4 ms·

It is a Muslim ban. It's just how you do it politically. You start with the goal of banning Muslims, then you see how to implement it in a way that gives you p

It is a Muslim ban. It's just how you do it politically. You start with the goal of banning Muslims, then you see how to implement it in a way that gives you plausible deniability. You couldn't get away with just saying, "No Muslims allowed." That is way too overtly racist and illegal. So you look for existing groupings of countries that align with your goals. You find a list of countries banned on the visa waiver program made by the previous administration, and it covers many Muslim nations that are in the international spotlight right now. They're hot topics and it fits your criteria well. (Also they conveniently don't intersect with your business interests, so that's another plus.) You ignore Indonesia and India because they aren't in the news for terrorism, so it doesn't fit your narrative. Now you can get away with banning these "previously chosen" countries, by saying it's for national security, while you wink to your more explicitly racist supporters. You achieved their racist goal, de-facto, while having a non-racist "legitimate" excuse. This is how institutional racism works. You have a racist goal in mind, and you implement it through actions that are under the guise of something more reasonable. It has the same effect as if you just made some overtly racist policy, but you can do it legally and with plausible deniability. Also, if it helps, Rudy Giuliani said on national TV that Trump told him to do literally exactly this.

battlebot 10y ago
Until Muslims can be trusted to peacefully coexist in the west and not undermine western legal tradition, I'm fine with a Muslim ban. I feel some tinge of compassion for the non-violent muslims out there, but in an us vs. them world, not one more inch will be given up to this clash of old world vs. new world. If Islam can't find a way to make a peaceful journey in the world, then it has to go. Moderate Muslims need to step up and completely denounce their violent sub-groups. COMPLETELY DENOUNCE--not quietly bolster or nod knowingly to. It is not institutional racism to see that a violent ideology is harming American citizens. There have already been many attacks inside the US. The media does its utmost to downplay the fact that radical Islam is behind all of those attacks.
- mozumder 10y ago
  I agree that we should ban whites from this country, since they commit the vast majority of murders here in America. So many innocent lives have been lost to white murderers that own guns. I mean, if we're going to be bigoted and ascribe negative traits to entire groups based on the actions of a few, shouldn't we do that to protect our safety by ascribing whites as murderers based on them committing the vast majority of the 17,000 murders that happen in our country every year? America needs to defend themselves against whites, who are placing carnage into our peaceful country with their murderous ways. If whites can't find a way to make peaceful journey in the world, then they have to go. Moderate whites need to step up and completely denounce their violent sub-groups. COMPLETELY DENOUNCE -- not quietly bolster or nod knowingly to. (this is how bigotry works, and remember, it can go both ways. Do you want this kind of bigotry to happen to whites? I get that it's hard to not be bigoted when it's so much easier mentally to associate a race with the actions of a few, but that's what it takes to be smart- you have to actually think instead of being mentally lazy) Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/385/ https://xkcd.com/385/
  - jakeogh 10y ago
    Why equate an ideology to skin color?
    - grzm 10y ago
      I think the point is comparing stats of violence across demographics in the US, in particular comparing Muslims with other groups. Replacing whites with Christians will likely provide similar results for stats within the United States. I think it's reasonable to compare threats if that's a motivating criteria for supporting the ban. There are a lot of orthogonal issues involved in the discussion of immigration, its effects on society, violence, identifying direct and indirect causes. And they touch on a lot of sensitive topics. So much of the discussion gets politicized and shrill. It's difficult to trust each other enough to have the nuanced discussion that's required. Look at the language being used in this thread. Are people legitimately trying to understand each other? Or telling each other what the truth is? How subtle are the points being made? How much of it is expressed in absolute, general terms? 'battlebot is claiming that Islam, a violent ideology, is harming American citizens, and that there have been many attacks, and that they're fine with the Muslim ban. 'mozumber is claiming that most violent attacks in the US are perpetrated by white gun owners. 'jakeogh (you) are claiming further upthread it's not a Muslim ban 'lifeformed is claiming it's a crypto Muslim ban Trump is trying to slip in. One could roughly put the four of you into two groups in terms of who each is arguing against (note, not who they agree with) Yet I really don't see any of you talking with each other, trying to find some understanding of each other, if not agreement. There doesn't appear to be any faith that the others may actually be rational people who have different values and reasons for their positions, even if they don't agree. No attempt to honestly understand another's position. And I'm probably misunderstanding all of you, to boot!
jakeogh 10y ago
http://imgur.com/a/HEOWO http://imgur.com/a/HEOWO By your logic, the ban will not be temporary. Correct?

