zompist bboard

a congress of convoluted conworldery
It is currently Sun Apr 22, 2018 7:39 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1558 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56 ... 63  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2017 12:19 am 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2013 10:01 pm
Posts: 469
"Black women voted for Jones." - "Who cares? The Blacks always vote Democrat anyway."
"White women voted for Moore." - "Whoa there, Bucko! Let's not treat white women as one monolithic entity!"

_________________
"I'm sorry, when you have all As in every class in every semester, it's not easy to treat the idea that your views are fundamentally incoherent as a serious proposition."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 14, 2017 11:50 pm 
Osän
Osän
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 2:57 pm
Posts: 11374
Location: Lake Tašpa
Well as I posted last month I came here to offer advice to the Democrats on how to clean up their act and start appealing to the voters. Identity politics and chasing big donors just wasnt working out for them. So I figured I needed to step in and set the DNC back on track. And now, in just the last six weeks, theyve gone from a party that was unpopular in even its home territory to winning the governor of Virginia and even, now, winning a Senate seat in *Alabama* of all places.

I'm glad I was able to help and I'm glad for Zompist and the folks at the ZBB providing this platform for me to broadcast my message to the DNC and the wider world. I trust that Ive done my job, and that we'll have strong competitive races from both parties from here on out. I think I'll take the time now to relax and admire the result of a job well done. I'll check back in in a few months or so just to make sure everything's still running as intended.

_________________
Sunàqʷa the Sea Lamprey says:
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2017 6:43 pm 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 6:44 am
Posts: 2864
Location: suburbs of Mrin
I really hope that Soap's last post wasn't meant seriously.

_________________
ìtsanso, God In The Mountain, may our names inspire the deepest feelings of fear in urkos and all his ilk, for we have saved another man from his lies! I welcome back to the feast hall kal, who will never gamble again! May the eleven gods bless him!
kårroť


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 15, 2017 6:57 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 05, 2013 10:01 pm
Posts: 469
Wait. Were the ones before that not comedy?

_________________
"I'm sorry, when you have all As in every class in every semester, it's not easy to treat the idea that your views are fundamentally incoherent as a serious proposition."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 29, 2017 4:38 am 
Osän
Osän
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
Posts: 11721
Location: the Imperial Corridor
Hydroeccentricity wrote:
"Black women voted for Jones." - "Who cares? The Blacks always vote Democrat anyway."
"White women voted for Moore." - "Whoa there, Bucko! Let's not treat white women as one monolithic entity!"

it is accurate to treat one demographic as one demographic, and inaccurate to treat multiple demographics as one demographic. this is because *loud fart noises*

_________________
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 5:24 pm 
Sanno
Sanno
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2002 9:00 am
Posts: 17603
Location: Rogers Park/Evanston
It is entertaining to see how various news agencies are dealing with Trump's use of "shitholes". To my surprise, most major US news outlets--including CNN and NPR(!)--have chosen to use the original word uncensored.

Most of the foreign translations I've seen are fairly literal. Hürriyet chose to omit the <o> in <bok> "shit" but other agencies used bok çukuru ülkeler in full. In the euphemism game, Sin Chew Daily topped everyone with the flowery 穷山恶水 ("bad mountains, evil waters"), though the Taiwanese CNA's 鳥不生蛋的國家 ("countries where birds won't lay eggs") deserves an honorary mention. The Russians had a field day; I've come across over half-a-dozen different versions, most incorporating some form of дыра (literally "hole" but also "godforsaken place").


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 11:42 am 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 8:15 pm
Posts: 413
Somewhere along the line, someone amidst my social media feeds asserted that "shithole" also has implications in the white supremacy / white power movement. Apparently, Auschwitz was referred to as "Anus Mundi", as in, a place where the world could get rid of the "shit" that was the "degenerate races". So, it's not just a "these are backwater, dirty places", but also with implications that the people who live there fundamentally are degenerate.

