Less Immigration is Racist?

[Gorbles]

Actually that's wrong, both morally and even legally. If you hurt someone, redress entirely depends on the circumstance, and it could be the one you hurt that could be punished (if you hurt him in self-defense for example).

Of course it depends on the circumstance, but this isn't what you were saying earlier. You said the system was fundamentally about intent. I was responding to that claim.

If you accept there are a variety of factors that matter, then sure, we agree on that.

As above : it depends on circumstance, but YES harm done without intent can totally be discarded. It's all about responsibility (if someone hurts you through negligence, even if he didn't intent to hurt you, he was guilty of a fault ; if someone hurts you because you put yourself in harm's way, it's actually on your head).

In fact, it's a hallmark of dystopic settings to have a justice system punishing people for events without considering context and intents, precisely because it's anathema to any sense of justice.

"can" is not "should". Just because something can happen doesn't mean it should be the default assumption.

I wasn't talking about a theoretical victim putting themselves in harm's way. Nobody was. That is something you've inserted because you felt it needed to be stated, I don't know why. If we agree that harm through negligence is still harm, then there's no disagreement. You don't need to go off about some slippery slope fallacy r.e. dystopian settings, because in doing so you're mispresenting my (and probably other folks') arguments.

We already discussed it in another thread, and my answer hasn't magically changed with time. If the perpetuation of the discrimination is unjust and inherent to the system, then yes it's a problem. If the system is just and fair but applying it results in discrimination because people are people, then your idea to just apply your own discrimination to "correct" the results means you simply are ready to be unjust toward a different group so you can force the end result you want - basically a "end justifies the means" mentality - and that's not actual justice, just playing favorites.

What is an example of a system that is just and fair, but in applying it results in discrimination because "people are people"? I need specifics here because this could be interpreted in a few ways.

 

[Snowygerry]

But a Rwandan person has the same rights as a Serbian. (...)

Before the Belgian law they are equal yes, but not equal to Belgians, in Belgium.

Maybe that's not as it should be, be it certainly is how it is

The EU complicates matters slightly since EU states do favour citizens of other EU states and some EU members seem to want to use culture as a basis for membership.

Eu citizens have more rights than non-Eu citizens here yes, once again discrimination on the basis of nationality, and perfectly legal.

 

[Akka]

Of course it depends on the circumstance, but this isn't what you were saying earlier. You said the system was fundamentally about intent. I was responding to that claim.

If you accept there are a variety of factors that matter, then sure, we agree on that.

I guess it depends on what you consider part of the intent. I see the circumstances as giving context and creating the intent, rather than being separate. If someone attacks you, your intent when hurting him is completely different than if someone pass by and you jump on him. If you're being careless, it's a different intent than just doing your regular business and something really unexpected happening.

"can" is not "should". Just because something can happen doesn't mean it should be the default assumption.

Of course it "can" is not "should", but this isn't what you were saying earlier. You said the system COULDN'T discard harm done without intent. I was responding to that claim.

BTW, the intent is still the main factor even when the harm isn't discarded. A "manslaughter" charge is very, VERY different than an "assassination" one.

I wasn't talking about a theoretical victim putting themselves in harm's way. Nobody was. That is something you've inserted because you felt it needed to be stated, I don't know why. If we agree that harm through negligence is still harm, then there's no disagreement. You don't need to go off about some slippery slope fallacy r.e. dystopian settings, because in doing so you're mispresenting my (and probably other folks') arguments.

I was using this as an example of intent (through responsibility) being the absolute basis of justice, which seems pretty much the core of the dispute right now. And I'm using the dystopian setting as an argument to show the folly of putting intent in the back row, which actually seems again at the core of the discussion and not something "I don't need to go off".

What is an example of a system that is just and fair, but in applying it results in discrimination because "people are people"? I need specifics here because this could be interpreted in a few ways.

Hiring someone after an interview is the go-to example. People will discriminate, and in fact a job interview is basically all about discriminating - ideally on competence, but the underwater part of the iceberg being that how each one "feels" the other is actually the main factor. You can provide a framework (it's forbidden to ask people about their family projects for example) but you can't help people from discriminating when facing someone.

Another "perpetuating social-level discrimination through a just system" would be entrances exam in university, everyone is judged on the same standard (exam questions, exam answers, if they're well done people don't even know the name, gender or age of the person answering, only the answers, can't be fairer than that). But due to blacks being overall poorer and with statistically more difficult background, a smaller proportion of blacks than whites manage to pass those exam (isn't it the point of affirmative action after all ?).

