Board 8 > Liberals shut down Mexican restaurant because it's owned by white guy

(+) Yeah! (+)

BowserCuffs posted...

You're snarking, but Mexican immigrants are pretty vilified all around in our society, actually.

how many people actually care about the ethnicity of the owner of a restaurant? how many people even know? If the food is good, people will go.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

foolm0r0n posted...

I know how good potatoes are in burritos

Not fucking french fries

You know what french fries are made of, right?

Also, I lived in New Mexico for 7 years, where every other burrito is literally a burrito, covered in french fries, then all of that is covered in chile.

Then you eat the burrito + fries together with a fork.

...

Burrito Poutine.
---

The same thing would happen to a restaurant owned by Mexicans but served "white people food"
---

Also, Bowser, I feel like everything you're saying can be summed up as "don't be a jerk"

Don't shun people of other races. Don't kick them out of schools because of their race. Don't ruin someone's business because of their race. etc., etc.

But if a white guy puts his hair in dreads and isn't being a jerk to anyone, there's nothing wrong with that. By the same token, there's nothing wrong with any other kind of cultural appropriation (meaning, using ideas/fashion/food/whatever that originated from another race). The end goal should be a race-blind society where it doesn't matter who's cooking the tacos.
---

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

The same thing would happen to a restaurant owned by Mexicans but served "white people food"

It's possible that people wouldn't eat at that restaurant and it would go out of business that way, but no one would protest against it ever. That misses the overall point, though, which is that limiting what people can sell based on their genetics is stupid.

Behindthecurve posted...

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

The same thing would happen to a restaurant owned by Mexicans but served "white people food"

It's possible that people wouldn't eat at that restaurant and it would go out of business that way, but no one would protest against it ever. That misses the overall point, though, which is that limiting what people can sell based on their genetics is stupid.

I'm not disagreeing. The Mexican restaurant I go to every week was originally owned by white people but employs mostly Salvadorans (in fact the burrito I usually get is specifically Salvadoran). They expanded to other locations and the family of Salvadorans who operate it are now partial owners in the company. I've never seen or heard anyone complaining. They have very good food at reasonable prices and almost joke-levels of fast service. One time I ordered, filled a side cup of hot sauce, poured a glass of water and my burrito was ready before I finished drinking it. Even when there isn't an empty seat in the place and phone won't stop ringing and the line is to the door, I'm looking at a maybe 10 minute wait time...

and this area is extremely liberal. There is literally a rainbow crosswalk, there are black lives matter signs everywhere, there are anti trump protests at city hall every few weeks. If people tried shutting this restaurant down for not being owned by mexicans, the community would be outraged and there would be a ton of support for the business.

I don't know what kind of sand Portland has in its vagina, but this whole thing is just dumb.
---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Also, I lived in New Mexico for 7 years, where every other burrito is literally a burrito, covered in french fries, then all of that is covered in chile.

Sounds like you should open a burrito shop if you know so much about burritos
---

BowserCuffs posted...

SantaRPidgey posted...

BowserCuffs posted...

It's that "white people does a thing, are celebrated - other people do a thing, get shunned, kicked out of schools, refused jobs, etc."

Well we all know how villified mexicans who own restaurants are in out society.

You're snarking, but Mexican immigrants are pretty vilified all around in our society, actually.

That vilification, in no small part, helped elect Trump.

Illegal ones... yes.

Feathery posted...

Cultural appropriation is a legitimate concept

No it isn't
---

IronmikeC posted...

Illegal ones... yes.

Which is why legal immigrants and Americans of Mexican descent are being harassed, reported, detained, and sometimes even deported despite having the necessary documentation - but before the documentation can be processed.

Sorry, no, it's Mexicans you guys hate, not just the illegal immigrants. As it is, you guys ignore illegal immigrants from Asia and Europe.

Gatarix posted...

Also, Bowser, I feel like everything you're saying can be summed up as "don't be a jerk"

Don't shun people of other races. Don't kick them out of schools because of their race. Don't ruin someone's business because of their race. etc., etc.