Or something like that. Social media :shrug:



Here's a piece of rhetorical inanity that's been bothering me, though: growing up, I was told multiple times that conservatives believed it didn't matter where you came from or where you looked like, so long as you worked hard, you can succeed (and that it was those socialist leftist liberals who were the real racists because they wanted things like affirmative action that treated people of different races differently). That is, they constantly espoused anti-classism and pro-meritocracy.

But now, there's absolute *crickets* from those people. Like, if they really believed in that sort of meritocracy, then it shouldn't matter if the country is shitty or not. But instead, they're saying "yeah, it is kinda shitty, and he just said what we all know to be true" without ever pointing out that it shouldn't matter, and instead leaving the implication that it does matter there.

It's yet another thing that's made me like the modern Republican party or any self-described "conservative" even less. I want to believe in some of the values they claim to have, but it's clear that for them, it's just empty words and not actually guidance for policy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 11:50 am 
Smeric
Smeric
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2002 9:01 am
Posts: 1932
Location: Just outside Hamburg, Germany
Oh, literally translated, "anus mundi" seems to mean "ass of the world" - and if you translate that literally into German, you get a common German expression for what Americans would call "in the middle of nowhere".

_________________
did you send enough shit to guarantee victory?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 11:58 am 
Sumerul
Sumerul
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 6:44 am
Posts: 2864
Location: suburbs of Mrin
I heard it on radio and they censored the word "shithole" so I was worried that Trump had said "nigger countries". I breathed a sigh of relief when I checked news online later. It's still very awful, but it is much better than making the N-word "presidential" again.

@Axiem
There are conservatives who vote Democrat and liberals who vote Republican.

_________________
ìtsanso, God In The Mountain, may our names inspire the deepest feelings of fear in urkos and all his ilk, for we have saved another man from his lies! I welcome back to the feast hall kal, who will never gamble again! May the eleven gods bless him!
kårroť


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 12:21 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2014 9:35 pm
Posts: 647
Location: Michigan, USA
On the note of various publications censoring (or not censoring), I found this article from a lexicographer interesting.

tl;dr version: censoring vulgar language in print makes it more difficult to judge intent/frequency of vulgar language, so it's exciting when major news organizations just use the original words. Also, censoring makes it hard to tell what the word actually is, as with mèþru's confusion.

_________________
I generally forget to say, so if it's relevant and I don't mention it--I'm from Southern Michigan and speak Inland North American English. Yes, I have the Northern Cities Vowel Shift; no, I don't have the cot-caught merger; and it is called pop.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 1:38 pm 
Sanno
Sanno
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
Posts: 16731
Location: One of the dark places of the world
Axiem wrote:
Somewhere along the line, someone amidst my social media feeds asserted that "shithole" also has implications in the white supremacy / white power movement. Apparently, Auschwitz was referred to as "Anus Mundi", as in, a place where the world could get rid of the "shit" that was the "degenerate races". So, it's not just a "these are backwater, dirty places", but also with implications that the people who live there fundamentally are degenerate.

Or something like that. Social media :shrug:

*rolls eyeballs*
If one day Trump says that Obama was a wanker, within an hour there'll be someone claiming that this is proof of antisemitism because some Nazi somewhere used a word once that translates as that. Not everything is white supremacism!*
...these are probably the same people who went ten years ago trying to put people in jail for saying "nitty-gritty".**

*honestly, I don't think Trump was even being racist, and I think his mention of Norway was just because he'd just met a Norwegian. That's not to say he's not a racist, but a lot of this coded dogwhistle stuff is frankly too subtle, imo, for Trump to understand, let alone intentionally deploy in the heat of the moment.


**not kidding. It was banned from campuses and from use by civil servants. There was a scandal because a minister said it. Because...
More: show
nobody knows where the word comes from, and it has an 'n' in it, so it could have originally been a word for the debris found in the bottom of slave ships after a slaving voyage. Alternatively, it could have once been a word for raping black slave women. It should be pointed out that there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that either of these things is the case, and the word wasn't recorded until the 1950s, at which point it just meant 'nitty-gritty', but that's not a reason not to be offended!
Similarly, the first shithole could have been Auschwitz, who knows! So it's clearly antisemitic. (leave aside that people have been building shitholes for thousands of years)
.