battlebot 10y ago

Until Muslims can be trusted to peacefully coexist in the west and not undermine western legal tradition, I'm fine with a Muslim ban. I feel some tinge of compassion for the non-violent muslims out there, but in an us vs. them world, not one more inch will be given up to this clash of old world vs. new world. If Islam can't find a way to make a peaceful journey in the world, then it has to go. Moderate Muslims need to step up and completely denounce their violent sub-groups. COMPLETELY DENOUNCE--not quietly bolster or nod knowingly to. It is not institutional racism to see that a violent ideology is harming American citizens. There have already been many attacks inside the US. The media does its utmost to downplay the fact that radical Islam is behind all of those attacks.

mozumder 10y ago
I agree that we should ban whites from this country, since they commit the vast majority of murders here in America. So many innocent lives have been lost to white murderers that own guns. I mean, if we're going to be bigoted and ascribe negative traits to entire groups based on the actions of a few, shouldn't we do that to protect our safety by ascribing whites as murderers based on them committing the vast majority of the 17,000 murders that happen in our country every year? America needs to defend themselves against whites, who are placing carnage into our peaceful country with their murderous ways. If whites can't find a way to make peaceful journey in the world, then they have to go. Moderate whites need to step up and completely denounce their violent sub-groups. COMPLETELY DENOUNCE -- not quietly bolster or nod knowingly to. (this is how bigotry works, and remember, it can go both ways. Do you want this kind of bigotry to happen to whites? I get that it's hard to not be bigoted when it's so much easier mentally to associate a race with the actions of a few, but that's what it takes to be smart- you have to actually think instead of being mentally lazy) Relevant XKCD: https://xkcd.com/385/ https://xkcd.com/385/
- jakeogh 10y ago
  Why equate an ideology to skin color?
  - grzm 10y ago
    I think the point is comparing stats of violence across demographics in the US, in particular comparing Muslims with other groups. Replacing whites with Christians will likely provide similar results for stats within the United States. I think it's reasonable to compare threats if that's a motivating criteria for supporting the ban. There are a lot of orthogonal issues involved in the discussion of immigration, its effects on society, violence, identifying direct and indirect causes. And they touch on a lot of sensitive topics. So much of the discussion gets politicized and shrill. It's difficult to trust each other enough to have the nuanced discussion that's required. Look at the language being used in this thread. Are people legitimately trying to understand each other? Or telling each other what the truth is? How subtle are the points being made? How much of it is expressed in absolute, general terms? 'battlebot is claiming that Islam, a violent ideology, is harming American citizens, and that there have been many attacks, and that they're fine with the Muslim ban. 'mozumber is claiming that most violent attacks in the US are perpetrated by white gun owners. 'jakeogh (you) are claiming further upthread it's not a Muslim ban 'lifeformed is claiming it's a crypto Muslim ban Trump is trying to slip in. One could roughly put the four of you into two groups in terms of who each is arguing against (note, not who they agree with) Yet I really don't see any of you talking with each other, trying to find some understanding of each other, if not agreement. There doesn't appear to be any faith that the others may actually be rational people who have different values and reasons for their positions, even if they don't agree. No attempt to honestly understand another's position. And I'm probably misunderstanding all of you, to boot!

jakeogh 10y ago

http://imgur.com/a/HEOWO http://imgur.com/a/HEOWO By your logic, the ban will not be temporary. Correct?