Less Immigration is Racist?

[Rashiminos]

The impacts being?

 

[Samson]

The impacts being?

Less commision of rape.

 

[Rashiminos]

Less commision of rape.

Incarceration rates? (Putting aside that you're effectively saying "discriminating against rape culture is good actually", which is operating outside of one of the frames presented in this thread).

 

[Senethro]

?

???

Why do we care about the perspective of the hypothetical jerkface advancing this position?

 

[Rashiminos]

?

???

Why do we care about the perspective of the hypothetical jerkface advancing this position?

I would at least consider the reflexive dimension of that question, if I were you.

 

[Samson]

Incarceration rates? (Putting aside that you're effectively saying "discriminating against rape culture is good actually", which is operating outside of one of the frames presented in this thread).

I am not sure what rape culture you are thinking of, but I am willing to take the cost of ending some rape culture. I am not sure how that is outside the frame of this thread. I am willing for the people to come, but they have to leave that stuff behind.

 

[Rashiminos]

I am not sure what rape culture you are thinking of, but I am willing to take the cost of ending some rape culture. I am not sure how that is outside the frame of this thread. I am willing for the people to come, but they have to leave that stuff behind.

Not the frame of the entire thread. One of the frames presented.

Particularly this one:

"Cultural dilution" is just racism which won't man up and admit to being racist. Fear of job loss is primarily ignorance of how capitalism works. But you'll notice how that goes away when the immigrants in question are white.

If you're vibing with what Cutlass said, that cost includes some legally racist policies in an attempt to diminish "rape culture." Cutlass says to man up and admit it, or so I gather from that remark. Some people would call that being coy. I think that claim about correspondence between cultural antagonism and racial antagonism is garbage. What people adopt is what they adopt.

 

[Samson]

Not the frame of the entire thread. One of the frames presented.

Particularly this one:



If you're vibing with what Cutlass said, that cost includes some legally racist policies in an attempt to diminish "rape culture." Cutlass says to man up and admit it, or so I gather from that remark. Some people would call that being coy. I think that claim about correspondence between cultural antagonism and racial antagonism is garbage. What people adopt is what they adopt.

OK, so I will freely admit to being racist against violent Wahhabism as practiced by ISIL.

If you want an example of progs being racist facilitators then this just popped up.

Spoiler Distribution of ethnicities looks dodgy :

The Y-chromosome Haplotype Reference Database (YHRD) holds more than 300,000 anonymous Y-chromosome profiles, it shows how particular genetic markers are fingerprints of male lineages in more than 1,300 distinct global populations.
Thousands of the profiles it holds were obtained from men who are unlikely to have given free, informed consent, they say. These include data from minority ethnic populations such as the Uyghurs in China and the Roma in eastern Europe.

 

[Bugfatty300]

OK, so I will freely admit to being racist against violent Wahhabism as practiced by ISIL.

If you want an example of progs being racist facilitators then this just popped up.

There you have it folks. The broke n' woke crowd now want to cancel ISIS rape and forced marriages. Nothing is sacred.

 

[Rashiminos]

The wokists are nominally anti-racist, therefore...

 

[Akka]

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?

For the record, I DO fully agree with you about the function of society. That being said :

Let me flip that around : why should acceptance of territorial and group encroachment take precedence over in-group psychology ? On which basis do you define which features are "positive" and which are "negative" ?
The thing is, you're going to enter a problem of recursive definition real quick here, and you're going to face the next point

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.

I've spend a lot of time and text about how this defines morality, so you're pretty insulting to tell me "without any reasoning about why".
The "about why" is here :

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.

And also, in answer to someone else on the same subject :

Would you blame someone who value his family above a stranger ? Would you blame someone who bar his door to a stranger ? Yet, in both case, the stranger might a much better person than the family or the owner. The pattern is here, we accept and value that someone can discriminate and favour, to a degree, the in-group over the out-group. Fighting prejudice is good, but trying to ignore the normalcy of such prejudice and erase the existence of their source is not.

Human society needs to be made for real humans, to blunt the worse of our instincts but still admit their existence and not try to twist and warp people into something different than humans, even if it's "better" in the eye of the ideologue (spoiler : the "perfect human" would be completely different in the eye of another ideologue anyway).

You are free to disagree, but don't pretend I'm not supporting my views with an actual reasoning.

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.

I'd say "people feels it because that's how people work" is a much better point, and I'll refer you to the arguments above.
If you're going to say that how people feels and how people work can be disreguarded, then I'll have to ask to you which moral imperative can supercede this and from where it does take its legitimacy.

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.

I'm trying to imply that nations don't stand up just because a few people at the top decides to do something. There is a drive keeping the population together, and it's inherent to humans. Not to say that it justifies monarchs and destructive nationalism, but the wishful thinking that countries are just lines on a map is at best naive.

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. 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.

It was already pointed to you, in detail, that the underlying wariness about mass movement of population is absolutely not anything recent, and the "criminalization" already existed, just under different and more "social dynamic" premises. The laws only became required recently due to the availability of mass movements, but the resistance was always here.