...OK, and because it's too good to pass up, even though it's got nothing to do with Trump, here's the BBC's list of entries for their "e-cyclopedia" of the important newly-prominent words and phrases for understanding 2001:
More: show
"airey fairy libertarians"; "back story"
"bicycling monarchy"; "Blairspeak"
"chicken tikka masala"; "comprehensive ideal"
"civil society"; "drink walking"
"duvet days"; "eejit"
"Euro creep"; "feeding frenzy"
"homeland"; "hypermarket economy"
"ideas hamster"; "liberal elite"
"Millenials"*; "misspoken"
"new Luddism"; "nitty-gritty"
"out of the box"; "pashmina politics"
"pebble-dashing"; "pile of pants"
"playing the race card"; "Railtrack"
"red sky thinking"; "resigned"
"special relationship"; "untruths"
"uptitling"; "white van man"
"wifework"; wreckers"
"yob culture"
Ahh, such an innocent time!

*they noted, back in '01, that Millennials were the best-behaved generation ever, and that they avoided sex, alcohol and drugs. They repeatedly referenced Brittney Spears as the paradigm example of this new austerity.

_________________
Blog: http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/

But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:11 pm 
Avisaru
Avisaru

Joined: Tue Oct 22, 2013 8:15 pm
Posts: 413
Salmoneus wrote:
*rolls eyeballs*


In this case, I don't particularly disagree; it is a stretch. I am able to corroborate that Auschwitz was referred to as "Anus Mundi" (thanks to googling "anus mundi"), but I haven't gone digging through white supremecist websites to see if they actually connect it with "shithole" in that way.

Though, a former Grand Wizard or whatnot of the KKK apparently heartily endorsed calling countries shitholes, following up with "Hail Trump!" in his tweet on it.

On the other hand, it's documented that white nationalists (etc.) are very intentionally picking symbols and signs to co-opt that are easier to hide under the radar. The bet example I can find is how the "okay" symbol of a forefinger against a thumb apparently also means "White Power" (because your fingers make a W and a P)—and this was intentionally picked so that if it's pointed out, they can laugh and say "What do you mean it's a secret White Power sign? It's just an okay symbol! Stop being silly!" even though it is actually a secret White Power sign.

From my perspective, I've long been convinced that Trump is a racist, but that doesn't mean that everything he says that can be construed as explicitly or dog-whistled racist necessarily is. However, it is the frame with which he approaches scenarios, and he might not even fully realize how it colors his perceptions; so I can believe that he would say things that are racist or dog-whistle-ish that he doesn't necessarily realize are so. That doesn't mean they're not racist or dog-whistle-ish.

It's also that the culture as a whole has become accepting enough of white ethno-nationalism (etc.) that it as an ideology is on the rise, and becoming more prominent. (For example, our church has gotten fliers from one of the American Nazi groups filled with slurs, and we've also had to deal with racist graffiti on our grounds, which is something that only started happening since Donald Trump became nominee of the Republican party in 2016). He's enabling it, and he's not doing a particularly good job of shutting it down—which can easily be seen as endorsing it (see: "very fine people").

So no, not everything is white supremacism in some flavor or another. But much more of it is than a lot of people seem to want to admit.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:19 pm 
Smeric
Smeric

Joined: Sat May 29, 2004 5:07 pm
Posts: 2495
I don't think the issue is racism per se.

But consider the comment was made in the context of Graham and Durbin proposing limits on visas country-by-country, and Trump's reaction was to reject people from those countries, even within those limits. The obvious implication is that regardless of their individual work ethic, merit, or even pedigree, we don't want them here on the sole basis of where they were born. That's really only a step removed from discrimination based on the color of their skin, and, more importantly, it's more or less the same line of thinking.

