How Much Is Not Enough?

[PochoPatriot]

I have spent the last few days thinking about how much agreement must be had within the ranks of the border security movement. I think this is an important question if we are going to grow. At the old site, there was a definite air that unless you supported Ron Paul's primary bid at the Republican nomination for President you were not a "true" Patriot. That got worse during the general election campaign, when it was the supporting of various and sundry third party candidates.

One of the members of the old board was a young guy. I would consider him left of center. On a couple of occasions he voiced some of his politics, and was immediately denounced as not being a "true" patriot. This man was every bit as much a patriot as the next guy when it came to border security. However, it was not enough for some of the posters. They seemed to demand "pure" ideology from anyone that dared to enter their domain. I believe that this attitude severely crippled that organization, and is one of the reasons that led to its ultimate demise.

The same thing is happening here, and I fear that if we do not learn from history, we will be doomed to repeat it. I speak of my opposition to Arizona's SB 1070. Because I have voiced opposition and concerns to it, I have been labeled a la razaist. So my question to you members and administration, is there now going to be an ideological "litmus" test? Do members have to agree 100% with every piece of law, in order to avoid being termed a "la razaist" by other members of this board?

Further, my opposition to this bill, is based on my concerns over its potential abuse by law enforcement on American citizens and legal residents/immigrants in this country. It seems that there is a propensity to regard all Latinos as "the usual suspects," and this is deeply troubling to me. I continually get the feeling that there are people on this board who regard people like me as second class citizens, not worthy of the same respect and equal treatment. It should be pointed out that these same people have posted openly their admiration for the actions of white nationalists and nazis in this country!

So I am left with the question, how much ideological agreement must one have to post here? And is there real freedom to post dissent without running the risk of being called a "la razaist? Or should people that agree with the general idea of border security, but disagree on specific details just shut up and go away. Further thinning the already thinned ranks of this movement, and making it look even more like the gathering of far right kooks that the leftist media makes it out to be? I hate using the word, because the Left has ruined it, but is there room for tolerance within this group, and this movement? Again, I am not speaking of the things perpetrated by the Gilchrests, Nightingales, and Gheens of this movement, but on issues where there can be civil disagreement.

What say you?

[Rim05]

Pocho, there are times when I am not sure about you, as I don't understand just what you are saying. Always seems there is something that I don't get.
You are aware of how much I used to be on the street but I never agree with anyone all the time and I am never against anyone all the time.

My answer is I am not for fighting with my fellow forum members but they should not be hurt because I don't always agree with their opinion. And yes, I do feel that we are falling into some of the pits of the old forum. The last straw there was when we were expected to only protest with who we were told were ok. I am an adult and I make my own decisions.

I do think you get your feelings hurt rather easily. Maybe you should thicken the skin up a bit. I hope this helps some.

[Mikell]

I personally am not going to agree with someone just because they're on
"my" side of the movement. I believe dissent is normal and necessary. Kind of like people saying that if you don't support the Patriot Act you're not a patriot.
That's bullsh*t. Those same people think that if you're Latino, you want amnesty for all illegals and an open border. It's simply not true.
I know the thread you're referring to Pocho and I think it did get too personal
against you. Patriots come in all colors and you proved yourself a patriot long ago.
Peace man!

[admin]

Any labeling that's been done has been leveled by posters and not the administration. It's seems to be a natural pathway for some who disagree, but I haven't seen any wholesale accusations, so I'd interpret that to be the mindset of the few. If you don't have any detractors, you may not have any personally unique beliefs

[Ayatollahgondola]

Originally Posted by PochoPatriot

So I am left with the question, how much ideological agreement must one have to post here? And is there real freedom to post dissent without running the risk of being called a "la razaist? Or should people that agree with the general idea of border security, but disagree on specific details just shut up and go away. Further thinning the already thinned ranks of this movement, and making it look even more like the gathering of far right kooks that the leftist media makes it out to be? I hate using the word, because the Left has ruined it, but is there room for tolerance within this group, and this movement? Again, I am not speaking of the things perpetrated by the Gilchrests, Nightingales, and Gheens of this movement, but on issues where there can be civil disagreement.

