Complicity

[Lexicus]

That said a fun line was brought up with regards to feeling shame for what your ancestors did. I go back and forth on this, because we also value the things our ancestors (arguably) did right. And as you get more mainstream (or centrist, really), people like to extol virtues of past society, but its faults are disregarded along the lines of "it was a different time" or "you're not responsible for what happened then".

I mean, directly, no. But if we're going to praise the things they got right, then we should also burden ourselves with remembering what they do wrong. And I think that's probably a bit different to castigating yourself over it or whatever, but it's also something that society as a whole doesn't like to do. Probably because it equates the burden with the blame, or the self-castigation, or similar. I don't know. I just think we have a moral obligation to remember the good and the bad, so we can repeat the former, and avoid repeating the latter.

There was a phrase in an essay I enjoy, where the author referred to the anti-political-correctness crusade as "twist[ing] language to make the inconvenience of conscience sound like a kind of oppression." I think that is a good way of talking about the whole "can't blame past people for their crimes" thing, it's not that most people who make those kinds of arguments genuinely believe that there is nothing wrong with, say, Thomas Jefferson owning slaves, but that they just don't want to be inconvenienced by negative feelings about it.

I also think "the inconvenience of conscience" is just a really good phrase in general

 

[Socrates99]

Again, the reason why I said there is no need is because your link could be misleading, or outright lying. I'd need to do research to find out if that is the case, and I can't be bothered to (I already fell for that trap once and regretted it)

It's good to get this out of the way, no? Especially since some people seem to think that there are valid comparisons to be made. Given the recent terrorist attack, I'd say that this is relevant. Also, my name is "Hehehe". Please, my good sir, proper spelling is important here

Yes, and trying to deliberately mix those up with detention centers is outright disingenuous. Do we even need to rehash the list of reasons why that is so?

Would video of the lawyer arguing soap, toothbrushes and blankets aren't necessary be trustworthy enough? It's easy to find. Doesn't take much research and seeing it come from the horse's mouth is hard to refute as disingenuous slant.

Back on topic this thread reminds me of a speech I saw Lewis Black give. It was not comedic and it was an explanation of how his political views were formulated. He said his father worked for a defense contractor that made mines. A good job with good benefits. His father believed the mines were used for "defense." When he found out they were being used offensively in Vietnam he walked away in conscientious opposition and became an artist. It sounds like he made a living but there were lifestyle changes. Here's a link, if you have time it's an excellent speech. Lewis Black isn't just a clown, hes an insightful and good man.

I think you can be guilt free if you vote against hideous actions, dont defend or excuse them and, most especially, your labor doesn't directly contribute to immoral things.

We're stuck with the government we have right now. Vocalize your opposition, dont defend it because of tribalism. If Republican politicians thought doing immoral things would hurt their chances at reelection they'd temper their rhetoric. When they see a multitude defending the internment of migrants in substandard conditions and seperation of families they have no reason to oppose it. Don't vote for people engaging in immoral actions.

I've already said if Biden wins I won't vote for him. I wont be complicit. More people need to make a moral stand.

 

[AmazonQueen]

That Facebook group is a case that we'll likely never see the consequences of - the true value judgement is what members of that group do now that these actions are now publicly-known. I agree that the entire group will be demonised, but I think I tend towards that especially as time goes on, the group (specifically, the people still in it) should be.

Like you though @hobbsyoyo, I don't have any good answers. I buy video games (as a lesser example of worker exploitation, to varying degrees), I buy branded stuff (more tech devices than something luxurious like clothes, but the origins in a lot of cases are the same). I'm from the UK, so I don't have the specific moral issues with the status quo that Americans would about their country. I have a different set! Though approaching similarity faster than even I thought would happen. I certainly didn't think Boris was a shoe-in until about a month ago, for example, and I'm . . . well not what you'd call cynical, but I thought we had a bit more time before we followed America willingly into the black hole of morality. We do have the baggage of the Empire additionally, too, which surfaces in really, really dumb ways (like, well, the nationalistic pride underpinning Brexit as a whole).

