> immigrant outcomes differ by orders of magnitude by country and that this has considerable implications for the immigration debate and that many of the arguments made by the left for illegal immigration & open borders range from ignorant to outright lying with statistics.
In 2014 Havard fellow Eugen Dimant did a study on immigration from corrupt countries, with the consistent finding that "Immigration from corruption-ridden countries boosts corruption in the destination country."
https://ethics.harvard.edu/blog/crook-crook-he-still-crook-a...
To put forth either of these as reasons to restrict immigration from one set of countries, and encourage immigration from another, almost always gets you labeled a racist, ethno-nationalist, etc. If you don't believe you will be called that, I invite you to try and discuss them pro/con style (pretending you are fairly convinced) with some of your more liberal coworkers, and see what they say.
Just being immigration-skeptic in general now often leads to such charges, which is absurd. The most basic rational reason of all is very simple: If the fundamental mechanic of democracy is that the people vote and these votes matter, then every citizen should have a strong interest in making sure that the criteria for being a citizen is in place to attract good citizens and repel bad ones. Instead, we can barely talk about it.
That is the very definition of racism. You're ascribing negative traits to specific races/ethnicities/countries, and using that as justification for discriminating against all individuals from that demographic.
If you want to advocate for racist policies as being pragmatic and in the public interests, go ahead and make that argument. But at least have the honesty to call it what it is.
FWIW, I don't think racism and stereotypes make for good public policy, no matter how "true" they may seem. This was the same logic used to discriminate against Irish, Italian and Eastern-European immigrants, and I don't think it's worth going down that same road once again. We can build a sensible immigration policy based on individual merit, without debasing ourselves into racist ideologies.
When the left talk about toxic and destructive masculinity and suggest policy to address it then that is using clear language and decisive action about a structural issue in society.
We could be making sensible policies based on each individuals own merit and it would be great. No more women vs men, immigrant vs nationalist, white vs black. It is the future I would like to have but what I am getting is the choice between two ideologies who each ascribing negative traits to their own set of races and gender, with policies to match.
Equality of this kind is a topic that could create common ground between liberal left and libertarian right, with policies and laws that focus on the individual and human behavior rather than groups. It would mean giving up having a group that each side can point at and blame for all faults in society, and the cynical in me would say that this means its political impossible, but it would make for a better world and possible push people to towards each other rather than apart.
Good for you. Any ideas about how to get people talking about "toxic masculinity" and "evil whiteness" day and night on board? How about people that call for "white genocide"?
> I would consider anyone espousing such ideology to be racist/sexist by definition.
OK. But would the consequences of this definition for someone publicly talking about "toxic masculinity" as something common to most/all males be the same as being an open misogynist, for example? And if not, do you think it's wrong and how would you propose to change it?
> I'm sure the majority of Clinton voters feel similarly as I do.
Do they? How comes somebody like Farrakhan is still very much welcome to the polite society on the left?
Is your contention that the main thing about the election of Trump that upset the people in this video that he took a cooly rational stance against some forms of immigration?
Banning all Muslims -- including citizens and visa holders -- from entering the country does not seem to be aligned with this position.
Saying that a judge was unqualified to do his job because of where his parents were born does not seem to be aligned with this position.
Blasting the family of a soldier who died saving others on the basis of their race and religion does not seem to be aligned with this position.
If your point is that you're frustrated that Trump has lowered the standards of intellectual dialog in the country, well, join the club, friend.
(Or worse, lumping any positions into support for whatever they're doing.)
Trump does not work at Google, Trump supporters at Google may support his policies, or not, and for his reasons or for their own reasons. Conservatives more generally have claimed Google is intolerant of their views, which is the reason this video is making the rounds in the first place.
So I disagree, I do not think this is very specifically about Trump. I think this is about workplace discussion of political issues, and for that matter is an issue in SV that pre-dates Trump. For example from 2015: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/closete...
There are plenty of reasons to be against the current immigration regime that don't involve ethno-nationalism but it's nearly impossible to forward any such arguments without being accused of being an ethno-nationalist.
https://www.vox.com/2018/1/12/16885312/trump-shithole-countr...
Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC) told the Post and Courier that his South Carolina colleague Sen. Lindsey Graham, who attended the meeting, told him Trump’s reported comments were “basically accurate.”
And Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ), who also didn’t attend the meeting, told the Washington Post he heard about Trump’s comments before they went public, and they matched the later reports.
https://www.vox.com/2018/1/16/16897016/trump-shithole-shitho...
Anonymous Republican sources have pushed the story that Trump in fact used the phrase “shithouse countries.” According to the Washington Post’s Josh Dawsey, Robert Costa, and Ashley Parker, Sens. Tom Cotton (R-AR) and David Perdue (R-GA) told the White House that’s what they remember Trump saying in the meeting.
Trump has apparently decided that the controversy is hurting him politically, so his allies are using this minor discrepancy to justify public denials that he said “shithole.”
If 100 people out of 100,000 who migrate cause problems, and they are all fleeing intolerable living conditions, then the only reasonable way you can say that all 100,000 should be shut out is if you value the welfare of the 99,900 so low that it is outweighed by the social harm caused by the 100 even after taking into account the benefits of migration.
Where did you get your 5 million from?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Year%27s_Eve_sexual_assaul...