_________________


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 3:51 am 
Osän
Osän
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:52 am
Posts: 11721
Location: the Imperial Corridor
Axiem wrote:
Here's a piece of rhetorical inanity that's been bothering me, though: growing up, I was told multiple times that conservatives believed it didn't matter where you came from or where you looked like, so long as you worked hard, you can succeed (and that it was those socialist leftist liberals who were the real racists because they wanted things like affirmative action that treated people of different races differently). That is, they constantly espoused anti-classism and pro-meritocracy.

But now, there's absolute *crickets* from those people. Like, if they really believed in that sort of meritocracy, then it shouldn't matter if the country is shitty or not. But instead, they're saying "yeah, it is kinda shitty, and he just said what we all know to be true" without ever pointing out that it shouldn't matter, and instead leaving the implication that it does matter there.

It's yet another thing that's made me like the modern Republican party or any self-described "conservative" even less. I want to believe in some of the values they claim to have, but it's clear that for them, it's just empty words and not actually guidance for policy.

Those conservatives are still around.

Some of them even support mass immigration -- so isn't it a bit of a stretch to call them "conservative"? What precisely are they conserving? Mass immigration is a pretty radical policy. There's almost no precedent for it anywhere in world history, and the closest things to it tend to involve either military conquest or the disappearance of a culture. (The Tocharian language, for example, went extinct because Uyghurs immigrated en masse to Tocharian territory after the collapse of the Uyghur Khanate.)

But putting them on a headline doesn't get clicks.

tiramisu wrote:
I don't think the issue is racism per se.

But consider the comment was made in the context of Graham and Durbin proposing limits on visas country-by-country, and Trump's reaction was to reject people from those countries, even within those limits. The obvious implication is that regardless of their individual work ethic, merit, or even pedigree, we don't want them here on the sole basis of where they were born. That's really only a step removed from discrimination based on the color of their skin, and, more importantly, it's more or less the same line of thinking.

In Anglo-American thought, governments are formed by a social contract, so their obligations are to the people who inherited the terms of the contract. You know, the "ourselves and our posterity" in the Constitution. So, as hard as it may be for some people today to believe, there's an important distinction between citizens and noncitizens -- the government exists for the citizens, not for the whole world.

I don't see anyone (except economists, who have a very narrow view of what benefit is) talking about how mass immigration benefits American citizens. And benefit to American citizens is how the actions of the American government are supposed to be measured. If the government took actions that failed to benefit American citizens, that were made without regard for the welfare of American citizens, and that nobody could seriously defend as being made with regard for the welfare of American citizens, it would probably cease to be legitimate.

Of course, that doesn't matter if enough people up and decide that legitimacy means something else. Or if technological innovations mean legitimacy no longer matters. But don't we want legitimacy to matter? And if we want legitimacy to matter, can't we say that those people are just wrong? We're confident that Filmer's theory of legitimacy was wrong; why shouldn't we be equally confident that the theory of legitimacy in which we're serfs owned by a sovereign charity is wrong?

_________________
Siöö jandeng raiglin zåbei tandiüłåd;
nää džunnfin kukuch vklaivei sivei tåd.
Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei. Chei.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 11:18 am 
Sumerul
Sumerul

Joined: Fri Mar 12, 2004 11:46 am
Posts: 4795
Location: Réunion
How would one define mass immigration? Would the repopulating of the Americas and Australia fit? How about Kaliningrad and, before that, Prussia? Or Russians in Siberia? Or Northern Ireland? Or New Caledonia?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 12:02 pm 
Šriftom
Šriftom

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:47 pm
Posts: 8308
Location: Milwaukee, US
The thing is that is a very tribalist way of looking at things, whereas one can easily see things in a purely utilitarian light, of the maximum good for the maximum people, no matter who those people are - where then it does not matter what nation, race, ethnicity, etc. one comes from. At that level nations really become just a matter of how the surface of the Earth is arbitrarily cut up into domains controlled by the powerful, which can ultimately only be seen as arbitrary in nature, and it becomes hard to justify anti-immigrant sentiment, as, after all, who has any more right to live anywhere than anyone else beyond simple matters of private property (i.e. someone does not have a right to move into your house while you are away at work, but you have no justifiable reason to prevent them from buying or renting the house next door just because one does not like where they are from).

