5 ms·

That is straight up racism.

mschuster91 7y ago
No it's not, Americans have had difficulties getting banking in Germany because banks fear having US customers exposes them to liabilities. It's all a huge pile of steaming manure, especially that the US considers companies in the US liable for things that their holding or child companies do in other countries - even if the behavior is fully legal in the place where it happens. And banks and other corporations with even the tiniest amount of US connections are rightfully scared of excessive punishments dealt by the US "judicial" system.
- toong 7y ago
  Yes, it is.
- mcherm 7y ago
  > This is straight up racism >> No it's not, [banks are scared if the US] Yes, banks are scared of the US. And perhaps the racism stems from the Italian bank, perhaps it stems from the US government, perhaps it stems from the Iranian definition of citizenship, perhaps all share a part of the blame. But regardless of who gets the blame, it most definitely IS straight up racism.
  - bsaul 7y ago
    So, racism now doesn't mean race ? Or does race includes nationality in your definition ?
    - izacus 7y ago
      What's the practical difference? You're being punished due to a place you've been born in. Not something you did wrong. Just a luck of nature. And that's wrong. By any moral standard.
      - enedil 7y ago
        If you're in a place where being woman is disadvantageous, would you call such disadvantage "racist"? Clearly it fits your description. If you think it's wrong, then I agree with you. If you think it's racist, then no way, it isn't and you just don't know the words you use.
        izacus 7y ago
        Is that the most useful direction you could take this debate? Will changing the word for the same thing change anything? Racist, sexist, nationalist, whatever, people are having their livelihoods broken and you want to debate grammar?
        blodstone 7y ago
        It is not grammar issue but vocabulary. Having the right word is important if you want to be taken seriously. As you have pointed, these issues are serious, and the least thing people want to hear is to be accused for something that they didn't do. You don't call a thief a rapist even though both of them broke the law.
      - bsaul 7y ago
        You’re just using a broader abstraction to define the original problem. This usually doesn’t help solving or understanding problems in general (you end up with general statement as « it’s wrong », which frankly doesn’t lead to anything). As an example, it would be interesting to know if relocating to some other country, or give up your nationality solves the issue. In the case of racism, it wouldn’t for sure. In this case, i don’t know.
    - DanBC 7y ago
      Race includes nationality in any useful definition of racism, and has done for many many years. From 2010, written into UK law: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/9 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/9 > 9 Race > (1)Race includes— > (a)colour; > (b)nationality; > (c)ethnic or national origins. From 1976 (over 40 year ago), written into the previous UK law: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/74/enacted https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/74/enacted > 1 Racial discrimination [...] > (ii) which he cannot show to be justifiable irrespective of the colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins of the person to whom it is applied ; and
      - skissane 7y ago
        See also Article 1 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination: > In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. Both "descent" and "national or ethnic origin" appear relevant here. https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/3ae6b3940.pdf https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/3ae6b3940.pdf
    - alehul 7y ago
      In the top-level comment, the issue was presumably Iranian citizenship (not descent), or, in other words, nationality.
    - DomreiRoam 7y ago
      By definition it is more xenophobia than racism according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia .
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
  - qaq 7y ago
    You do realize that Iran means "the land of Aryans"?
    - emiliobumachar 7y ago
      Interesting, but so what? Can Aryans not be the victims of racism?
      - qaq 7y ago
        "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."
  - raxxorrax 7y ago
    It is extremely shitty behavior, but not racism. The sanctions are in place because the Iranian government is racist and innocents suffer from that, which could in turn increase racism again.
- chaosite 7y ago
  That's because having US citizens as customers requires them to file tax information for those customers with the US government, and the German banks don't want the overhead.
  - q3k 7y ago
    And that's because for some unknown reason the US is one of the few countries that tax based on citizenship, and not residence [1]. It's absurd. Even resigning your citizenship is taxed [2]. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_taxation#Citizenship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_taxation#Citizen... [2] - https://nomadcapitalist.com/2018/06/16/tax-consequences-of-renouncing/ https://nomadcapitalist.com/2018/06/16/tax-consequences-of-r...
    - arcticfox 7y ago
      > It's absurd As someone who has paid a truckload of these taxes: I don't think it's that absurd. You're not double-taxed. And if you want to relinquish citizenship, you can.
- mpweiher 7y ago
  Oh, not just Americans. I am German. When I moved to the US for a while, most German banks wanted nothing more to do with me.
- saiya-jin 7y ago
  > No it's not, Americans have had difficulties getting banking in Germany because banks fear having US customers exposes them to liabilities. That's just reaction to stupid US FATCA laws pushed by US down the throat all countries out there. Same is for Switzerland - quite hard to open an account for anybody qualifying as US citizen, although banks are mostly fully compliant with FATCA processes. But this was pushed by the guy before the Big Blonde
espeed 7y ago
Regardless what you think of the tactics, the sanctions are an economic vise -- a negotiating tactic to leverage a position -- it has nothing to do with race.
- qubex 7y ago
  The reasons for the power asymmetry do not affect the severity of the asymmetry.
  - alehul 7y ago
    I’m trying to understand and make this analogous to what you were replying to: The reasons for the act (racist or not) does not affect it being racism?
    - qubex 7y ago
      Perhaps it makes more sense if I phrase it thusly: the consequences of the decision do not depend upon why the decision was taken. It certainly sounds like a discriminatory practice, based on what is indicated. For sure, even if it had a decorous reason behind it, the consequences thereof are no less severe and irksome.
      - sokoloff 7y ago
        In this case, it seems that the companies are following a reasonable interpretation of the law of the land in which they operate. I don't the vast asymmetry of "break this law, do a [relatively] small amount of good for a [relatively] small number of people, put a substantial amount of the company at risk" makes any kind of logical business sense.
    - gwd 7y ago
      I think part of the problem is the fact that there's a real phenomenon that's important to talk about and describe, but rather than invent a new term, that the word 'racism' has repurposed to describe it instead. 200 years ago, everyone would have understood "racism" to mean what you have implied it means: conscious individual racial prejudice. And of course, one problem that (say) blacks in the US face is widespread, individual, conscious racial prejudice. But there's yet another problem blacks face: the mechanisms of society as a whole disproportionately cause problems for black people, even when nobody involved is consciously prejudiced. When this was pointed out, people would respond, "But nobody in this organization is prejudiced". Well, it doesn't matter if the people are prejudiced or not, the emergent property of the system as a whole affects black people as though it was set up by people who are racist; and so the system is called "racist", even if nobody in it is trying to be racist. I think the argument here is the same: Iranians are facing persecution for no other reason than the country they were born in. It doesn't matter if people making the policies of the US government is prejudiced against Iranians as individuals or not; the net effect is the same. (FWIW I think the concept of "institutional racism" is useful, but the overloading of the term 'racist' to describe it is counterproductive in the long run.)
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tomxor 7y ago
> That is straight up racism. More specifically discrimination of nationality, but almost the same as discrimination of race in this case. Either way, it's not fair on any of the people affected.

