6 ms·

It's disappointing to me that some people defend racists and xenophobes against being called racists and xenophobes. This is what they are, and it's completely

• basseq 10y ago
  This is a "guilty by association" logical fallacy. While some Brexitors are racist xenophobes, not all are. I find it hard to believe that 51% of the (voting) public is racist. This is the same thing that underpins the erroneous, "All Muslims are terrorists!" trope. Of course they're not! Your last paragraph makes a solid point, but it's a tough point to make. You're asking people to effectively vote against their own best interests because it's in the best interests of someone else. Any rational voter will rightly wonder why they should have to suffer to better someone else: shouldn't there be a solution that benefits all? (Or, bluntly, a solution that impacts a minority of voters who can't change the status quo?)
  • switch007 10y ago
    > While some Brexitors are racist xenophobes, not all are And the ones that are should not be called racist xenophobes because they they voted leave and the other 50.99% might get upset about the association?
    • Nadya 10y ago
      The point trying to be made is that they are racist because they are racist - not that they are racist because they are Brexitors. It's an important distinction to make. In the same vein of thought, terrorists should be called terrorists because they are terrorists and not because they are Muslim. And I happen to agree that Muslims shouldn't be called terrorists and not just because some majority % would be upset about the association.
    • nickik 10y ago
      Your arrogance is truly stagering. The EU is large institution and their are many reasons to be against it. I would wager that I am far more pro-immigration the you are and I would have voted leave.
  • capote 10y ago
    > You're asking people to effectively vote against their own best interests because it's in the best interests of someone else. I'm asking people to consider the fundamental rights of others and to notice that they're at risk. Compared to putting up with the status quo for a bit longer, losing fundamental rights and being discriminated against by the government is a much larger issue. I'm asking people to put up with the status quo for a bit more because the only alternative is discrimination and would take away fundamental rights of others.
    • GrumpyYoungMan 10y ago
      >I'm asking people to consider the fundamental rights of others and to notice that they're at risk. This may come as a shock but you'd be surprised at how little anyone cares about the "fundamental rights of others" when their own livelihood and the well being of their families are at risk regardless of what part of the political spectrum they're on. This is not an attack on you nor sarcasm, just a blunt statement of fact. The left (of which I am a part) cannot, can not, ask people to "put up with the status quo for a bit more" in the current political environment. That will lead to Brexits, President Trump, and whatever lies beyond. Instead of berating them for being "uneducated" and "voting against their own interests", we on the left must remember our role as champions of the working class and relieve their economic suffering _now_, "fundamental rights of others" be damned, or we will all pay the price.
      • hiram112 10y ago
        >I'm asking people to consider the fundamental rights of others and to notice that they're at risk. The cognitive dissonance is unbelievable, especially from those who are otherwise pretty intelligent. 1) immigrants making choices to come to a country in order to improve their economic situation are heroes. 2) non-immigrants voting for policies to improve their economic situation are haters and bigots.
        • ZeroGravitas 10y ago
          I would love for people in my country to vote for policies that improved their economic conditions. Instead they listen to propaganda pushed by multiple billionaires (and many, many millionaires) working together to change politics, and who've discovered the best way to get people to vote against their own interests is fear of the other.
• whamlastxmas 10y ago
  The issue is that any Trump supporter is immediately labelled a racist xenophobe. It's also possible to be anti-immigration and support many of other Trump's policies despite not being racist or xenophobic. People always jump to that conclusion though, hence the OP's frustration with all the name calling.
  • capote 10y ago
    That's because any Trump supporter (be it by privilege or other) seems to be unfazed by Trump's racism and xenophobia. If we elect him, these are policies that will be at risk of being enacted, and this will affect minorities, immigrants, and Muslims. This is a large cost to our society, values, democracy, you name it. In modern times, not caring that the rights of minorities and immigrants will be trampled is rightfully interpreted as being a racist xenophobe. We are trying to collectively move away from these old-fashioned bad ideas, and supporting Trump is backward in this sense.
    • bdavisx 10y ago
      I think some (many? IDK) are not unfazed by the "bad" parts of Trump's message - it's just that they agree so strongly with the "good" parts (whatever they feel is "good") that they are willing to hold their nose and overlook the "bad" parts. Mainly because the status quo on both the Republican and Democratic side supports the economic policies that have been so bad for them.