But if a white guy puts his hair in dreads and isn't being a jerk to anyone, there's nothing wrong with that. By the same token, there's nothing wrong with any other kind of cultural appropriation (meaning, using ideas/fashion/food/whatever that originated from another race). The end goal should be a race-blind society where it doesn't matter who's cooking the tacos.

It sounds obvious, not being a jerk, but sadly it isn't, and there are some things that are done out of ignorance instead of malice that are still insulting or hurtful.

There's cultural appropriation, and then there's cultural participation. Participation is much better than appropriation. There's also osmosis and merging and ideas being exchanged and stuff, and it's just honestly good when it happens right. That's what I want to see.
---

BowserCuffs posted...

SantaRPidgey posted...

BowserCuffs posted...

It's that "white people does a thing, are celebrated - other people do a thing, get shunned, kicked out of schools, refused jobs, etc."

Well we all know how villified mexicans who own restaurants are in out society.

You're snarking, but Mexican immigrants are pretty vilified all around in our society, actually.

That vilification, in no small part, helped elect Trump.

maybe. But that's not what you're saying. You're saying that white people excelling where a minority is vilified is a problem. Admittingly I don't know many racists, but I don't believe I've ever heard, even on the internet, where every straw man is available to pick, that mexicans/mexican immigrants are bad because they run mexican restaurants
---

BowserCuffs posted...

Which is why legal immigrants and Americans of Mexican descent are being harassed, reported, detained, and sometimes even deported despite having the necessary documentation - but before the documentation can be processed.

Sorry, no, it's Mexicans you guys hate, not just the illegal immigrants. As it is, you guys ignore illegal immigrants from Asia and Europe.

They don't HATE mexicans. They just don't care about them the same way they care about white people, so they're fine with mexicans getting caught in the crossfire of their policies.

The same way the people who voted for hillary don't HATE syrian children, but they're ok with syrian hospitals and daycare centers getting blown up to take care of some members of isis. (trump supports are also prb mostly ok with this too, I'm just putting it this way to show no one is innocent [except libertarians: Politics Perfect Angel])
---

SantaRPidgey posted...

BowserCuffs posted...

SantaRPidgey posted...

BowserCuffs posted...

It's that "white people does a thing, are celebrated - other people do a thing, get shunned, kicked out of schools, refused jobs, etc."

Well we all know how villified mexicans who own restaurants are in out society.

You're snarking, but Mexican immigrants are pretty vilified all around in our society, actually.

That vilification, in no small part, helped elect Trump.

maybe. But that's not what you're saying. You're saying that white people excelling where a minority is vilified is a problem. Admittingly I don't know many racists, but I don't believe I've ever heard, even on the internet, where every straw man is available to pick, that mexicans/mexican immigrants are bad because they run mexican restaurants

That's not exactly what I meant to convey. Sorry about that.

It's not that Mexicans are vilified for running Mexican restaurants. It's that X people, who are not vilified in this location, are celebrating for doing the exact same things that Y people, who are vilified in this location, are not celebrated for or are even treated as being inferior to Y people's efforts at the same thing.

That's not exactly what's happening here, though, I'm sure. Though I will say that protesting and boycotting are legal things you can do and, in a capitalistic society, are an acceptable response to any trend you dislike.

I will also say this - let's say there's a scenario where a white American travels to Mexico and apprentices under a Mexican chef for awhile. Then they come back here and open a Mexican restaurant. This wouldn't be appropriation and any accusations of such would be wrong.
---

SantaRPidgey posted...

The same way the people who voted for hillary don't HATE syrian children, but they're ok with syrian hospitals and daycare centers getting blown up to take care of some members of isis.

It was pretty disingenuous of Republicans to use this as a reason Hillary shouldn't be president when they're all for inflicting civilian casualties of this magnitude (and defended Israel when they did the same thing to Palestinian hospitals even with flimsier evidence)

Note that I am not defending this decision in any way, but pretending it meant anything to them was fucking disgusting.

SantaRPidgey posted...

[except libertarians: Politics Perfect Angel]

This absolutely sounds sarcastic but I have trouble telling that sometimes on the internet, so forgive me for asking - is this sarcastic?
---

BowserCuffs posted...