That said a fun line was brought up with regards to feeling shame for what your ancestors did. I go back and forth on this, because we also value the things our ancestors (arguably) did right. And as you get more mainstream (or centrist, really), people like to extol virtues of past society, but its faults are disregarded along the lines of "it was a different time" or "you're not responsible for what happened then".

I mean, directly, no. But if we're going to praise the things they got right, then we should also burden ourselves with remembering what they do wrong. And I think that's probably a bit different to castigating yourself over it or whatever, but it's also something that society as a whole doesn't like to do. Probably because it equates the burden with the blame, or the self-castigation, or similar. I don't know. I just think we have a moral obligation to remember the good and the bad, so we can repeat the former, and avoid repeating the latter.

I've always found being proud of the country you're born in or what it's done in the past a ridiculous concept. I'm glad to be British, it certainly gave me a better life than many in other countries get, but it was not something I chose or contributed to.
An immigrant on the other can be proud of being British or American or whatever. Its taken effort on their part.

 

[Hehehe]

Would video of the lawyer arguing soap, toothbrushes and blankets aren't necessary be trustworthy enough? It's easy to find. Doesn't take much research and seeing it come from the horse's mouth is hard to refute as disingenuous slant.

It takes research. I'd need to watch the video, research the context, look up the counter-argument from Trump administration. Are they prioritizing food over toothbrushes because they're not being granted all the funding they need? Or is some guy twirling his mustache, thinking to himself "I wonder how I will make these people's lives more difficult today for no other reason than me being evil! Buahaha!!!". I could look it all up, but frankly, I just don't care enough to waste my time on it

 

[Cloud_Strife]

But yet you have time to Kramer into this thread and defend concentration camps, HeHeHe.

It would alarming in and of itself if this was merely a one-off occurance.

 

[Socrates99]

It takes research. I'd need to watch the video, research the context, look up the counter-argument from Trump administration. Are they prioritizing food over toothbrushes because they're not being granted all the funding they need? Or is some guy twirling his mustache, thinking to himself "I wonder how I will make these people's lives more difficult today for no other reason than me being evil! Buahaha!!!". I could look it all up, but frankly, I just don't care enough to waste my time on it

It takes too much time to do the research you require to form an opinion on the thing you've spent multiple posts arguing an opinion on? Do you understand how foolish that sounds? Why post on a matter you cant be bothered to have an informed opinion on?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

It takes too much time to do the research you require to form an opinion on the thing you've spent multiple posts arguing an opinion on? Do you understand how foolish that sounds? Why post on a matter you cant be bothered to have an informed opinion on?

Defending concentration camps to trigger/own the libs! There's few other explanations that don't require me to bend over backwards and give immense charitability.

Haha look at those silly people, disgusted with the treatment of human beings at the hands of a country that constantly boasts about how well it treat's humans inside it's borders. Imagine being one of those people, imagine actually caring.

Imagine not being rational like HeHeHe, who can rationalize this all away in his mind, almost as if the people suffering in these camps aren't actually people to him or somehow lack some vital quality/essence that could potentially engender sympathy and empathy to him.

What could it be about these people that somehow provokes such indifference?

 

[Socrates99]

Even if you're in the "they broke the law" camp of thinking, it's a misdemeanor. Those people are being held for months waiting for a court day in pretty rotten conditions for a misdemeanor. That is cruel and unusual and violates habeas corpus. We could quibble of the dictionary definition of "concentration camps" (which these migrant facilities definitely meet) but there is no denying that their rights are being violated in a despicable way.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

The Democrats put up a bill to increase funding to the various border efforts and the Trump administration balked because the funding was strictly earmarked for things like blankets and toilet paper for detainees. Trump ended up winning that tussle by putting the Democrats in an unenviable position of either not funding anything, which Trump would use as an excuse for continued cruelty, or giving Trump a blank check to do with as he wanted.