 

[Lexicus]

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

No, because it only reflects racism or is racist if certain conditions are met. It is not inherently or automatically racist. One can certainly argue over whether the conditions are met in any given situation.

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.

All of these things certainly constitute repression. @innonimatu can admit it; why can't you?

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.

*shrug* I can't say I agree, I don't think American culture is threatened with destruction by immigrants from other cultures. Immigrants enrich and improve American culture.

 

[Farm Boy]

That last bit is, at least partially, explicitly American(not exclusively by any implication). But that understanding definitely evolved under the "melting pot" theory of integration. "Chunky stew" or whatever is definitely more accurate, and even that is hopeful, but a certain degree of integration is always expected. Nah, demanded. It's a principle reason super powerful states are scary.

 

[Cutlass]

Not the frame of the entire thread. One of the frames presented.

Particularly this one:



If you're vibing with what Cutlass said, that cost includes some legally racist policies in an attempt to diminish "rape culture." Cutlass says to man up and admit it, or so I gather from that remark. Some people would call that being coy. I think that claim about correspondence between cultural antagonism and racial antagonism is garbage. What people adopt is what they adopt.

Man, I don't even know what the fudge you're talking about sometimes. To people like you, if you do it, you just assume that your enemies do it even more. You can't make a case, so you lie.

 

[Rashiminos]

Man, I don't even know what the fudge you're talking about sometimes.

That's a good start...

To people like you, if you do it, you just assume that your enemies do it even more. You can't make a case, so you lie.

*yawn* ... oh well. Interesting assumption, if you think about it. Implicitly it says that someone thinks people will imitate him and that maybe he should act in ways he hopes people will imitate. Plenty of people who don't imitate me. The assumption is clearly wrong. I'm not the one who made it. The accusation follows from the misbegotten assumption.

What may have happened is that after borrowing someone else's frame and perhaps applying it towards unexpected outcomes, someone would claim I applied it incorrectly, and could explain how. That is... if they knew what the fudge either of us was on about.

@Lexicus PS, I love you too.

No, because it only reflects racism or is racist if certain conditions are met. It is not inherently or automatically racist. One can certainly argue over whether the conditions are met in any given situation.

Contextual constraints work against the premise that cultural anxieties originate from racism or even fraternize with racism. When the conditions are met, the charge of racism is grounded, and outside of those conditions, it isn't. Cultural variance spans inside and outside of those contexts.

*shrug* I can't say I agree, I don't think American culture is threatened with destruction by immigrants from other cultures. Immigrants enrich and improve American culture.

Most people, including myself, don't think cultural enrichment by immigration is beneficial without qualification, with the most obvious case being an adversarial state. Now whether the US started it or the other side did, when antagonistic states seek to immigrate into a host state, it's not precisely for the host state's benefit. Colonization would be one example. Cultural subversion by the USSR was another. The extra wrinkle/convolution I would add to the immigration discussion is that the same vacuous reasoning bleeds into other domains, like healthcare. Incompetence in one context -> incompetence in another.

 

[innonimatu]

I'm trying to say out of this further, as I've said what I wanted and it looks like the discussions is not moving anyone. But I really should add that I'm sanguine about using some repression in these in-group/out-group conflicts. For the quite simple reason that repression always happens and those who are not realist in managing it end up with uncontrolled situations that will - for them - be worse than planned situations.

Politics is the management of conflict. Conflicts of opinion, conflicts of action (the use of the material world). People group together while doing politics, there are communities, and the political communities that got stable do have a series of mutual obligations for its members. At some points violence gets used to defend those communities from those who would break the existing mutual relations by force (even so much as not performing them may be an attack that undermines a community). Whom the violence represses, the reasons for its use, can always be discussed as moral questions. But it's going to happen and it's not inherently bad. Even if one does not want to be a moral relativist and hols a set (any set) of deontological norms as a source of morality, it can get complicated... except for the total pacifists unattached to communities, I guess.
@Akka seems to be getting exasperated at how people want to ignore reality? And @Lexicus seems to have assumed that because violence is here discussed in the context of immigration it must be always morally bad? I'm going to offer that a moral discussion requires more context.


On the question of immigration into some countries harming the countries that get abandoned by people, this is rather on point:

But the nasty secret about British aid is that, in reality, the subsidies are often going in the opposite direction because Britain deliberately trains far fewer doctors and nurses than it needs. It makes up the difference by recruiting great numbers of trained medical staff from impoverished countries where they are already in critically short supply.
In Kenya, for instance, where 20 million people live in extreme poverty, on less than $1.25 (89p) a day, the country loses $518,000 for every doctor and $339,000 for every nurse who emigrates to the UK. Britain gives substantial aid to Ghana to fight malaria and reduce infant mortality, but these sums are exceeded by the £65m Britain saves by employing 293 doctors trained in Ghana and a further £38m saved on 1,021 Ghanaian nurses who work here.
[...]
For all the self-congratulatory talk about Britain donating vaccines to the world’s poor, it is in practice knowingly parasitic on their ill-funded health systems. Of the 289,000 licensed doctors in the UK in 2021, two-thirds were trained in this country and one-third trained elsewhere. The losers are overwhelmingly poor and middle-income countries in southeast Asia and the Middle East, with the largest number of doctors coming from India, Pakistan, Nigeria, Sudan, South Africa and Ghana.
Because of the desperate need for more medical staff during the Covid-19 pandemic, Britain – along with other rich countries – has eased visa restrictions and stepped up active recruitment by the NHS, so doctors in the Philippines are retraining as nurses in order to emigrate. The country is now so short of nurses that hospital wards are shutting down.

