5 ms·
This is at least the second article in few weeks of self-congratulatory, virtue-signaling-masked-as-history we've seen from Smithsonian. From this article I se
by JackFr 10y ago
This is at least the second article in few weeks of self-congratulatory, virtue-signaling-masked-as-history we've seen from Smithsonian.
From this article I see two takeaways:
1) Despite the tome of the article, this test seems reasonable. If we take as given that we don't want to accept adults mentally incapable of caring for themselves, this test seems reasonable, and the described level of exclusions, less than 1000 for over a million immigrants, it seems very reasonable.
2) HUMILITY. The people operating Ellis Island 100 years ago were as self-assured of their beliefs as is everyone reading this article today. Consider how foolish we will look in 100 years.
- maldusiecle 10y agoDefinitely super great to dismiss any appeal to morals or decency as "virtue signaling." Definitely not the sort of nihilism that corrodes and destroys civil society.
- JackFr 10y agoDefining virtue signaling as the action or practice of publicly expressing opinions or sentiments intended to demonstrate one's good character or the moral correctness of one's position on a particular issue. The tone and substance of this article is not to illuminate the practices of the past in a relevant historical context, but rather to denigrate them and celebrate our own era. "Look how far we've come."
- openasocket 10y agoWhat changes would you make to this article to make it "illuminate the practices of the past in a relevant historical context" instead of denigrating those practices? I also don't see any reference to the modern era, could you point out some quotes celebrating "how far we've come"?
- maldusiecle 10y agoOn the contrary, this article gives plenty of historical context: its entire purpose is to place the entry test in the context, first, of the tests which preceded it, and second, of the ideologies (eugenicist) which it reflected. If all reflection on how far society has come are mere "virtue signaling," how can you have historical discussions on moral issues at all? You'd have to start with the premise that moral progress is impossible. I'm not throwing around the word "nihilism," I'm using it because I think it's clear that the implication of your style of argument is the destruction of any kind of moral progress. Any society that is to progress morally must be able to define what it is progressing from.
- strictnein 10y agoPointing out "virtue signaling" is nihilism? I learn something new every day.
- rhcom2 10y agoMaybe not nihilist but claiming people's opinions are not sincerely held beliefs based on nothing more than you disagreeing with them seems pretty pessimistic to me. It's just the new way to say SJW.
- ionised 10y agoIt's best to just let your eyes glaze over and your attention wander whenever anyone uses the term 'virtue-signalling'.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- maldusiecle 10y agoDismissing all appeals to morality as virtue signaling is moral nihilism. This is not a complicated idea to grasp.
- strictnein 10y agoIf only that was what the person you were responding to was doing, eh?
- openasocket 10y agoIf this test excluded less than 0.1% of the immigrants, why bother? The immigrants we're taking in who will become successful will pay more than enough in taxes over their lifetime to pay to the costs of those who need care. Just take them in and accept it as the cost of doing business. The ethical implications seem to outweigh the marginal gains.