 

[Samson]

That's backward reasoning.
Any langage is defined by use on the long term, but that doesn't imply words don't have meaning. It just imply this meaning change with use (and, in this case, abuse). The emotional load of a word is based on its meaning, and it's precisely because of this emotional load that it's used as a weapon even when the meaning is not appropriate.
Abusing a word voids it of it's meaning and makes it useless for communicating.

First, utilitarianism is not morality, it's an attempt at efficiency. You can basically justifies anything, even the most heinous actions, if you can "balance the sheets". Propaganda is utilitarian. Scapegoating is utilitarian. That's a pretty terrible foundation to take if you're trying to speak about what is right/moral, because it explicitely doesn't care about morality, just about results.

Second, not it isn't obvious at all that complete freedom of movement would makes magically everything nice and cosy. I specifically asked you about the whole in-group/out-group and territoriality concepts precisely to remind you that they are normal psychological phenomenons, which go directly against large free movements of populations.
Few species tolerate encroaching on their territories (and humans are not part of those who do), and seeing people from the out-group coming in numbers is certainly NOT something that will go smoothly.
That's not even speaking of material problems, which are actually the subject of this thread, like housing and work and economical exploitation and so on.

You're simply ignoring the most basic human behaviour AND the blatantly obvious frictions visible all over the world when it comes to immigration here.

That's not a reasoning here, that's just quoting Jesus. He might be right, he might be wrong, but this is not an argument, it's a "you should do this". The questions of the "why" and "is it good" aren't answered.

Your first axiom is downright false, the second is an appeal to religious authority. I'm still unconvinced (to say the least).

My take on morality : any morality that isn't applicable to actual humans, is crap and worthless. If you need to rewrite humans to be fundamentally different to make your system work, then it's wishful thinking, not something applicable.
Of course, ideals are fine, because they are by definition unattainable goals that people should strive for to improve themselves. But if Regular Joe can't reach the "good enough" without chaning his human nature, then it's not morality, it's brainwashing.

As such, morality needs to take into account that humans have in-groups and out-groups, and feel territorial. People dislikes when strangers encroach on their turf. People takes time to accept a newcomer in their group. People creates culture with time, and they are attached to it. All that is normal and not immoral as long as it's kept in check by not letting them act unjustly toward others due to prejudice.

OK, if you really want an answer, I think you are not getting my point. What I am saying is that I am not aware of a set of moral axioms that are acceptable AND result in the conclusion that discrimination on the basis of nationality is moral. I present 2 sets of "moral axioms" that result in the opposite conclusion and exist in the world, and rejected the "everyone thinks it" as a reason. It seems you just expanded on the "everyone thinks it" justification without giving any more reasoning. I am not sure what more answer I can give.

Trying to ignore all this and shout "RACIST" in order to shame people into complying is actually what I see as much more immoral - not only it is intellectually dishonest, it also basically means you want to enforce imaginary standards to actual humans (notice that I'm speaking of the ABUSE of the word here, not shouting "racist" when the person is ACTUALLY racist, hence the importance of actual definitions and remembering WHY "racist" is actually bad, rather than letting it be applied nilly-willy). And even if you go with utilitarianism BS, it also simply fails in practice, as we can see in the serious integration and migration-related troubles that arise (it's what the OP is talking about after all).

I will note you have not come up with examples. Are you willing to say that the Serb-Croat unpleasantness of the 90's was not racism? I have acknowledged that it is possible for cultural discrimination to not be racism, but in the real world it tends to be. Also that the morality of the action is not dependant on whether or not the action is accurately described as such.

You didn't answer the main point of the question. "history" did nothing, it's a concept meaning basically "what happened already" without agency by itself. I'm interested in you answering about the actual reasons that played a part.
So again, why do countries and nations exists ?

I am not at all sure what sort of answer you expect. The world we live in is the product of everything that has happened up to now, roughly described as history. The UK principally exists as a result of English expansionism, the US as a result of that, US expansionism, revolution, genocide and capitalism.

Who's agency are we talking about here? Certainly not mine. I suppose it could be appropriate to say that the UK exists largely because of the agency of one family, but that is a reason not a justification.

If I answer "no good reason" would that satisfy you?

I can only, again, refer you back to my previous post. It's pretty much dedicated to this point, was in fact a direct answer to you and yet you haven't actually answered it.

---


Actually that's wrong, both morally and even legally. If you hurt someone, redress entirely depends on the circumstance, and it could be the one you hurt that could be punished (if you hurt him in self-defense for example).

As above : it depends on circumstance, but YES harm done without intent can totally be discarded. It's all about responsibility (if someone hurts you through negligence, even if he didn't intent to hurt you, he was guilty of a fault ; if someone hurts you because you put yourself in harm's way, it's actually on your head).

