This is a non-answer, and I think you know it. Campaign rhetoric, while often extreme, sets expectations for policy. Add inflammatory anti-Muslim rhetoric to an inner circle of advisors with noted ties to hysterically Islamophobic organizations and you have an administration that implements ideaological bans. The differences between Obama's 2011 implementation and Trump's 2017 fiasco are well documented elsewhere. They also don't matter in a way, because Trump repeatedly said that he was calling for a "complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering America". Intent matters, especially from the Twitter President. So there are direct links to Islamophobia. As for anti-Mexican sentiment, the angst here is more economic. Mexicans are a convenient other. NAFTA, for it's flaws, reduced the flood of immigration, because it moved well-paying jobs to Mexico, where labor (because of the cost of living) is cheaper. Poor Americans still like their cars, their TVs, etc. I'm not saying they must do without, but economics is heartless. Live in an American town where those things are part of the standard of living and I'll show you a Mexican barrio where they can package food/assemble electronics/make widgets as well as their unskilled American counterpart, for 20% of the wage. So the economic and racial resentment is articially manipulated by many of the same people that benefit from it. The millionaire/billionaire class a have it easier when they aim poor white ire at Mexican immigrants and complex trade agreements than the alternative.

Also a non-answer. You can't just assert I'm not living in reality. I asked you to explain your beliefs. Don't point me to a YouTube video. Type them out, learn how to express them. If you don't want to fine, but not being able to argue your positions makes you the rube too many of my friends assume people like you are. I don't, I really want to dialog. Only way I'll survive the next 2-4 years... By the way, sourcing is fine for a conversation like this. I'm being pre-emptive here, but your quick non-answers aren't encouraging.


But justice can have many shadings. Legal, societal, tribal, etc. Doesn't mean they're all moral in the same way. Pure truth in a moral or philosophical sense isn't objectively attainable. I don't know if you're religious, and that's an entirely separate argument, but all but the most stringent of codes recognize circumstance as, at least, influencing action. Regardless, I completely agree that coercion is almost never the answer (outside lawful imprisonment, and the like). Certainly not over things as petty as 'Gamergate'.

I get it. You didn't own slaves. Neither did your parents, or your grandparents, or your great-grandparents. Maybe you're family isn't well-off. Maybe your job sucks. You hear 'white privilege' and you think 'rich privilege'. That's not what white privilege means and any serious thinker will tell you that you shouldn't feel guilty for being white or feel bad for being told that you don't have it as bad as black folk. I get angry when I hear that and rightfully so. It's about the aggregate. It's about the lifetime. Of everyone. In the country. STATISTICALLY, you will have a better life than people of color. The straight line is this is due to slavery. Not your fault. Not my fault. My people were in Ireland until the early 1900's. But as a white man, I will make more money and live longer. If I get arrested for possession of narcotics, I'll likely serve less time.

What you do with this knowledge, I don't know. I'm still recovering from my rejection of the idea of white privilege, which I only seriously thought about within the last few years. But your statement is a meaningless tautology.

This is getting long. Happy to continue (takes me a day to digest and gather my thoughts, so long form correspondence) if you want to take this to email or something.