 

[Gorbles]

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.

It's different than jumping someone, sure, but then within that there are varying severities. If someone just punched you, should you stab them? Even if it's completely reflexive (hypothetically, given the instrument required). And so on, and so forth.

I agree intent is important, but I believe other factors are important, if not equally-so. The harm caused regardless of intent can be as powerful as the intent, at times.

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.

The system cannot. Individual cases may be able to "discard" (or rather, justify) the harm done based on the specific context. The system (whether moral or legal) always has to consider harm done regardless of intent.

As for the specific charges, well, no, not really. First-degree murder is different from manslaughter. Second-degree murder is different again. And then we have third-degree murder, the distinctions between manslaughter become very slim (because there can be a lack of intent to kill in both cases).

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".

Who put intent on the back row? Did anybody?

You claimed "to have a justice system punishing people for events without considering context and intents" (would be dystopian). Here, in case you think I'm quoting you poorly. Except that nobody was advocating for a justice system that punished people without considering context or intent. Or at least, if I missed it, I certainly wasn't.

If I took your argument, mischaracterised it, and then attributed to your mischaracterised argument some dystopian future where robots harvest our organs for breakfast, would you not object?

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 ?).

If a company has an employee that routinely discriminates in hiring, then that company is at fault. Depending on the country and the recognition of protected characteristics, of course. To put it another way, you're conflating discrimination generally with specific discrimination against protected characteristics. I'm not being "discriminated" against if I don't have the skills required for the job (and the company isn't willing to take on sure a hire). I could be being discriminated against personally if the company feels I'm not a good "fit", because that's laden with implicit bias. However, I am being discriminated against if I don't get the job because of the colour of my skin, or because of where I was born, etc.

In these cases, the "system" is not "fair and just", because the people make the system. A hiring framework cannot be fair if the actors that implement it are unfair. It seems to me is the problem in your assumption that such things are. Or am I misunderstanding your argument?

We're agreed completely on entrance exams, by the way. But in that event I would also claim that entrance exams might therefore not be just or fair. Emphasis on "might". The questions on the paper might be. The examiners might be. But when discussing something that relates to culture (including immigration) we need a holistic approach. We can't just claim individual parts of a greater system are just in of themselves, because these things don't exist in isolation.

Most people, including myself

Who is "most"? That reads like an argument to popularity to me

Don't worry, there are people here that are very keen on identifying fallacies that I'm very sure will be along shortly. It's a hallmark of OT, of sorts.

 

[Akka]

All of these things certainly constitute repression. @innonimatu can admit it; why can't you?

Because it simply doesn't fit. It's about "restriction", not "repression". I'm not allowed to enter a company building at will, it's not socially acceptable to just jump in a group of strangers chatting and start as if you're part of the group, and I can't cross borders just because I want to. There is no universal right to be accepted into a group, and as such there is no inherent "repression" when it's about to bar entry to people from the outside.

*shrug* I can't say I agree, I don't think American culture is threatened with destruction by immigrants from other cultures. Immigrants enrich and improve American culture.

You can disagree all you want with "adding people to a group change the group dynamic and general mindset", but that's still what factually happens so your disagreement is only wishful thinking. We all know it happens and we all act accordingly in everyday life - groups of friends often form or break up, come to live or wither depending on new arrivals, be it friends, sport clubs or game guilds. It's self-obvious to the point of being tautological that adding a lot of newcomer will considerably change the habits of a group.
And change means departure from what existed before. You can say you see no problem with that, but it's still a fact. And it means the culture change, and it means that people attached to this culture will resist it.

Also, one point that I've been wondering for a while. People often use the "enrichment" mantra, but I've yet to get an adequate answer : what does it even means to "enrich" or "improve" a culture ? Change by itself is neither good nor bad, having new people from other cultures bring change, but why would it be automatically an "improvement" ?

 

[Rashiminos]

Who is "most"? That reads like an argument to popularity to me

Don't worry, there are people here that are very keen on identifying fallacies that I'm very sure will be along shortly. It's a hallmark of OT, of sorts.

I'm sure they could. I'm not sure how well they can manage it without having to tread on democratic principles to do it.

 

[Gorbles]

I'm sure they could. I'm not sure how well they can manage it without having to tread on democratic principles to do it.

You meant to quote me, not Lexicus, but I wasn't referring to anyone but regular posters. The kind that are unable to tread on any "democratic principles" insofar as they're just thread participants.