_________________
Dibotahamdn duthma jallni agaynni ra hgitn lakrhmi.
Amuhawr jalla vowa vta hlakrhi hdm duthmi xaja.
Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 12:07 pm 
Osän
Osän
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 2:57 pm
Posts: 11374
Location: Lake Tašpa
Quote:
How would one define mass immigration? Would the repopulating of the Americas and Australia fit? How about Kaliningrad and, before that, Prussia? Or Russians in Siberia? Or Northern Ireland? Or New Caledonia?

Those are good examples, yes, all united by the fact that in every case, the original inhabitants didnt ask for it and didnt want it.

_________________
Sunàqʷa the Sea Lamprey says:
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 12:27 pm 
Šriftom
Šriftom

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:47 pm
Posts: 8308
Location: Milwaukee, US
Soap wrote:
Quote:
How would one define mass immigration? Would the repopulating of the Americas and Australia fit? How about Kaliningrad and, before that, Prussia? Or Russians in Siberia? Or Northern Ireland? Or New Caledonia?

Those are good examples, yes, all united by the fact that in every case, the original inhabitants didnt ask for it and didnt want it.

The things about these is that they brought (often extreme) harm upon the original inhabitants, in the form of things such as diseases, expropriation, expulsion, and even genocide, so in a utilitarian light they cannot be seen as equivalent to people migrating from the Third World to the First World, who are not spreading disease to, expropriating the land and property of, expelling, or killing the people already there.

_________________
Dibotahamdn duthma jallni agaynni ra hgitn lakrhmi.
Amuhawr jalla vowa vta hlakrhi hdm duthmi xaja.
Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 1:35 pm 
Osän
Osän
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 2:57 pm
Posts: 11374
Location: Lake Tašpa
But where is the argument for why mass immigration is good? All you've done is agree with me that mass immigration from poor nations is not as bad for us Americans as genocide and long-term military occupation by a foreign power.

In your previous post you say that you're a utilitarian and are representing the interests of the people of the world as a whole, not the interests of Americans. So your position makes perfect sense. What doesnt make sense is when Democratic hopefuls and their supporters feed us the same talking points and then claim to represent the best interest of American voters. You can backstep a bit and say that, while Democrats may not represent the interests of Americans as a whole, they do at least represent the interests of Democrats, but I disagree with even this much weaker argument.

What do Democrats claim to support? I'd say that high on their list must be income equality, a strong welfare state, strong labor unions, job security, a healthy natural environment, safe public schools, and safe streets. Are these goals better achieved in border areas of southern California, Texas, and so on, or in the northern hinterlands that have seen very little immigration? To me it seems that Democrats win elections by forever preserving the existence of needy people.

_________________
Sunàqʷa the Sea Lamprey says:
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:00 pm 
Sanno
Sanno
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 5:00 pm
Posts: 16731
Location: One of the dark places of the world
Nortaneous wrote:
In Anglo-American thought, governments are formed by a social contract, so their obligations are to the people who inherited the terms of the contract. You know, the "ourselves and our posterity" in the Constitution.


That might have been true if you were talking about Anglo-American thought in AD800. Since then, though, immigration has been central to concepts of nationhood, with a partial exception in some places in, let's say, 1830-1945. Indeed, immigration was seen as evidence of the legitimacy of renaissance and early modern states.

It is true that many people believe in a 'social contract'. But the idea that the contract is simply genetically inherited has no foundation, and has never had wide support outside of fascism.

In the American context, this was settled very early on, in 1619, when Sir George Yeardley attempted to prevent recent Polish immigrants from voting in elections in Jamestown. The legislature overturned this and explicitly granted "the rights of Englishmen" to the Polish settlers, establishing that these rights were not only granted by birth, but also had to be extended to migrant settlers.

