6 ms·

Are you scared of everything you don't think is in your interest?

by seabta 9y ago

dragontamer 9y ago
I'm not gay, and therefore gay marriage and other LGBT issues have absolutely no positive effect on me personally. There's nothing scary about gay marriage, even if it advances the interests of people who are barely connected to me (I only have a few publicly gay friends, and most of them managed to get married by traveling elsewhere... like Canada). The whole "white nationalism" thingy with them freaking out about "advancements of other races" is kinda creepy to me. Just because one group of people benefit makes no difference to the strength of my position. Its like they don't understand the concept of "non-zero sum games".
- seabta 9y ago
  >There's nothing scary about gay marriage, even... First of all, how many people do you think are "scared" of gay marriage? Second, whether that's true or it isn't has no bearing on this discussion. That is a different situation with its own particular set of circumstances. There is no need to complicate this discussion by talking about that. Do you have any evidence that white nationalists deny the existence of non-zero sum games? >Just because one group... Surely you understand that zero sum games do exist. Surely you understand that it's perfectly possible for one race to benefit at the expense of another. Surely you would agree with the statement that whites have in the past benefited at the expense of other races. Do you think it's fundamentally impossible for other races to ever benefit at the expense of whites? If so, what is your reasoning?
  - dragontamer 9y ago
    > Do you think it's fundamentally impossible for other races to ever benefit at the expense of whites? I'm generally against rules and regulations where one race benefits over another. > Do you have any evidence that white nationalists deny the existence of non-zero sum games? Evidence? Nah, just an anecdote about my experience. White Nationalists refuse to understand that all races can benefit from proper policy decisions, and turn everything into an "us vs them". For example, a common white nationalist refrain is "They took our jobs". While the counterargument is simply "They took the jobs that no one wants to take", or perhaps "More jobs for everybody creates more jobs for everybody". After all, the economy expands when more people have money, because more people start spending it on more services. Yes: if illegal immigrants spend more money, then the local economy benefits and more jobs can be created. For whatever reason, white nationalists refuse to believe in the possibility that maybe, just maybe, there exists a path for everybody to benefit in society. > Surely you understand that it's perfectly possible for one race to benefit at the expense of another. Yes. Racial quotas are an example of that. But good policy decisions don't necessarily have to resort to quotas to fix the issues of dwindling inner-city opportunities for people in poverty. A proper policy framework and law structure can ensure that everybody benefits. A rising tide lifts all boats. A wall, deportation-based policy, and other such policy decisions FORCE the discussion to become a zero-sum game. A bit of creativity and foresight however can demonstrate far better fixes that are better for society overall.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - seabta 9y ago
      >I'm generally against rules and regulations where one race benefits over another. Sure, but you don't make the rules. Do you have evidence to suggest everyone is opposed to such policies? And I don't just mean they say they're opposed to them. I mean they truly oppose them, and that they agree with you on which criteria should be used to determine whether a rule or regulation meets that definition, and that they're totally unbiased in the application of those criteria? >White nationalists refuse to understand... They deny the theoretical possibility of such a rule? Or did they deny that the particular rules you discussed fit that description? Or did they deny that such rules were likely to be the only ones produced as a result of other racial groups having more political power, and that the more likely result would be rules which benefit those other racial groups? >While the counterargument is simply "They took the jobs that no one wants to take", And the counter-counter-argument is that if wages were not being driven down by immigrants, especially illegal ones who are more likely to hide their income, then the tens of millions of out of work Americans would have an incentive to move to the places where those jobs are available. >After all, the economy expands... There is no reason to believe that the benefits of the expanded economy are distributed evenly. There is actually quite a lot of reason to believe those benefits go mostly to people at the top of the income bracket whose wages are not driven down by immigration and whose businesses benefit enormously from the reduced labor costs. >For whatever reason, white nationalists refuse to believe in... Why would you expect that path to be the one we go down when every racial group has an incentive to act selfishly? What invisible hand is guiding them to work together for the benefit of all racial groups, rather than focusing their efforts on benefiting at the expense of others? Especially once the low hanging fruit on the latter tree has been picked? >A wall, deportation-based policy... The point of the wall and deportations is to stop the tide of changing racial demographics. Control over government authority is a zero sum game. You either win or lose office. Why would white people expect other racial groups not to use that power to further their own racial interests at the expense of white racial interests? Even if they pursue some policies which benefit everyone, why would anyone expect those to be the only policies they pursue?

