Less Immigration is Racist?

[Broken_Erika]

I'm sure they could, what I'm unsure of is that all those MDs could get have gotten a quality medical education in Pakistan. There is also the matter that in this position you are essentially telling people they do not belong here and should go back where they came from. Maybe you don't have any neighbors from Pakistan, but I do.

I had a friend from Pakistan, his dad was a doctor, but because of bureaucratic BS, his dad was a taxi driver here..........

 

[El_Machinae]

Cultural discrimination absolutely has to be unpacked from racism, because there's no way that I will accept that all cultures are equal or equally good. I'm reasonably liberal, so there are a bunch of "if you don't hurt others in X,Y, or Z ways, I don't really care" tick boxes, but you definitely need to ask about (a) understanding and (b) agreeing with those tick boxes. If someone has concerns that there will be partisan violence in their society, they're already acknowledging that cultural discrimination is a thing. So, if someone comes from a culture that has a harder time internalizing X,Y, and Z, then rejection is going to be statistically represented based on that.

That said, if people won't voluntarily adopt your cultural values merely after being shown them, then you know that there's something less than 'logical' about yours, despite any rationalization thereof.

 

[Naskra]

Cultural discrimination is the theme of human history. It isn't going to end because some kids are feeling 'progressive'.

 

[Senethro]

Cultural discrimination is the theme of human history. It isn't going to end because some kids are feeling 'progressive'.

Therefore?

 

[Naskra]

Therefore?

Therefore you should know that any talk of the wonders of vibrant, diverse, multiculturalism is folly. Yugoslavia was multicultural, as were Lebanon, Rwanda, South Africa, and so many others in the past.

 

[Senethro]

One wonders how this belief informs your actions in the personal and political spheres!

 

[Farm Boy]

I'm sure they could, what I'm unsure of is that all those MDs could get have gotten a quality medical education in Pakistan. There is also the matter that in this position you are essentially telling people they do not belong here and should go back where they came from. Maybe you don't have any neighbors from Pakistan, but I do.

As always, whiff on the position. Don't tie it to work. They the the same shot as everyone else. Or hell, just make a 4 year student visa permanent by default. It's not like the pre-med student champing at the bit of an American medical school materialized out of thin air.

I mean, we can rationalize scalping, but it's still scalping. It's easy, it's cheap, I mean - I wouldn't invest major emotional effort in arguing against something that's so easily in the self-interest. But for, but for.

 

[bernie14]

Therefore you should know that any talk of the wonders of vibrant, diverse, multiculturalism is folly. Yugoslavia was multicultural, as were Lebanon, Rwanda, South Africa, and so many others in the past.

One wonders how this belief informs your actions in the personal and political spheres!

Woof, woof naskra! Your snout had been rubbed on the virtual stained carpet!

 

[Akka]

To me this just looks like a guy whos primary language is prescriptive not quite getting that you can't rule an argument as being somehow "offside" in English through using dictionary definitions.

The concept of systemic/institutional racism exists whether Akka likes it or not. Calling it a perversion of the word "racism" is a kinda dumb way to engage with it.

I'm not denying systemic racism, I'm denying the systematic categorization of any form of discrimination and preferences as racism. For someone talking down to me about language, you don't seem to pay a lot of attention to what is being said.

No, it doesn't do either of those things. Did you read what it actually said?

It argues that cultural hostility toward immigrants should be labelled "racism", and while I agree that racism often plays a part, I'm downright tired of the tendency to smack it on about everything and makes it the absolute root cause.

I don't disagree that people sometimes misuse the word racism, apply it to situations where it doesn't really apply, or one-dimensionally characterize things as "racist" when there is more going on.

Glad to see we agree here. I'm eager to see if and how this agreement will allow for more nuanced arguments.

This is rather disingenuous. Maybe you aren't talking about these things, but in the context of my country, at least, people who take this position:
absolutely are in favor of repressing immigrants from countries whose cultures they see as diluting or harming their culture. That is also demonstrably true in many other countries.

Well, first, you're making an answer to quotes from myself, so yeah I do feel it's about my position. Especially considering the discussion it's from, IS about calling any sort of cultural discrimination as "racism".
Also, it depends largely what you're defining as "repressing". If it's about not wanting them in the country, then it's pretty consistent with the point, and while I don't ignore the human factor, I don't see how it can be called "repression".

At any event, I would argue that cultural discrimination, or cultural supremacism, even if you want to pedantically insist it must always be considered completely separate and distinct from racism, is also a bad thing that leads to bad real-world consequences.

Discrimination and supremacism are not at all the same. Wanting to preserve doesn't imply superiority, it only implies attachment, and that's the part that is seemingly always missed. I'm pretty sure I already explicitely told it, but I would defend my own family and loved one against others, I even value them above others, but that doesn't mean I consider them to be better than others.

You actively talk of cultural appropriation, so you obviously understand the concept of wanting to preserve a culture. The underlying concept is applicable to all people for all cultures, it doesn't cease to exist just because one culture is the "dominant" or "not oppressed" or whatever.

 

[Naskra]

One wonders how this belief informs your actions in the personal and political spheres!

No, one does not wonder this.

 

[Lexicus]

It argues that cultural hostility toward immigrants should be labelled "racism",

It doesn't really argue that in an unqualified manner. It sets out some conditions where "cultural hostility toward immigrants" can either reflect racism or actually be racist. That right there is a "more nuanced argument" which is what you claim to want.

Also, it depends largely what you're defining as "repressing". If it's about not wanting them in the country, then it's pretty consistent with the point, and while I don't ignore the human factor, I don't see how it can be called "repression".