What say you?

I think we're all very tolerant here, else there'd be numerous blank spots on this forum. No one has to be ideologically in sync to post. Since we are a non-profit, we can't really take sides on candidates or spend too much of our time on influencing legislation, so we certainly can't marginalize our associates and supporters over their support or opposition of any legislation. That doesn't mean that you won't be questioned by other posters/associates/supporters about your personal views or motives, However that questioning isn't coming from an official capacity. I've seen that you are capable of your own defense generally, so I don't usually rush to your aide. Really, we are all quite suspicious of each other in some form, mainly because we don't interract face to face where stronger bonds usually get built. We're all kinda like siblings, so we're going to fight amongst ourselves from time to time. Try not to show your weaknesses though. Your siblings aim for those first

[Twoller]

Originally Posted by Ayatollahgondola

... We're all kinda like siblings, so we're going to fight amongst ourselves from time to time. Try not to show your weaknesses though. Your siblings aim for those first

I really take exception to that. I am nothing like a sibling to anyone posting here. I don't know or care anything about anyone posting here besides their opinion. And that would be true even if I knew everyone personally face to face. This is typically an anonymous forum. If some people here know each other face to face, I would say it actually prevents them from expressing themselves. Forums like this are best served in allowing people to express themselves free of the incumberance of face to face obligations.

But this also represents an organization with activities on the ground somewhere and so I suppose it is inevitable that people feel those obligations too. But as a poster, I would encourage people to express themselves as openly and as honestly as they can. The problem, I think, is when people take advantage of the anonymity to be deceptive or calculating in ways they'd like to be in person if they could. Or, when they can. Some people make the mistake of applying rhetorical devices in arguments that work in person, but don't work in written correspondence. Constantly stepping out of an argument to analyze the argument, or getting personal. This always works in person where the victim has no choice but to walk away to shut the fool up.

You can't constantly interrupt somebody posting at a forum like this or physically intimidate them. And if somebody is aggravating you, just ignore them.

[ilbegone]

Originally Posted by PochoPatriot

I have spent the last few days thinking about how much agreement must be had within the ranks of the border security movement. I think this is an important question if we are going to grow. At the old site, there was a definite air that unless you supported Ron Paul's primary bid at the Republican nomination for President you were not a "true" Patriot. That got worse during the general election campaign, when it was the supporting of various and sundry third party candidates.

One of the members of the old board was a young guy. I would consider him left of center. On a couple of occasions he voiced some of his politics, and was immediately denounced as not being a "true" patriot. This man was every bit as much a patriot as the next guy when it came to border security. However, it was not enough for some of the posters. They seemed to demand "pure" ideology from anyone that dared to enter their domain. I believe that this attitude severely crippled that organization, and is one of the reasons that led to its ultimate demise.

The same thing is happening here, and I fear that if we do not learn from history, we will be doomed to repeat it. I speak of my opposition to Arizona's SB 1070. Because I have voiced opposition and concerns to it, I have been labeled a la razaist. So my question to you members and administration, is there now going to be an ideological "litmus" test? Do members have to agree 100% with every piece of law, in order to avoid being termed a "la razaist" by other members of this board?

Further, my opposition to this bill, is based on my concerns over its potential abuse by law enforcement on American citizens and legal residents/immigrants in this country. It seems that there is a propensity to regard all Latinos as "the usual suspects," and this is deeply troubling to me. I continually get the feeling that there are people on this board who regard people like me as second class citizens, not worthy of the same respect and equal treatment. It should be pointed out that these same people have posted openly their admiration for the actions of white nationalists and nazis in this country!