Your founding fathers would have been well aware of these principles; when they speak of 'posterity', there is absolutely no chance whatsoever that they meant their genetic descendents only, but rather the nation that they created, which was explicitly not based in ethnicity.

That, indeed, is the assumption behind Jefferson's first address to Congress: "Shall we refuse the unhappy fugitives from distress that hospitality which the savages of the wilderness extended to our fathers arriving in this land? Shall oppressed humanity find no asylum on this globe? The Constitution, indeed, has wisely provided that, for admission to certain offices of important trust, a residence shall be required sufficient to develop character and design. But might not the general character and capabilities of a citizen be safely communicated to every one manifesting a bona fide purpose of embarking his life and fortunes permanently with us?" And in a letter, he wrote: "Born in other countries, yet believing you could be happy in this, our laws acknowledge, as they should do, your right to join us in society, conforming, as I doubt not you will do, to our established rules. That these rules shall be as equal as prudential considerations will admit, will certainly be the aim of our legislatures, general and particular."

Now, it's true that Jefferson argued against attempting to encourage as much migration as possible (because in those days of 'Anglo-American thought', the debate was between 'open to immigrants' and 'paying as many people to immigrate as possible'...). In particular (and this is what underlies that 'prudential considerations' caveat), he was concerned about the possibility of infiltration by agents of France or other enemy powers. He had quite right-wing views on things like cultural assimilation. But the point remains that he expressed his concerns from an assumption of the legitimacy of immigration. He never questioned that genuine migrants should be accepted and, aside from security concerns, granted the same rights as native-born Americans. Your Know-Nothing theories of purely 'inherited' relations with the state date much later than Jefferson.



[Also: come off it. Not only do you live in a country created entirely by multiple, overwhelming waves of immigration, proportionally much larger than the current wave of Hispanic migration, but it was founded by settlers from England, another country shaped by continual waves of immigrants. To take my own ethnicity as an example: who do you think built Victorian England? The northern industrial cities were stocked with immigrants - first-generation Irish immigrants alone made up as much as a quarter of the population in large swathes of the North, and today you'll not find anyone in cities like Liverpool and Newcastle who is not descended at least in part from migrants.]

_________________
Blog: http://vacuouswastrel.wordpress.com/

But the river tripped on her by and by, lapping
as though her heart was brook: Why, why, why! Weh, O weh
I'se so silly to be flowing but I no canna stay!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:12 pm 
Šriftom
Šriftom

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:47 pm
Posts: 8308
Location: Milwaukee, US
Soap wrote:
But where is the argument for why mass immigration is good? All you've done is agree with me that mass immigration from poor nations is not as bad for us Americans as genocide and long-term military occupation by a foreign power.

What I see needing justifying is the assertion that immigration has been a net negative for present-day Americans. The only real comments I have seen is "they're taking our jobs" - yet mind you that in many areas there are more job openings than there are qualified applicants, implying immigrants would be filling gaps that would be going unfilled otherwise, "they're using public resources" - what, people have less right to healthcare, education, and public safety than anyone else just due to their citizenship? - and "they're spreading crime" - which is the same old canard said about black people up North here and which I need not say more about. Stepping back a second and seeing the bigger picture, it opens up significant opportunities for individuals from other countries to better themselves and contributes significantly to the economy of the old country through money being sent back to family there; the only serious downside I can truly identify is the potential for brain drain, where highly skilled emigrants are progressively siphoned off of their home countries rather than contributing to development there, leaving people there worse off than if said individuals had stayed home to help develop things there.

_________________
Dibotahamdn duthma jallni agaynni ra hgitn lakrhmi.
Amuhawr jalla vowa vta hlakrhi hdm duthmi xaja.
Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 5:44 pm 
Osän
Osän
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 2:57 pm
Posts: 11374
Location: Lake Tašpa
Travis B. wrote:
Soap wrote:
But where is the argument for why mass immigration is good? All you've done is agree with me that mass immigration from poor nations is not as bad for us Americans as genocide and long-term military occupation by a foreign power.