It was pretty disingenuous of Republicans to use this as a reason Hillary shouldn't be president when they're all for inflicting Civilian casualties of this magnitude (and defended Israel when they did the same thing to Palestinian hospitals even with flimsier evidence)

well yeah that's why I said no one is innocent, we're all supporting a different beast.

BowserCuffs posted...

This absolutely sounds sarcastic but I have trouble telling that sometimes on the internet, so forgive me for asking - is this sarcastic?

;)
---

actual libertarians are not ok with it happening. a lot of people who self-identify as libertarians (alex jones for instance) are, though.
---

SantaRPidgey posted...

;)

Thanks
---

BowserCuffs posted...

IronmikeC posted...

Illegal ones... yes.

Which is why legal immigrants and Americans of Mexican descent are being harassed, reported, detained, and sometimes even deported despite having the necessary documentation - but before the documentation can be processed.

Sorry, no, it's Mexicans you guys hate, not just the illegal immigrants. As it is, you guys ignore illegal immigrants from Asia and Europe.

Gatarix posted...

Also, Bowser, I feel like everything you're saying can be summed up as "don't be a jerk"

Don't shun people of other races. Don't kick them out of schools because of their race. Don't ruin someone's business because of their race. etc., etc.

But if a white guy puts his hair in dreads and isn't being a jerk to anyone, there's nothing wrong with that. By the same token, there's nothing wrong with any other kind of cultural appropriation (meaning, using ideas/fashion/food/whatever that originated from another race). The end goal should be a race-blind society where it doesn't matter who's cooking the tacos.

It sounds obvious, not being a jerk, but sadly it isn't, and there are some things that are done out of ignorance instead of malice that are still insulting or hurtful.

There's cultural appropriation, and then there's cultural participation. Participation is much better than appropriation. There's also osmosis and merging and ideas being exchanged and stuff, and it's just honestly good when it happens right. That's what I want to see.

I don't hate Mexicans. I don't like anyone breaking the law however. And that is why illegals need to go home. Of all types and races.

IronmikeC posted...

I don't hate Mexicans. I don't like anyone breaking the law however. And that is why illegals need to go home. Of all types and races.

Good for you, but the rest of the Republican party doesn't share your mindset in this.
---

IronmikeC posted...

BowserCuffs posted...

IronmikeC posted...

Illegal ones... yes.

Which is why legal immigrants and Americans of Mexican descent are being harassed, reported, detained, and sometimes even deported despite having the necessary documentation - but before the documentation can be processed.

Sorry, no, it's Mexicans you guys hate, not just the illegal immigrants. As it is, you guys ignore illegal immigrants from Asia and Europe.

Gatarix posted...

Also, Bowser, I feel like everything you're saying can be summed up as "don't be a jerk"

Don't shun people of other races. Don't kick them out of schools because of their race. Don't ruin someone's business because of their race. etc., etc.

But if a white guy puts his hair in dreads and isn't being a jerk to anyone, there's nothing wrong with that. By the same token, there's nothing wrong with any other kind of cultural appropriation (meaning, using ideas/fashion/food/whatever that originated from another race). The end goal should be a race-blind society where it doesn't matter who's cooking the tacos.

It sounds obvious, not being a jerk, but sadly it isn't, and there are some things that are done out of ignorance instead of malice that are still insulting or hurtful.

There's cultural appropriation, and then there's cultural participation. Participation is much better than appropriation. There's also osmosis and merging and ideas being exchanged and stuff, and it's just honestly good when it happens right. That's what I want to see.

I don't hate Mexicans. I don't like anyone breaking the law however. And that is why illegals need to go home. Of all types and races.

Does this apply to every single law? Or were you just using the phrase "breaking the law" within the specific context of immigration?
---

Ah fuck is this MWC again? The ellipses give it away.
---

LapisLazuli posted...

Ah fuck is this MWC again? The ellipses give it away.

I forget whose alts the various "(x)thecurve" accounts are.

It's either MWC or someone else I've forgotten about.
---

IronmikeC posted...

I don't hate Mexicans. I don't like anyone breaking the law however. And that is why illegals need to go home. Of all types and races.

Right, and you're ok with hurting american citizens to meet that goal, I understand.
---

I don't think we know who curve is

ironmike is MWC though
---

ironmikeC is fairly clearly MWC
---

BowserCuffs posted...

