The law was written (by the Govenator himself btw) to give the public time to understand and comment on the what's in the bill not just the bill number. So some GoP house members have launched a lawsuit to make Newsome give the new bill 30 days.
For once, Ahnold did something worthwhile as a Republican. I tip my hat. I'm still gonna shove him into the forge though because the T-1000 is still very deep in him.
Is it correct to say that everyone is in someway bigoted?
Bigoted as a word is doing overly heavy lifting. Under some definitions, yes, in-group bias is a thing, you can call that a form of bigotry I suppose. But whether this translates into something more than that or not really depends on what's intended by the word bigotry in the first place. It's entirely possible to not act in a manner decided by that in-group preference.
I raise this primarily because of something called a Troll's Truism (Where through vagueness, a statement can be interpreted with a mundane truth or an exciting lie and people will jump between them for rhetorical purposes.) and the possibility this leads into some unintentional motte-and-bailey. I always get leery when there's something of a tautological truth with minimal actual impact on anything being focused on, usually that indicates there's some funny business going on with definitions.
Muslims people tend to live around other Muslims, blacks etc. so where did this notion of “we can all live in harmony if we just stop hating each other” come from? Like Im genuinely curious.
Simply put, we are more than just some genetic profile or skin-color swatch and people noticed over time that people will move out from their in-groups into other groups on occasion. Add individualism as a concept into the mix, and this becomes something of a self-evident thing, assuming we all stopped hating each other, we would all live in harmony. Now we get to demonstrate a Troll's Truism in action.
Smart followup is taking the mundane truth here. It's a logical concept and little more than that. We all know Achmed the Jihadi is not going to integrate into western society and will just cause problems if left to his own devices, so we shouldn't fucking import him and his ilk by the small-boatful no matter how much of a shithole he claims his country is because he will just abuse trust and we've given him no means of proving otherwise. So smart policy is either denying immigration or to have assimilation onboarding programs Achmed has to go to so he doesn't import sand nigger behavior into the host country. Most people, when hearing immigration in a positive light, have this kind of gatekeeping in mind and are naturally thinking not of Achmed the Jihadi but Achmed the Arab Who Filed His Papers And Assimilates. Some dude genuinely looking for a better life in another country can be a genuine asset. Cuban refugees to America basically helped Florida become rock-ribbed Republican and helped Trump get elected after all, the general brush just won't ever look good due to the sufficient amount of exceptions to the rule that exist.
The Dumb/Malicious followup though is to take the exciting lie and go full Blank Slate theory, baking in concepts like the soil being magic or that any country can simply out-nurture whatever bad influences by just immersing people enough. Dumb people are jumping between this and the smart followup because they're stupid and don't know they're doing a stupid. Malicious people however deliberately foster the confusion to make immigration skeptics, be they shut the border, control the border, or some variation thereof, have a hard time pegging down what they're skeptical of and cost them cheap rhetorical points among the normies. That's where something called a motte-and-bailey forms, and this is where rhetoric gets really fucking sticky and hard to cut through the bullshit of.
TL;DR, "Civic nationalism" didn't really fail so much as globohomo deliberately stopped doing anything to enforce it for their own interests and conned the Western nations using a motte-and-bailey. While in-group preferences do exist, by the same token it's not some be-all-end-all guide to human interaction and enough trend-bucking exists to say trying to guide yourself by it is pretty midwit in the grand scheme of things. Blame Marx, because when can't you, blame Rousseau, because he's Locke if magnitudes more fake and gay, and blame shoddy definition work by a lot of people for dumping a lot of radioactive poison on this topic where none needed to exist.