In fact, it's a hallmark of dystopic settings to have a justice system punishing people for events without considering context and intents, precisely because it's anathema to any sense of justice.

We already discussed it in another thread, and my answer hasn't magically changed with time. If the perpetuation of the discrimination is unjust and inherent to the system, then yes it's a problem. If the system is just and fair but applying it results in discrimination because people are people, then your idea to just apply your own discrimination to "correct" the results means you simply are ready to be unjust toward a different group so you can force the end result you want - basically a "end justifies the means" mentality - and that's not actual justice, just playing favorites.

At least I am trying, with something more rigorous than "everyone thinks it so it must be right".

 

[Akka]

OK, if you really want an answer, I think you are not getting my point. What I am saying is that I am not aware of a set of moral axioms that are acceptable AND result in the conclusion that discrimination on the basis of nationality is moral.

You just quoted a big text that precisely answers that. The last paragraph even sums it out.

I present 2 sets of "moral axioms" that result in the opposite conclusion and exist in the world, and rejected the "everyone thinks it" as a reason. It seems you just expanded on the "everyone thinks it" justification without giving any more reasoning. I am not sure what more answer I can give.

I really can't fathom how you can twist what I said into that, but to paraphrase you, I think you're not getting my point.

I am not at all sure what sort of answer you expect. The world we live in is the product of everything that has happened up to now, roughly described as history. The UK principally exists as a result of English expansionism, the US as a result of that, US expansionism, revolution, genocide and capitalism.

Who's agency are we talking about here? Certainly not mine. I suppose it could be appropriate to say that the UK exists largely because of the agency of one family, but that is a reason not a justification.

If I answer "no good reason" would that satisfy you?

"things happpened for no reason" is a pretty poor answer, yeah. I'm pretty sure that nation-states arising and existing for centuries has a much higher requirement than just being legal entities on paper and all of it happening randomly without underlying reason.

At least I am trying, with something more rigorous than "everyone thinks it so it must be right".

Trying ? Rigorous ? That's twice now you simply dismiss an entire argument by caricaturing as "everyone thinks it" without actually addressing anything in the reasoning. That doesn't sound like "trying" and even less "rigorous" at all. Kinda the opposite in fact.

 

[Samson]

You just quoted a big text that precisely answers that. The last paragraph even sums it out.

You are saying this provides "a set of moral axioms that are acceptable AND result in the conclusion that discrimination on the basis of nationality is moral"?

As such, morality needs to take into account that humans have in-groups and out-groups, and feel territorial. People dislikes when strangers encroach on their turf. People takes time to accept a newcomer in their group. People creates culture with time, and they are attached to it. All that is normal and not immoral as long as it's kept in check by not letting them act unjustly toward others due to prejudice.

How? How does it follow from these statements about human nature that we should criminalise migration?

Our brains have lots of features, some positive in the current environment and others negative. A primary function of society is to control the negative and promote the positive. Why should this particular feature of our psyche require such legal measures rather than acceptance of migration? There are plenty of examples of in-group and out-group features that have over the years become immoral to discriminate on despite being very common in the population. What makes this feature so special? They are all pretty much based on the in/out group brain response, and have caused some of the greatest tragedies in history.

I really can't fathom how you can twist what I said into that, but to paraphrase you, I think you're not getting my point.

Perhaps you can point out what I am missing. You written a lot of text on this, and I have not seen any arguments other than "everyone thinks it". Do you think that is a poor description of the paragraph above? Perhaps "people feel like it" would be another interpretation, but I do not see that as practically better.

"things happpened for no reason" is a pretty poor answer, yeah. I'm pretty sure that nation-states arising and existing for centuries has a much higher requirement than just being legal entities on paper and all of it happening randomly without underlying reason.

Why do you think they exist? The UK exists because the Royal Family, over the course of over a thousand years, fought to maintain and expand their power. I know that is a massive oversimplification, but in a forum answer it is the best I can do.

Trying ? Rigorous ? That's twice now you simply dismiss an entire argument by caricaturing as "everyone thinks it" without actually addressing anything in the reasoning. That doesn't sound like "trying" and even less "rigorous" at all. Kinda the opposite in fact.

I really have tried the best I can to express my view concisely. If you think I have misrepresented your argument then perhaps you can clarify. I do agree that the paragraph above sums it up well, a statement about how our brains work and a supposition that this defines morality, without any any reasoning about why. It seems that the fact that our brains have not changed much over the last few thousand years but the criminalisation of migration is a relatively recent phenomenon would argue against the requirement for such criminalisation.