    • rayiner 10y ago
      > That's because any Trump supporter (be it by privilege or other) seems to be unfazed by Trump's racism and xenophobia. If you say that one cannot morally support Trump because Trump is a racist and xenophobe at heart, would you also say that one cannot support Hilary, because she is a drug warrior and "tough on crime" crusader at heart? (I think the answer is no, because it's reasonable to support a politician without endorsing all of that politician's world views).
      • diyorgasms 10y ago
• rayiner 10y ago
  > It's disappointing to me that some people defend racists and xenophobes against being called racists and xenophobes. This is what they are, and it's completely appropriate to call them that, and worse. In your opinion, is it racist or xenophobic for people in Britain to believe that the laws that govern them should maximize the prosperity of people in Britain, and not that of anyone else?
  • tremon 10y ago
    But the laws that govern them have maximized the prosperity of people in Britain, just not them. So yes, it is racist and xenophobic to blame anyone but their own country for them not partaking in their country's prosperity.
    • rayiner 10y ago
      The EU optimizes the prosperity of the EU collectively, rather than the prosperity of Britain specifically. That is by design: when heads of national governments sit in the European Commission (correction: Council), they are obligated to consider the interests of the whole EU, not the interests of the nation they represent.
      • tremon 10y ago
        when heads of national governments sit in the European Commission Heads of national governments do not sit in the European Commission, they form the European Council.
        • rayiner 10y ago
          You're right, but my point stands: commission members are obligated to represent the general interest of the EU as a whole, not that of their home state. They're precluded, by oath from favoring the policies that maximize the prosperity of their home state.
          • tremon 10y ago
• dgnsgbwth 10y ago
  Please place your identity-based politics in the trash where they belong. Wealth inequality and the class struggle are the defining problems of our generation, and all this nonsense about who is more underprivileged than whom is merely a concerted attempt to obfuscate that.
  • capote 10y ago
    I think everyone can have their own perspective on what a defining problem is. If you're straight and white, wealth inequality is a problem. If you're not, then I beg to differ on what the defining problem is. If you can't at least try to see issues from other people's perspectives, then that's your main problem.
    • antisthenes 10y ago
      You can hold those perspectives, but it doesn't change the fact that wealth inequality affects vastly more people than, by your suggestions, issues of sexual orientation and race. I would even stand behind the notion that wealth inequality affects literally everyone, both the haves and the have-nots, while the other issues affect a minority, by definition. I would also argue that it is perhaps advantageous to those minorities to rally behind the unifying cause of wealth inequality in order to maximize their political impact simply because if they focus on minority issues, their voice is diluted among the concerns of the overwhelming majority (which, in this particular case, is still white, in the US).
• throwanem 10y ago
  > it's completely appropriate to call them that, and worse Leaving aside all the arguments over whether it's accurate to do so, here's a question that might be worth asking: Is it useful? No one likes being labeled. That's as true for people with whom you do not agree as it is for those with whom you do. If the objective is a productive discussion of differences and, ultimately, a peaceful transition into a future that works better for everyone, then applying derogatory labels to people whose view of the world differs from your own is probably not very useful. If the objective is to insert as many crowbars as possible into already extant political, economic, and social divides, and do as much as possible to pry them open even wider, then applying derogatory labels is a great strategy. Of course, in that case, it's hard to be taken seriously when you profess surprise and dismay at the unfavorable reception you're given by those with whom you do not agree. But I've yet to see that really stop anyone.
  • flubert 10y ago
    >Is it useful? "But compassion and moral principle cannot be the main motives for leftist activism. Hostility is too prominent a component of leftist behavior; so is the drive for power. Moreover, much leftist behavior is not rationally calculated to be of benefit to the people whom the leftists claim to be trying to help. For example, if one believes that affirmative action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affirmative action in hostile or dogmatic terms? Obviously it would be more productive to take a diplomatic and conciliatory approach that would make at least verbal and symbolic concessions to white people who think that affirmative action discriminates against them. But leftist activists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emotional needs. Helping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race problems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hostility and frustrated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the activists’ hostile attitude toward the white majority tends to intensify race hatred." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabomber/manifesto.text.htm http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/unabo...
    • throwanem 10y ago
      Dare I ask in what connection you quote Ted Kaczynski of all people? I mean, I'm sure you are not trying to tar me with the same brush, for no better reason than because I happen to be saying something superficially similar to something Ted Kaczynski once said. But I must confess I fail to see any other way in which this quote is germane. Perhaps you'll enlighten me.