As the continued family separations has shown, it's pretty clear that cruelty is the point of these actions and conditions won't be improved no matter how much funding or court injunctions are thrown at the administration.

 

[Lemon Merchant]

Moderator Action: The thread is so derailed by now I can't even figure out what the topic is. If any of you know, would you please get back to it? Thank you.

 

[Cutlass]

It takes research. I'd need to watch the video, research the context, look up the counter-argument from Trump administration. Are they prioritizing food over toothbrushes because they're not being granted all the funding they need? Or is some guy twirling his mustache, thinking to himself "I wonder how I will make these people's lives more difficult today for no other reason than me being evil! Buahaha!!!". I could look it all up, but frankly, I just don't care enough to waste my time on it

There is no such thing as they didn't have the money for it. Unless they made a specific choice to not have the money for it.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

They decided to intern people indefinitely which exhausted their funds. They made the choice that led to this directly and even when offered funding to improve conditions, they balked as cruelty is the point.

 

[innonimatu]

The reality of this issue of border control is that you either led everyone who wants in ans is capable of reaching the border, in. Or you arrest and repress them into giving up their attempt to enter. There is no other option.

Is is easy to be a "liberal" about a border with another country where people do not want to leave from. Say, between EU countries (even despite all the "polish plumber" things...). It is impossible to do it when there are millions of people suddenly on the move to cross a border and bound to significantly change the living conditions of the country they are entering. That creates winners and losers there, and it becomes a political issues.

With the kind of political and economic organization the world has now, such mass migrations benefit the wealthy who want to hire cheaper labourers, and depresses both the political-economic bargaining power and the material conditions of life of the "low-skilled" laborers. Thus the "bleeding-hearth" liberals tend to be the upper-middle class, the technocratic crust whose jobs are well protected being legal barriers against those migrants who do manage to enter. You would not repress them at the border, but let some of them attempt set themselves up as a civil engineers or a doctors or some other privileged position, and you'd call the police upon them for working without accepted credentials. With the excuse that they "endanger the public", but the true motivation of protecting both your income and your social position. Hypocrisy is rife.

The only american candidate on the left in these elections you're preparing who spoke the truth on this was Sanders. Balancing assistance to immigrants and the political needs of the people at home is not easy, the policy cannot be one of just opening the borders and to campaign on that, explicitly or even implicitly, will not get any sizable backing. The truly well-to-do and the wealthy and a small minority in the USA.

 

[Lexicus]

bound to significantly change the living conditions of the country they are entering.

That is absolutely not the case for the United States. Though I suppose it may be true for European countries.

Meanwhile the larger point that open borders are only a benefit to the rich is false. Open borders can mean various things, to me it means a pathway to citizenship and legitimate status for anyone who comes to the US. I don't think that's remotely unreasonable...unlike your little European statelets over there we have 330 million Americans and our stock in America is not diluted by allowing more people to become Americans. Never has been and never will be.

It's probably true that the policy I described above is politically unworkable now but I try to be optimistic. Given time, I hope that people will begin to see that you are precisely right about the reality of this issue, and "arrest and repress them into giving up their attempt to enter" will be pursued seriously by the far-right, egged on by the most racist and authoritarian parts of society, and rejected by all other Americans as un-American and repugnant.

Unfortunately, I expect there is a very good chance that "arrest and repress them into giving up their attempt to enter" wins out, and that will mean fascism taking over the country.

 

[Socrates99]

The reality of this issue of border control is that you either led everyone who wants in ans is capable of reaching the border, in. Or you arrest and repress them into giving up their attempt to enter. There is no other option.

Is is easy to be a "liberal" about a border with another country where people do not want to leave from. Say, between EU countries (even despite all the "polish plumber" things...). It is impossible to do it when there are millions of people suddenly on the move to cross a border and bound to significantly change the living conditions of the country they are entering. That creates winners and losers there, and it becomes a political issues.