LapisLazuli posted...

Ah fuck is this MWC again? The ellipses give it away.

I forget whose alts the various "(x)thecurve" accounts are.

It's either MWC or someone else I've forgotten about.

Naw I meant Mike here.
---

Oh.

Yeah, he's MWC.
---

SantaRPidgey posted...

IronmikeC posted...

I don't hate Mexicans. I don't like anyone breaking the law however. And that is why illegals need to go home. Of all types and races.

Right, and you're ok with hurting american citizens to meet that goal, I understand.

Being checked isn't being hurt... sorry..

But no one should be detained, or sent to Mexico if they have the paperwork. Which I bet actually never happened anyway and Liberals just lied about if of course...

I am not MCW, though I do respect some of his opinions. I am only Behindthecurve.

BowserCuffs posted...

Sorry, no, it's Mexicans you guys hate, not just the illegal immigrants. As it is, you guys ignore illegal immigrants from Asia and Europe.

I'm not sure who you mean by "you guys," but speaking just for myself, I'm anti-illegal immigration (across the board) and pro-legal immigration (across the board).

My uncle came to the United States for university, and he wanted to stay here; but his field isn't high-demand and he was unable to find an employer willing to sponsor him for a green card. He looked into other options for staying in the United States, but nothing panned out. (There's an option for entrepreneurs to stay if they're bringing in a certain amount of foreign capital. However, that would've required him to take out a sizable loan, which he didn't want to do.) So eventually, when his student visa and other options ran out, he went home.

He did the right thing, and it bothers me that so many others have come or stayed illegally and are now demanding rights to stay while law-abiding people are kept out.

Ideally I think the country would crack down heavily on illegal immigration while also expanding avenues for legal immigration by an equal amount. In the short term, as Santa points out, it would cause a certain amount of turmoil -- deportation costs government resources and means higher prices if illegal workers are being kicked out faster than legal ones are being processed. But in the long term I think it's a more fair system for everyone involved.
---

Gatarix posted...

I'm not sure who you mean by "you guys,"

Conservative republicans that seem to believe Mexicans are the majority of illegal immigrants.

I'm absolutely for legal immigration, btw, but I'm also looking at the reasons why illegal immigration happens and, a lot of the time for Mexicans, it's because they didn't have a legal option and their choices were to either die or come here.

...Meanwhile, the vast majority of illegal immigrants from Japan and Europe simply came here on a visa and never left. And the fact of the matter is, nobody's targeting these people - especially the white Europeans.
---

BowserCuffs posted...

Conservative republicans that seem to believe Mexicans are the majority of illegal immigrants.

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

The majority of illegal immigrants are Mexicans (52% in 2014), though those numbers have been declining in recent years; others come from Asia, Central America, and sub-Saharan Africa. In 2005, according to a Pew Hispanic Center report, there were about 6,840,000 illegal immigrants from Mexico making 56% of immigrants present in the United States illegally. 24% were from other Latin American countries; 9% were from Asia, 6% from Europe and Canada, and the remaining 4% from the rest of the world. In 2014, the Pew Hispanic Center estimated that the illegal immigrant population from Mexico had reduced to 5.6 million or 49% of the illegal immigrant population.

How dare those evil Republicans round up by 1%.

I'll concede that point, but it doesn't change anything else I said.
---

BowserCuffs posted...

I'll concede that point, but it doesn't change anything else I said.

Uh... yes it does. Your whole last post was based on that.. And you were wrong. Not surprised. Liberal are always wrong, either by lies (usually) or incompetence).

Yours was probably a lie you thought no one would check you on.

The solution to illegal immigration is white women selling burritos
---

IronmikeC posted...

BowserCuffs posted...

I'll concede that point, but it doesn't change anything else I said.

Uh... yes it does. Your whole last post was based on that.. And you were wrong. Not surprised. Liberal are always wrong, either by lies (usually) or incompetence).

Yours was probably a lie you thought no one would check you on.

I know reading is hard but the percent of illegals being Mexican has literally nothing to do with the rest of his post.
---

IronmikeC posted...

Yours was probably a lie you thought no one would check you on.