So I am left with the question, how much ideological agreement must one have to post here? And is there real freedom to post dissent without running the risk of being called a "la razaist? Or should people that agree with the general idea of border security, but disagree on specific details just shut up and go away. Further thinning the already thinned ranks of this movement, and making it look even more like the gathering of far right kooks that the leftist media makes it out to be? I hate using the word, because the Left has ruined it, but is there room for tolerance within this group, and this movement? Again, I am not speaking of the things perpetrated by the Gilchrests, Nightingales, and Gheens of this movement, but on issues where there can be civil disagreement.

What say you?

A lot of people just don't seem to understand that there are many different people out there with many different ways of thinking who just happen to be "Hispanic".

Some of the people here agree with and expound on the propaganda brown racists dish out: race is indicative of language, culture, nationality, political belief, and personal belief concerning illegal immigration.

Much of the commentary seems to be directed towards "Hispanics" as if they were all the same exact person, rather than illegality and the problems with importing poverty and displacing American workers of all races and all ancestries as well as government sanctioned fraud and the rest.

They're all willfully ignorant, criminal, Drug pushing, gang banging, child molesting, Mexican flag waving, perpetually drunken pervert border hoppers, every last one of them - regardless of who and what they truly are.

Just as it slaps me in the face as who is likely to be an illegal, I also see a multitude of people who don't fit that description and have no fondness for illegals as illegals don't respect them and drive them out of work too, yet are driven into supporting illegals by rhetoric in tune with the above sentence.

I support the idea of the Arizona law, it would go a long way towards taking the cuffs off immigration enforcement. However, there is also the probability that the pendulum would swing too far and target people who aren't illegal.

As I've stated before, the other person of my household has personally experienced pre 1964 white racism - it's ugly and it doesn't need to come back.

For what it's worth.

[Ayatollahgondola]

Originally Posted by Twoller

I really take exception to that. I am nothing like... .

See Pocho? Now I have something to aim for when he and I are at odds

[DerailAmnesty.com]

I have voiced opposition and concerns to it, I have been labeled a la razaist. So my question to you members and administration, is there now going to be an ideological "litmus" test? Do members have to agree 100% with every piece of law, in order to avoid being termed a "la razaist" by other members of this board?

Further, my opposition to this bill, is based on my concerns over its potential abuse by law enforcement on American citizens and legal residents/immigrants in this country. It seems that there is a propensity to regard all Latinos as "the usual suspects," and this is deeply troubling to me. I continually get the feeling that there are people on this board who regard people like me as second class citizens, not worthy of the same respect and equal treatment. It should be pointed out that these same people have posted openly their admiration for the actions of white nationalists and nazis in this country!

Dude, I read what you had to say about the Arizona legislation on Facebook, left a reply, and made it known that I largely disagree with you. I'm also aware that the substance of your concerns are Constitutional and privacy abuses by law enforcement. That doesn't make you a La Raza sympathizer. That makes you a member of a minority in this country that actually thinks about and values Constitutional protections.

Here's your problem. People say crap here and you care.

Why? You know from experience (here and on the old SOS board) that people whom you will rarely or never see invariably talk the most extremist, inflammatory garbage. The white nationalism sympathizing crap and loon bag conspiracies (i.e. Obama the Illegal Alien) are commonly composed on the keyboards of folks we won't see on the tarmac at a Home Depot day labor site gig, a Santa Clarita City Council Meeting, or a protest in the Antelope Valley.

Those who want to talk the most spend the most time here on the board b/c the extent of their involvement doesn't usually extend past posts and bitching about illegals. D, why on Earth do you care?

[wetibbe]

After a few years you will learn that it doesn't matter at all what the subject is- politics - religion - guns - reloading - rifles.

Eventually people will be people. contentious, cantankerous, difficult, aggressive, bellicose.

Someone will write something and someone else will take offense and start an argument. Then it degenerates into name calling and insults eventually resulting, many times, in someone getting banned.