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...
> 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.