If you don't want immigrants in the country, what means would you take to either remove the ones that are there, or deter/prevent more from coming?

Discrimination and supremacism are not at all the same.

Right.

You actively talk of cultural appropriation

Do...I? I think a lot of what people call cultural appropriation is basically harmless and that some cultural appropriation discourse shades into basically reproducing the old idea of racial "hygiene". To the extent that cultural appropriation discourse implies or entails the claim that cultural mixing is bad, I don't agree with it.

You actively talk of cultural appropriation, so you obviously understand the concept of wanting to preserve a culture. The underlying concept is applicable to all people for all cultures, it doesn't cease to exist just because one culture is the "dominant" or "not oppressed" or whatever.

So, is it a fair summary of your argument that one's culture, that one wants to preserve, can be destroyed or otherwise harmed simply by the presence within the borders of the state of too many people with the "wrong" culture?

 

[Lexicus]

As always, whiff on the position. Don't tie it to work. They the the same shot as everyone else. Or hell, just make a 4 year student visa permanent by default. It's not like the pre-med student champing at the bit of an American medical school materialized out of thin air.

I mean, we can rationalize scalping, but it's still scalping. It's easy, it's cheap, I mean - I wouldn't invest major emotional effort in arguing against something that's so easily in the self-interest. But for, but for.

I mean, if this is about work visas (honestly can't really tell what you're saying here), I don't like them either. I don't like making a person's ability to legally remain in the country contingent on keeping a boss happy.

 

[Zardnaar]

More visa related stuff.

Business likes their exploitable Labour.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/444578/visa-changes-too-little-too-late

 

[FriendlyFire]

Therefore you should know that any talk of the wonders of vibrant, diverse, multiculturalism is folly. Yugoslavia was multicultural, as were Lebanon, Rwanda, South Africa, and so many others in the past.

If you dont want them send them over here instead.
I welcome the people that invented the N95 mask, The Biontech vaccine, Google, Youtube, Intel, Atomics, Chemists, doctors and engineers.

 

[Senethro]

I'm not denying systemic racism, I'm denying the systematic categorization of any form of discrimination and preferences as racism. For someone talking down to me about language, you don't seem to pay a lot of attention to what is being said.

What is the difference between a societal system that produces discriminatory outcomes related to race/culture/ethnicity because it was designed intentionally that way, and one that does the same but had many designers of varying intents? (or no designers, or was randomly generated, or found on a beach one day)

I think its purely that you're attached to one and you don't like people calling it mean words. If you can't measure the difference between two things, they are the same.

So, less than dictionary definitions, your favorite system is not racist due to your wishful thinking

 

[Farm Boy]

I mean, if this is about work visas (honestly can't really tell what you're saying here), I don't like them either. I don't like making a person's ability to legally remain in the country contingent on keeping a boss happy.

Dude, I talked about work visas, you responded to it. I haven't changed topic, so if its about something else at this point you are going to have to tell me what it is. Tying immigration to economic usefulness is broadly evil.

 

[Lexicus]

Dude, I talked about work visas, you responded to it. I haven't changed topic, so if its about something else at this point you are going to have to tell me what it is. Tying immigration to economic usefulness is broadly evil.

Sorry friend, I can't always tell what you're talking about.

 

[Rashiminos]

What is the difference between a societal system that produces discriminatory outcomes related to race/culture/ethnicity because it was designed intentionally that way, and one that does the same but had many designers of varying intents? (or no designers, or was randomly generated, or found on a beach one day)

I think its purely that you're attached to one and you don't like people calling it mean words. If you can't measure the difference between two things, they are the same.

So, less than dictionary definitions, your favorite system is not racist due to your wishful thinking

Optimized for other indices.

 

[Senethro]

Optimized for other indices.

It could be, yes. But it would need a sufficiently weighty or valid reason to maintain it in its current form. If there is not a good reason to conserve it, then you're choosing to perpetuate racism by indifference/callousness/lazy malice.

 

[Akka]

It doesn't really argue that in an unqualified manner. It sets out some conditions where "cultural hostility toward immigrants" can either reflect racism or actually be racist. That right there is a "more nuanced argument" which is what you claim to want.

"either reflect racism or is racist" kinda fall in the same ballpark of taking for granted that racism is part of it.

If you don't want immigrants in the country, what means would you take to either remove the ones that are there, or deter/prevent more from coming?

Applying the law. Kick out the ones here illegally, deter more than a reasonable number to enter, reduces the renewing of grants for those legally here if there is too many, nothing really groundbreaking.

Do...I? I think a lot of what people call cultural appropriation is basically harmless and that some cultural appropriation discourse shades into basically reproducing the old idea of racial "hygiene". To the extent that cultural appropriation discourse implies or entails the claim that cultural mixing is bad, I don't agree with it.

You don't call everything "cultural appropriation", but you do understand and agree with the underlying concept (that people are emotionally attached to their culture and value it). My point is that it's the same root cause, even if both ends are very different.

So, is it a fair summary of your argument that one's culture, that one wants to preserve, can be destroyed or otherwise harmed simply by the presence within the borders of the state of too many people with the "wrong" culture?

It goes with the very concept of culture. The dynamic of a group always change with the people in it, that's how it's even defined.

---

What is the difference between a societal system that produces discriminatory outcomes related to race/culture/ethnicity because it was designed intentionally that way, and one that does the same but had many designers of varying intents? (or no designers, or was randomly generated, or found on a beach one day)

You're honestly not seeing the fundamental difference between an outcome with intent and one without ?