What I see needing justifying is the assertion that immigration has been a net negative for present-day Americans.

I already answered that in my earlier post, before you even asked the question ...

What do Democrats claim to support? I'd say that high on their list must be income equality, a strong welfare state, strong labor unions, job security, a healthy natural environment, safe public schools, and safe streets. Are these goals better achieved in border areas of southern California, Texas, and so on, or in the northern hinterlands that have seen very little immigration? To me it seems that Democrats win elections by forever preserving the existence of needy people.

Even from a Democratic perspective, immigration has made things worse. And why should we be surprised? Not only are immigrants generally quite poor when they arrive, you yourself acknowledge that many immigrants take wealth they've earned and send it back to their countries of origin, further suppressing economic growth in America. Why would we want to bring people into America, only to see them send money to their home countries?

÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷
I read your post, but the next section of your post seems to be primarily about defending the rights of illegals (or at best, non-citizens), which is a wholly separate issue, so I wont reply to each point. In a democracy, people tend to prefer politicians who represent the interests of the voters, and even 1st generation immigrants are going to put their own interests ahead of those of the illegals.

I dont think any country in the world would agree with you regarding this question you asked:
Quote:
what, people have less right to healthcare, education, and public safety than anyone else just due to their citizenship?
What is the meaning of citizenship to you?
÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷

Quote:
Stepping back a second and seeing the bigger picture, it opens up significant opportunities for individuals from other countries to better themselves and contributes significantly to the economy of the old country through money being sent back to family there; the only serious downside I can truly identify is the potential for brain drain, where highly skilled emigrants are progressively siphoned off of their home countries rather than contributing to development there, leaving people there worse off than if said individuals had stayed home to help develop things there.
Again: why would we want to bring people into America, only to see them send money to their home countries? In what way does that benefit Americans at all?

If your goal is to increase the flow of money from America to other countries, a much simpler method would be to donate some of your own time and money directly to charities in those countries, as many people do. This would alleviate the threat of brain drain, as you say, since there would be no need for the best and brightest of those living in poor nations to ever leave.

_________________
Sunàqʷa the Sea Lamprey says:
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 5:58 pm 
Osän
Osän
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2003 2:57 pm
Posts: 11374
Location: Lake Tašpa
Salmoneus wrote:
In the American context, this was settled very early on, in 1619, when Sir George Yeardley attempted to prevent recent Polish immigrants from voting in elections in Jamestown. The legislature overturned this and explicitly granted "the rights of Englishmen" to the Polish settlers, establishing that these rights were not only granted by birth, but also had to be extended to migrant settlers.
I know you were replying to Nortaneous, but I dont really think this is a good argument either. For two reasons ....
1) 1619 was nearly 400 years ago, and in fact it's quite a long time before even the American Revolution. It's conceivable that the descendants of the Jamestown settlers would have ended up mostly siding with the British if they'd been given the choice. America was not of one mind even then.
2)More importantly, perhaps, this is the same Jamestown that purchased slaves from Africa. Presumably, the question of whether the Africans could also vote didnt even come up, and it didnt seem to bother us for another 250 years. Presumably, the extension of voting rights to this particular group of immigrants in Jamestown was never intended to apply universally.

_________________
Sunàqʷa the Sea Lamprey says:
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:14 pm 
Šriftom
Šriftom

Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2005 12:47 pm
Posts: 8308
Location: Milwaukee, US
Soap wrote:
Travis B. wrote:
Soap wrote:
But where is the argument for why mass immigration is good? All you've done is agree with me that mass immigration from poor nations is not as bad for us Americans as genocide and long-term military occupation by a foreign power.

What I see needing justifying is the assertion that immigration has been a net negative for present-day Americans.

I already answered that in my earlier post, before you even asked the question ...

What do Democrats claim to support? I'd say that high on their list must be income equality, a strong welfare state, strong labor unions, job security, a healthy natural environment, safe public schools, and safe streets. Are these goals better achieved in border areas of southern California, Texas, and so on, or in the northern hinterlands that have seen very little immigration? To me it seems that Democrats win elections by forever preserving the existence of needy people.

