time this happens to you. It's a huge waste of time trying to figure out what you're talking about, so please pay more attention.

 

Why would decent folks care about anything regarding 'white nationalism or supremacy'? Those words are as vacant as the term racist. Overused nonsense that would only really effect someone suffering from mild to severe bouts of white guilt...

 

Because decent folks despise intolerance. The only thing decent folks should never tolerate is intolerance.

 

That explains why you can't find any decent liberals. Actions speak louder than false liberal claims. Rioting to stop or interfere with a conservative speaker on a campus is intolerant. Suing people with religious objections to lifestyle choices is intolerant. Inventing hate crimes and other hoaxes in order to score political points is intolerant, to the truth anyway. We all know who the intolerant ones are, and no surprise they yell that everyone else is racist or a supremacist or whatnot...

 

Your like a cat following a laser pointer today!

 

Almost all the liberals I know, the only thing they don't tolerate is intolerance.

I completely agree. Students who do that should not be tolerated. They should have some consequence, including even expulsion, in some of the most flagrant cases.

If they are just "objecting", as you say, that is correct. But if they do more than just "object", that's simply not tolerating intolerance.

I don't know any liberal who does either of those things. But if you know any, I agree that they are intolerant.

 

And, in your mind the phrase "and we, a society open to cultural diversity, ..." refers to their diversity, and not ours? The pronoun "we" doesn't give you a clue that I'm referring to us, and not them?

I mean... even if you got that wrong... "a society" should give you a clue. Given that they are not "a society"... but we are.

If I were you, this is where I would leave well enough alone. We are already aware that reading is not your strongest suit. No need to keep rubbing it in.

 

Sometimes just baiting you into constant reply/Quote is rubbing it in. So how did OUR DIVERSITY lead to " Einstein, von Neuman, Bethe, Fermi (his wife was Jewish) and others.... ?"

 

Go for it!

How? Exactly the way my post states: thanks to our openness to diversity we gained what the Nazis lost because of their lack of openness to diversity. We gained those great minds, who contributed enormously to our military and scientific might.

This is one obvious example of how openness to diversity contributed to our military and financial might. I only use it because it's obvious and constitutes the easy "proof" of how diversity is beneficial that the poster I responded to demanded.

 

This may be a differing worldview issue, because your explanation makes literally no sense. There is no aspect of "our diversity" in the 1930's that lead to accepting Einstein, von Neuman, Bethe, Fermi ect...

Generally I understand the left fairly well (far better than the left understands the right) and I know that diversity is akin to a religious catechism; you repeat it, you bow down and give homage to it, but you don't understand it really and just know it as holy words. I've given you ample opportunity to explain yourself and it seems you are just unable to except in pseudo religious terms. Since I'm not part of your church and have no interest in it, there are some aspects of it that will forever remain a mystery.

 

So, in your mind, at a time when Jews were persecuted an rejected in much of the world (i.e. rejection of diversity), our openness to diversity had no role in bringing them to this country? You think they would have done the same if they had stayed in Germany (which rejected all diversity)?

The rest of your post is bizarre. You don't need to give me "the opportunity" to anything. You just need to show that your confusion between "their" and "our" was a one-time occurrence and not sign of some attention issue.

 

I hate to repeat myself, but as I said in my last post, your response literally makes no sense.

"So, in your mind, at a time when Jews were persecuted an rejected in much of the world (i.e. rejection of diversity), our openness to diversity had no role in bringing them to this country? You think they would have done the same if they had stayed in Germany (which rejected all diversity)?"

Gibberish. You are trying to cram 2019 SJW nonsense to fit history, and you're making a mess of it.

Einstein, von Neuman, Bethe, Fermi (his wife was Jewish) and others fleeing Europe in the 30's were not welcomed in the US because of "our diversity." They were extremely valuable scientists. No one in the US was thinking, "we really need these guys to add to our diversity!"

Thought experiment for you: If the US adopted an immigration policy that was open to anyone in any country in the world, as long as they had PHD in a STEM field, would that be a good idea because we are diverse, or because they were? And does it matter?

 

I pretty sure you understand it but are feigning.

Just in case, imagine this: you are Albert Einstein in the 1930s. A Jewish person at the time when Jews are being persecuted in many parts of the world. And a citizen of Germany, which is the leader in that persecution. And the ultimate anti-diversity regime. Which has influenced much anti-Jewish sentiment in most other countries (including our own). If you wanted to find a country where you wanted to be safe, which would you chose? A country with zero tolerance to diversity? A country with some tolerance? Or a country that already shows great diversity of immigrants residing here from all over the world.

If these were the 1930s and I were Einstein or Fermi or Bethe or... any of the great minds escaping persecution in their own country, this last option would be exactly what I would be looking for.

You must be the only person here who doesn't get this obvious fact. I've explained the same even to white supremacists on this forum, and they may disagree or deny it or dismiss it... but they understood my point without any problem.

Us! Our diversity. Meaning, the diversity in our society. And, as I said many posts ago, I assume by "their diversity" you mean their ethnicity. What does "their diversity" even mean? Einstein was not "diverse".... he was Jewish. Maybe the problem is that you are having a hard time understanding the meaning of the word "diversity".

God! I feel as if I were explaining why a car's tires are round and not square to a 4 year old.

 

You're confused at my confusion because, as I noted previously, differing worldviews. Your's is of a SJW of 2019, in which Einstein would be shopping for diversity, and I take a more historical view, of Einstein wanting a place where he could continue to work without worrying the country he was in would be overrun by Nazi's.In the 1930's, that was a very limited list with the US on the top. There were and are Jews all over the world and if he just wanted to find a country that tolerated the "diversity" of Jews, he could have gone to a lot of places, but for the secular minded Einstein, a world class physics department was probably number one on his list.

So I think I've explained as well as I can why your babbling about "diversity" in the 1930's sounds like gibberish, but I'm sure you wont' get it.

 

So you actually think that in 1933 Germany a Jew wouldn't look for a country that accepted diversity?

You may be right on the first part of this sentence. I may have, in fact, incorrectly attributed your confusion to not understanding the term "diversity". Now I see that your confusion is mostly due to you not understanding History.

And I'm not even going to try to understand this nonsense you say that Einstein in 2019 would be "shopping" for diversity.

 

Wow that's absurd. No, I'm sure that word "diversity" (or mannigfaltigkeit more likely) didn't enter his head.

 

That's irrelevant. The only thing that had to enter his head was the thought "I'm Jewish, what country won't persecute me?". A Society that accepts people of all ethnic backgrounds is known as "a diverse society".

 

So when the Soviets grabbed all of those Nazi scientists after the war they were lucky that they were going to a diverse society?

I can't believe I was able to keep you talking and drilling further down on this nonsense. If I had planned it I would have been proud of myself, but no, I can't take credit; it's all you.

 

The USSR was a diverse society? Do you know who Stalin is? Or what he did? What Hitler did to Jews, Stalin did to .... everybody.

So you're saying that we shouldn't take you seriously?

So noted!