this post was submitted on 29 Nov 2023
1002 points (94.3% liked)
Greentext
4295 readers
1416 users here now
This is a place to share greentexts and witness the confounding life of Anon. If you're new to the Greentext community, think of it as a sort of zoo with Anon as the main attraction.
Be warned:
- Anon is often crazy.
- Anon is often depressed.
- Anon frequently shares thoughts that are immature, offensive, or incomprehensible.
If you find yourself getting angry (or god forbid, agreeing) with something Anon has said, you might be doing it wrong.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
This is "states rights" levels of pedantic, incorrect stubbornness.
What they wrote down into law was fiscal, but just saying "fiscal policy" completely ignores the whole context to an absurd abstract degree, and this is intentional.
The discussion originally was about how the fiscal policies in European countries are good even though they have racist migration laws, I wanted to show that this is a fiscal policy too, as in they absolutely have racist fiscal policy.
I believe we are on the same side here.
If we're on the same side, stop taking the other side at their word by calling it "fiscal policy".
If someone says to me that the racist policies and the fiscal policies are different, when they arent, I think its important to stress that some of the racist policies and in fact most of them, are fiscal.
I am not trying to diminish a racist policy by calling it fiscal, I'm trying to highlight that some of the fiscal policies are racist. And that that the European liberal model is inextricably tied to racism, because some people here want to export european fiscal policies to the US in the hopes of fighting injustice but they would be copying racist policies that would still perpetuate injustice.