Even from a Democratic perspective, immigration has made things worse. And why should we be surprised? Not only are immigrants generally quite poor when they arrive, you yourself acknowledge that many immigrants take wealth they've earned and send it back to their countries of origin, further suppressing economic growth in America. Why would we want to bring people into America, only to see them send money to their home countries?

From a purely US-interest standpoint, why do we want to bring people into the US? Simply put - they do work for which there are not enough Americans willing or able to do such work. (And seriously, around here, every single store has help wanted signs posted prominently in them.) In this they contribute to the economy here, even if they do send parts of their paychecks back to their home countries.

Soap wrote:
I read your post, but the next section of your post seems to be primarily about defending the rights of illegals (or at best, non-citizens), which is a wholly separate issue, so I wont reply to each point. In a democracy, people tend to prefer politicians who represent the interests of the voters, and even 1st generation immigrants are going to put their own interests ahead of those of the illegals.

The whole "illegals" thing is just rhetoric used by people, who, in reality, are against all immigrants, but cannot publicly admit this. We are starting to see this now with pushes to send people, if possible, back to their countries of origin who are legally in the US and to make it harder to make those here to stay (e.g. tightening up green card renewal requirements).

Soap wrote:
I dont think any country in the world would agree with you regarding this question you asked:
Quote:
what, people have less right to healthcare, education, and public safety than anyone else just due to their citizenship?
What is the meaning of citizenship to you?
÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷÷

Frankly, I do not think there should be such a concept as "citizenship" in the first place, as it merely seeks to tie people down to the domains of various potentates simply on the basis of where they were born or who their parents were. Human rights are human rights, notions such as "citizenship" be damned.

Soap wrote:
Quote:
Stepping back a second and seeing the bigger picture, it opens up significant opportunities for individuals from other countries to better themselves and contributes significantly to the economy of the old country through money being sent back to family there; the only serious downside I can truly identify is the potential for brain drain, where highly skilled emigrants are progressively siphoned off of their home countries rather than contributing to development there, leaving people there worse off than if said individuals had stayed home to help develop things there.
Again: why would we want to bring people into America, only to see them send money to their home countries? In what way does that benefit Americans at all?

People sending money to their home countries are not getting it for free; rather, they are contributing vast amounts of work into the American economy, and should be allowed to spend what they get out of it, often at rather slender wages, as they see fit.

Soap wrote:
If your goal is to increase the flow of money from America to other countries, a much simpler method would be to donate some of your own time and money directly to charities in those countries, as many people do. This would alleviate the threat of brain drain, as you say, since there would be no need for the best and brightest of those living in poor nations to ever leave.

That does reduce brain drain, but at the expense of decreased social mobility, and economically sounds like a worse solution from a US-interest perspective simply because those people coming over here are contributing a significant amount to the economy even if they are sending parts of their paychecks home, whereas this way they would be contributing nothing.

_________________
Dibotahamdn duthma jallni agaynni ra hgitn lakrhmi.
Amuhawr jalla vowa vta hlakrhi hdm duthmi xaja.
Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro. Irdro.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 15, 2018 6:22 pm 
Sumerul
Sumerul

Joined: Sat Feb 06, 2016 3:25 pm
Posts: 2610
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Travis B. wrote:
From a purely US-interest standpoint, why do we want to bring people into the US? Simply put - they do work for which there are not enough Americans willing or able to do such work. (And seriously, around here, every single store has help wanted signs posted prominently in them.) In this they contribute to the economy here, even if they do send parts of their paychecks back to their home countries.

Maybe you already know this, but there was a case that proved the importance of immigrant labor about seven years ago when Alabama tried to deport Latino workers, as explained in more detail in this BusinessWeek article from the time. Long story short, it was completely disastrous. What actually happens when these workers are deported is not increased employment but rather a lack of workers to do all the dirty and unpleasant but fundamentally necessary work no one else wanted to do.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1558 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56 ... 63  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group