Have you ever stopped for a second and considered to youself "Maybe I could have more credibility in my arguments if I didn't act like a fucking disney villain"
---

lordloki12 posted...

I know reading is hard but the percent of illegals being Mexican has literally nothing to do with the rest of his post.

It makes sense to prioritize the biggest group, though. Like if, in another world, 75% of illegals were Asian students and tourists overstaying their visas, it would make most sense to focus enforcement there, instead of a much smaller Mexican population. Likewise it explains why currently Mexicans get more focus. Not to say racists don't exist but there are also valid non racist reasons for it.
---

Crossley posted...

It makes sense to prioritize the biggest group, though

Then prioritize the biggest group

What's your reason for wanting to limit illegal immigration? Just for the sake of it? For some superficial pride in the US nationalization process? Obviously not, it's because they fuck up the economy for you and me and all citizens.

So then, prioritize attacking the biggest group that is causing 99.9% of the actual problem of the fucked up economy: US government corporatists. Not the 0.01% difference that illegals make. That just makes sense doesn't it?
---

For me, it's not really about economics. If economics were my main concern, I'd say let them all stay - they do good work and keep prices down. It's more a fairness thing.

If my family were in trouble and if I could help them by illegally emigrating, I'd do it. But if I got caught and booted out, I'd be personally unhappy, but I'd also feel, "fair, next." I didn't have a right to be there to begin with.
---

Crossley posted...

If my family were in trouble and if I could help them by illegally emigrating, I'd do it. But if I got caught and booted out, I'd be personally unhappy, but I'd also feel, "fair, next." I didn't have a right to be there to begin with.

This is the hard definition of a priveleged statement. You have no idea what would be going through your head in that actual situation.
---

LapisLazuli posted...

Crossley posted...

If my family were in trouble and if I could help them by illegally emigrating, I'd do it. But if I got caught and booted out, I'd be personally unhappy, but I'd also feel, "fair, next." I didn't have a right to be there to begin with.

This is the hard definition of a priveleged statement. You have no idea what would be going through your head in that actual situation.

Hard to have a definition for a thing that doesn't exist....

IronmikeC posted...

LapisLazuli posted...

Crossley posted...

If my family were in trouble and if I could help them by illegally emigrating, I'd do it. But if I got caught and booted out, I'd be personally unhappy, but I'd also feel, "fair, next." I didn't have a right to be there to begin with.

This is the hard definition of a priveleged statement. You have no idea what would be going through your head in that actual situation.

Hard to have a definition for a thing that doesn't exist....

we have definitions for lots of things that don't exist

you can look up "dragon" in a dictionary and find a definition
---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

IronmikeC posted...

LapisLazuli posted...

Crossley posted...

If my family were in trouble and if I could help them by illegally emigrating, I'd do it. But if I got caught and booted out, I'd be personally unhappy, but I'd also feel, "fair, next." I didn't have a right to be there to begin with.

This is the hard definition of a priveleged statement. You have no idea what would be going through your head in that actual situation.

Hard to have a definition for a thing that doesn't exist....

we have definitions for lots of things that don't exist

you can look up "dragon" in a dictionary and find a definition

Dragons existed in the Bible...

You should have probably used like a Griffon or something. That really didn't exist.

IronmikeC posted...

MoogleKupo141 posted...

IronmikeC posted...

LapisLazuli posted...

Crossley posted...

If my family were in trouble and if I could help them by illegally emigrating, I'd do it. But if I got caught and booted out, I'd be personally unhappy, but I'd also feel, "fair, next." I didn't have a right to be there to begin with.

This is the hard definition of a priveleged statement. You have no idea what would be going through your head in that actual situation.

Hard to have a definition for a thing that doesn't exist....

we have definitions for lots of things that don't exist

you can look up "dragon" in a dictionary and find a definition

Dragons existed in the Bible...

You should have probably used like a Griffon or something. That really didn't exist.

Dragon was perfectly valid, along with a shit ton of other things in the bible that have never existed like angels and demons and a leviathan and adam/eve and probably lots more that I can't recall at the moment.
---

BowserCuffs posted...

Y people, who are vilified in this location, are not celebrated for or are even treated as being inferior to Y people's efforts at the same thing.