> On 7 June, a Federal Criminal Police Office report confirmed that most of the perpetrators were of North African origin and had arrived in Germany during the European migrant crisis. Investigative results about the perpetrators were congruent with witnesses' statements.[48]
I'll leave it to you to research crime numbers like rape, theft andn such for carneval in Cologne or the Oktoberfest in Munich. Because These are the numbers that provide the context.
Disclaimer: That does not in the slightest way imply that any of These cases are defendable, the least of all rape. Still, context helps to prevent knee-jerk reactions.
Intolerance against different opinions oppose any dissenting views that shares the same goal but not the strategy to reach it. Equality feminism vs diversity feminism, open source vs free software, and so on.
A person can be for immigration enforcement and NOT be an ethno-smethmo whateveryourecallingit. If you don't control your border, you're not a nation.
I don't know who the pope of modern intersectionality is, so I don't know what It dictates. But your formulation, if applied to abolitionists, would read like "Abolitionists dictate that people should be treated very differently based on whether they are currently enslaved"
But are you?
I am sorry, but this is one of the most useless definitions I've read lately. Almost any human activity and any point of view can be described as "about how one describes reality", from quantum gravity theory to buddhism. And, on top of that, it does not contradict the premise bitlax described above.
I am all for thinking critically but if you proclaim that the description above is wrong - and not only just wrong, but so obviously wrong as the wrongness to be obvious to the author, and thus "bad faith" - I think the minimum requirement for you would be to produce a better definition. And "read the wikipedia, it's all there" is not providing a better one.
Popper is talking about not permitting of force as a mechanism for dispute resolution. The "paradox of tolerance" isn't a paradox at all. It's just a bludgeon people use to suppress free speech. It's ridiculous to claim that a discussion of the proper level of immigration is a threat to discourse generally.
Japan for example accepted only 27 refugees in one year while rejecting 7,586 according to the Brookings Institute. South Korea accepted only 94 in one year. Refugees are pretty much shut off from Singapore and China and many other Asian countries.
I'm curious why these countries don't receive the same flak for their "ethno-nationalist" views against immigrants. There are no boycotts against buying goods from these countries as they are with Trump hotels.
EDIT: I see that you work for Google. Your company is censoring content on behalf of the communist government in China despite their "ethno-nationalist" views against immigrants (not to mention their abysmal human rights record). What's the explanation?
> He has however repeatedly refused to openly say he supports "open borders"
Come on. If the person does not say "open borders" for tactical reasons, it doesn't mean he doesn't support the concept, especially if he says "no creo en fronteras".
> The push to abolish ICE and for sanctuary cities is a reaction to injustice committed in the name of the law by ICE specifically.
So let's say police and courts do an injustice (that happens a lot) and you say you want now to abolish police and courts. Would it be unfair to say you object to law enforcement? If yes, then you'd have to explain how do you see law enforcement absent police and courts. Or recognize that - for whatever reasons you arrived to this position - you are now doing exactly that. Somebody who objects to enforcement of immigration laws - as a whole, not in specific cases - must either explain how it is not "open borders" - and the burden of proof is on them - or recognize that's what they are for. Even if it is tactically uncomfortable.
> All the talk about "open borders" comes from conservatives purposely exaggerating and mis-characterizing their opponents' views
Please explain how "open borders" is mischaracterizing "yo no creo en fronteras". Maybe my Spanish is worse than I thought it is - what exactly does it mean then?
This is text book whataboutism. Just because someone isn't publicly complaining about Y doesn't make their criticism of X any less relevant.
This policy, while controversial in itself, has nothing to do with what you perceive as “stifling” of Breitbart in, I presume, American search results. I’d argue that this is nearly blatantly untrue - try searching for a term that Breitbart has written about, and you’ll find results at the top [0] or for Breitbart itself, and you’ll get a full-featured overview of Breitbart content and articles [1].
What evidence is there that Breitbart is stifled by Google?
[0] https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+may+use+military+to+bu...
And you really Need an Explanation why a company adopts to reuls in specific country (not saying it is good thing) and treats a (fringe) news outlet differently (not sure if they actually do, so)?
You cannot utter even the most platonic of right wing sentiments without the shrieks of frantic lunatics accusing you of being Hitler himself.
This idea of taboo subjects is exploited by nefarious far left activists, not for the cause of 'decency' or the preservation of western liberalism, but as a bludgeon to silence all thoughtcrime of the right.
> There's no reason anyone has to respect ethno-nationalist views against immigrants.
There's something called "political Turing test". The essence is that if you can not convincingly describe a position of an opposing side - in a way that they'd agree it is close to what they believe in - then you are not fit to discuss this position intelligently. Unfortunately, from the video is pretty clear almost nobody of those who spoke there would pass this test on anything related to anybody who voted for Trump. Yet they feel fully entitled to deny basic respect to people they didn't even bother to understand. And yet they feel smugly morally superior about it.
Narcissist finds it convienient to assume all who disagree with them are ethnonationalists.
This is a very vague statement, you can apply to your convenience. You could say Damore broke the principle and justify any penalty against him. I could say you don't follow this civility premise by choosing your partner based on your gender.
Every country in the world has "ethno-nationalist views against immigrants", and things work fine.
For whom?
https://www.economist.com/the-world-if/2017/07/13/a-world-of...
Painting people you don't like as "intolerant" and "deserving of persecution" was precisely how Hitler convinced Germans that it was okay to kill Jews.
There's no reason anyone has to respect ethno-nationalist views against immigrants.