 

[Senethro]

Thing is, which actor of dubious faith in the world DOESN'T claim that their discrimination is natural/unintentional/incidental?

 

[Farm Boy]

Those are three exceptionally different things stuffed together with the "/"

Granted, I like to use that writing mechanic, but there is a world of difference between people who claim that discrimination from their actions is unintentional or incidental compared with the people who claim their discrimination is natural, necessary, or more recently, an imperative.

I mean, the Klan is in the discrimination is natural and necessary camp. It does appeal to a certain mindset, regardless of origin or affiliation.

 

[Senethro]

Those are three exceptionally different things stuffed together with the "/"

Granted, I like to use that writing mechanic, but there is a world of difference between people who claim that discrimination from their actions is unintentional or incidental compared with the people who claim their discrimination is natural, necessary, or more recently, an imperative.

I mean, the Klan is in the discrimination is natural and necessary camp. It does appeal to a certain mindset, regardless of origin or affiliation.

They are three separate things united by the attitude of "I don't have to take responsibility for bad outcomes caused by them "

 

[Farm Boy]

That would be one of the points that definitely is what I'm taking issue with. The real pieces of **** are quite proud boys and girls regarding what they seek to accomplish. They all market it different tho, from replacement, to law and order, to economic efficiency, to antiracism. Dumbfudgs come from everywhere.

 

[Senethro]

That would be one of the points that definitely is what I'm taking issue with. The real pieces of **** are quite proud boys and girls regarding what they seek to accomplish. They all market it different tho, from replacement, to law and order, to economic efficiency, to antiracism. Dumb****s come from everywhere.

I've written and deleted three different posts here about my use of the word "natural", active racists vs those permissive of racist outcomes etc before concluding that I'm not certain of what you're getting at.

 

[Farm Boy]

For every "active" moron in a bedsheet or astroturfed hiring dean telling people how to vote, there is generally a flock of "permissive" support personnel that made them that way. Moms are stronk.

 

[Bugfatty300]

I've written and deleted three different posts here about my use of the word "natural", active racists vs those permissive of racist outcomes etc before concluding that I'm not certain of what you're getting at.

Translation: Hardcore racists think their actions are necessary; but so do woke anti-racists. Therefore the real problem is actually dogmatic mindsets of both sides rather than their objective harmfulness.

 

[Farm Boy]

Not quite. One flows from the other, enabled by relative privilege.

No mustache twirl necessary at the end.

 

[Rashiminos]

Thing is, which actor of dubious faith in the world DOESN'T claim that their discrimination is natural/unintentional/incidental?

Your zealous racists/racialists have few qualms about messaging their overt position. They do argue that culture comes directly from racial traits, so therefore cultural discrimination is racial discrimination in their worldview, and nothing but. They're just proponents of the discrimination side and consider their opponents to be hypocrites at best. Disparate impact analysis becomes for them a way to "prove" that progs are racists who are trying to be anti-racist and failing because anti-discrimination in terms of racism is, from their perspective, irrational and/or nonsensical. Of course progs can attempt to argue that they're not discriminating along racial/cultural lines, but if, as the progressive argument goes, it's the impacts that matter more than intentions, how much of a defense is that really?

 

[Samson]

Your zealous racists/racialists have few qualms about messaging their overt position. They do argue that culture comes directly from racial traits, so therefore cultural discrimination is racial discrimination in their worldview, and nothing but. They're just proponents of the discrimination side and consider their opponents to be hypocrites at best. Disparate impact analysis becomes for them a way to "prove" that progs are racists who are trying to be anti-racist and failing because anti-discrimination in terms of racism is, from their perspective, irrational and/or nonsensical. Of course progs can attempt to argue that they're not discriminating along racial/cultural lines, but if, as the progressive argument goes, it's the impacts that matter more than intentions, how much of a defense is that really?

What sort of discrimination by the progs are you referring to?

 

[Rashiminos]

An example? Against "rape culture," maybe.

 

[Farm Boy]

I didn't follow the transition to the example.

 

[Rashiminos]

If the commission of rape and the practices surrounding and enabling it can be rhetorically described as culture (and it has been), then discriminating against it as per Cutlass's assertion in this thread, is "racist." (I think a certain premise is false, of course).

 

[Samson]

If the commission of rape and the practices surrounding and enabling it can be rhetorically described as culture (and it has been), then discriminating against it as per Cutlass's assertion in this thread, is "racist." (I think a certain premise is false, of course).

This follows from:

Of course progs can attempt to argue that they're not discriminating along racial/cultural lines, but if, as the progressive argument goes, it's the impacts that matter more than intentions, how much of a defense is that really?

So the impacts are a pretty good defence there, right?