Are you scared of everything you don't think is in your interest?

by seabta 9y ago

Are you scared of everything you don't think is in your interest?

I'm not gay, and therefore gay marriage and other LGBT issues have absolutely no positive effect on me personally. There's nothing scary about gay marriage, even if it advances the interests of people who are barely connected to me (I only have a few publicly gay friends, and most of them managed to get married by traveling elsewhere... like Canada). The whole "white nationalism" thingy with them freaking out about "advancements of other races" is kinda creepy to me. Just because one group of people benefit makes no difference to the strength of my position. Its like they don't understand the concept of "non-zero sum games".

seabta 9y ago
>There's nothing scary about gay marriage, even... First of all, how many people do you think are "scared" of gay marriage? Second, whether that's true or it isn't has no bearing on this discussion. That is a different situation with its own particular set of circumstances. There is no need to complicate this discussion by talking about that. Do you have any evidence that white nationalists deny the existence of non-zero sum games? >Just because one group... Surely you understand that zero sum games do exist. Surely you understand that it's perfectly possible for one race to benefit at the expense of another. Surely you would agree with the statement that whites have in the past benefited at the expense of other races. Do you think it's fundamentally impossible for other races to ever benefit at the expense of whites? If so, what is your reasoning?
- dragontamer 9y ago
  > Do you think it's fundamentally impossible for other races to ever benefit at the expense of whites? I'm generally against rules and regulations where one race benefits over another. > Do you have any evidence that white nationalists deny the existence of non-zero sum games? Evidence? Nah, just an anecdote about my experience. White Nationalists refuse to understand that all races can benefit from proper policy decisions, and turn everything into an "us vs them". For example, a common white nationalist refrain is "They took our jobs". While the counterargument is simply "They took the jobs that no one wants to take", or perhaps "More jobs for everybody creates more jobs for everybody". After all, the economy expands when more people have money, because more people start spending it on more services. Yes: if illegal immigrants spend more money, then the local economy benefits and more jobs can be created. For whatever reason, white nationalists refuse to believe in the possibility that maybe, just maybe, there exists a path for everybody to benefit in society. > Surely you understand that it's perfectly possible for one race to benefit at the expense of another. Yes. Racial quotas are an example of that. But good policy decisions don't necessarily have to resort to quotas to fix the issues of dwindling inner-city opportunities for people in poverty. A proper policy framework and law structure can ensure that everybody benefits. A rising tide lifts all boats. A wall, deportation-based policy, and other such policy decisions FORCE the discussion to become a zero-sum game. A bit of creativity and foresight however can demonstrate far better fixes that are better for society overall.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - seabta 9y ago
    >I'm generally against rules and regulations where one race benefits over another. Sure, but you don't make the rules. Do you have evidence to suggest everyone is opposed to such policies? And I don't just mean they say they're opposed to them. I mean they truly oppose them, and that they agree with you on which criteria should be used to determine whether a rule or regulation meets that definition, and that they're totally unbiased in the application of those criteria? >White nationalists refuse to understand... They deny the theoretical possibility of such a rule? Or did they deny that the particular rules you discussed fit that description? Or did they deny that such rules were likely to be the only ones produced as a result of other racial groups having more political power, and that the more likely result would be rules which benefit those other racial groups? >While the counterargument is simply "They took the jobs that no one wants to take", And the counter-counter-argument is that if wages were not being driven down by immigrants, especially illegal ones who are more likely to hide their income, then the tens of millions of out of work Americans would have an incentive to move to the places where those jobs are available. >After all, the economy expands... There is no reason to believe that the benefits of the expanded economy are distributed evenly. There is actually quite a lot of reason to believe those benefits go mostly to people at the top of the income bracket whose wages are not driven down by immigration and whose businesses benefit enormously from the reduced labor costs. >For whatever reason, white nationalists refuse to believe in... Why would you expect that path to be the one we go down when every racial group has an incentive to act selfishly? What invisible hand is guiding them to work together for the benefit of all racial groups, rather than focusing their efforts on benefiting at the expense of others? Especially once the low hanging fruit on the latter tree has been picked? >A wall, deportation-based policy... The point of the wall and deportations is to stop the tide of changing racial demographics. Control over government authority is a zero sum game. You either win or lose office. Why would white people expect other racial groups not to use that power to further their own racial interests at the expense of white racial interests? Even if they pursue some policies which benefit everyone, why would anyone expect those to be the only policies they pursue?