With the kind of political and economic organization the world has now, such mass migrations benefit the wealthy who want to hire cheaper labourers, and depresses both the political-economic bargaining power and the material conditions of life of the "low-skilled" laborers. Thus the "bleeding-hearth" liberals tend to be the upper-middle class, the technocratic crust whose jobs are well protected being legal barriers against those migrants who do manage to enter. You would not repress them at the border, but let some of them attempt set themselves up as a civil engineers or a doctors or some other privileged position, and you'd call the police upon them for working without accepted credentials. With the excuse that they "endanger the public", but the true motivation of protecting both your income and your social position. Hypocrisy is rife.

The only american candidate on the left in these elections you're preparing who spoke the truth on this was Sanders. Balancing assistance to immigrants and the political needs of the people at home is not easy, the policy cannot be one of just opening the borders and to campaign on that, explicitly or even implicitly, will not get any sizable backing. The truly well-to-do and the wealthy and a small minority in the USA.

I'm a Sanders supporter so I'm loathe to undermine the compliment you pay him but there isn't a single dem candidate who is for open borders. I think there are some who want to change illegal crossing to a civil offense rather than a misdemeanor to end the separations. Asylum seekers would still have to show up to court to plead their case or be deported. I think most "bleeding hearts" would just like to expedite the decision process rather than put the migrants in detainment centers. Rather than pay to house them indefinitely we should just make more judges and lawyers available to process this.

 

[Senethro]

That is absolutely not the case for the United States. Though I suppose it may be true for European countries.

Meanwhile the larger point that open borders are only a benefit to the rich is false. Open borders can mean various things, to me it means a pathway to citizenship and legitimate status for anyone who comes to the US. I don't think that's remotely unreasonable...unlike your little European statelets over there we have 330 million Americans and our stock in America is not diluted by allowing more people to become Americans. Never has been and never will be.

It's probably true that the policy I described above is politically unworkable now but I try to be optimistic. Given time, I hope that people will begin to see that you are precisely right about the reality of this issue, and "arrest and repress them into giving up their attempt to enter" will be pursued seriously by the far-right, egged on by the most racist and authoritarian parts of society, and rejected by all other Americans as un-American and repugnant.

Unfortunately, I expect there is a very good chance that "arrest and repress them into giving up their attempt to enter" wins out, and that will mean fascism taking over the country.

I genuinely think I'm going to be quitting this world just as the first climate refugee internment camps start popping up and the general feeling among citizens is that noone will give a damn.

 

[Commodore]

I've always found being proud of the country you're born in or what it's done in the past a ridiculous concept.

It's not ridiculous at all, you're just looking at it from the wrong perspective. The idea is that you should look at the great things the people of your nation have done in the past and be inspired to live up to that legacy and do great things of your own that will inspire future generations.

If you don't look upon the works of your nation with pride, that's an issue with you, not with your nation or the concept of being proud of your nation.

 

[Cloud_Strife]

And yet you find it preposterous to also be equally ashamed of the objectively evil things that was committed by said country, but you are happy to take pride and comfort in it until there is some semblance of a pushback and when confronted with the truth you and others balk and try to rationalise and downplay what would be considered in any other case to be gross atrocities and discrimination.

You cannot have your cake and eat it. You own the bad with the good. Any attempt to do the opposite is indistinguishable from historical revisionism.

 

[abradley]

And yet you find it preposterous to also be equally ashamed of the objectively evil things that was committed by said country, but you are happy to take pride and comfort in it until there is some semblance of a pushback and when confronted with the truth you and others balk and try to rationalise and downplay what would be considered in any other case to be gross atrocities and discrimination.

You cannot have your cake and eat it. You own the bad with the good. Any attempt to do the opposite is indistinguishable from historical revisionism.

Are you referring to Mao's great leap forward?

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Are you referring to Mao's great leap forward?

That other countries have their fair share of disgusting behaviour and indefensible acts does not render my point moot.