Are they? Have you picked through every Portland restaurant review to back up this claim?
---

I can't even begin to understand the point Bowser is trying to convey by saying Mexican people are vilified for providing us with delicious Mexican food

Like...where is this happening
---

ImTheMacheteGuy posted...

IronmikeC posted...

MoogleKupo141 posted...

IronmikeC posted...

LapisLazuli posted...

Crossley posted...

If my family were in trouble and if I could help them by illegally emigrating, I'd do it. But if I got caught and booted out, I'd be personally unhappy, but I'd also feel, "fair, next." I didn't have a right to be there to begin with.

This is the hard definition of a priveleged statement. You have no idea what would be going through your head in that actual situation.

Hard to have a definition for a thing that doesn't exist....

we have definitions for lots of things that don't exist

you can look up "dragon" in a dictionary and find a definition

Dragons existed in the Bible...

You should have probably used like a Griffon or something. That really didn't exist.

Dragon was perfectly valid, along with a shit ton of other things in the bible that have never existed like angels and demons and a leviathan and adam/eve and probably lots more that I can't recall at the moment.

All of those exist.

JetJaguar posted...

Like...where is this happening

I already explained that they aren't vilified for providing the food, but rather, they're vilified as a class, which negatively impacts their ability to succeed in the market despite arguably being better at creating the food in question.

As for where Mexicans are vilified, pretty much throughout the entire country. Trump got elected based off of anti-Mexican propaganda (which is why Mexican immigrants are focused on so much to the exclusion of all other immigrants)

In fact, the vilification of Mexicans has been around for decades, as shown even in this 2012 article (which is to say Trump isn't the source of the anti-Mexican sentiment, but that his election strategy and the success thereof was a symptom of it)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3846170/

...
While not as heavily excluded from economic and social integration as African Americans, Mexican origin persons have encountered severe racial barriers, which have structured opportunities for them. These scholars argue that Mexican Americans lag educationally and economically even after several generations in the United States, as a result of this treatment. They have been thus limited to mostly working class jobs and from successfully integrating into middle class society.
...
Historically and legally, Mexicans have been treated as second-class citizens. Within a few short decades after their conquest in the mid-nineteenth century, Mexican Americans, although officially granted United States citizenship with full rights, lost much of their property and status and were relegated to low-status positions as laborers. Since then, Mexican immigration has continued to be of predominately low status.
...
Unfair and discriminatory treatment against Mexican Americans has extended beyond the economic realm. School segregation has been extensive, both historically and in contemporary periods. Throughout history, Mexican children were sent to separate and inferior schools (Alvarez, 1986; San Miguel, 1987; Sanchez, 1993). School segregation was repeatedly challenged in the courts. While they were treated as non-white by Whites, challenges to segregation were won by employing the racial designation of White under the law, meaning that Mexicans as Whites could not be segregated from other Whites (Martinez, 1997). ... Eventually Mexicans moved from being considered White to brown, probably due to both legal and social changes although it is difficult to tell which of these occurred first (Gross, 2003). As Mexicans came to be defined as non-whites, they were better able to make claims of unfair treatment and seek legal remedy.7
...
Persuasive anti-immigrant sentiment and treatment has also worked against all Mexicans whether immigrant or born in the United States. Viewed as alien and low status, Mexican immigrants were (and continue to be) scapegoated and targeted for mistreatment. Even though immigrants were a minority of all Mexican Americans up to the 1980s, the perception of all Mexican Americans as low status immigrants has been pervasive (Massey, 2009; Vasquez, 2010). The immigration legislation of the 1980s has made legal entry to the United States by Mexicans almost impossible, yet immigration has continued. This forced the overwhelming majority of Mexican immigrants in the late twentieth century to enter the United States without proper documentation. This has served to further fuse anti-Mexican and anti-undocumented immigrant sentiment (Massey, 2009). This suggests that in the eyes of many White Americans, all Mexicans are “illegal” and all “illegals” are Mexican (Chacón & Davis, 2006; Chavez, 2008)

Ran out of room to post, but the entire thing is an educational read.
---

who are these white people being praised for wearing dreadlocks?

white people can't fucking pull off dreads, it almost always looks horrible
---