No it's not, Americans have had difficulties getting banking in Germany because banks fear having US customers exposes them to liabilities. It's all a huge pile of steaming manure, especially that the US considers companies in the US liable for things that their holding or child companies do in other countries - even if the behavior is fully legal in the place where it happens. And banks and other corporations with even the tiniest amount of US connections are rightfully scared of excessive punishments dealt by the US "judicial" system.

toong 7y ago
Yes, it is.
mcherm 7y ago
> This is straight up racism >> No it's not, [banks are scared if the US] Yes, banks are scared of the US. And perhaps the racism stems from the Italian bank, perhaps it stems from the US government, perhaps it stems from the Iranian definition of citizenship, perhaps all share a part of the blame. But regardless of who gets the blame, it most definitely IS straight up racism.
- bsaul 7y ago
  So, racism now doesn't mean race ? Or does race includes nationality in your definition ?
  - izacus 7y ago
    What's the practical difference? You're being punished due to a place you've been born in. Not something you did wrong. Just a luck of nature. And that's wrong. By any moral standard.
    - enedil 7y ago
      If you're in a place where being woman is disadvantageous, would you call such disadvantage "racist"? Clearly it fits your description. If you think it's wrong, then I agree with you. If you think it's racist, then no way, it isn't and you just don't know the words you use.
      - izacus 7y ago
        Is that the most useful direction you could take this debate? Will changing the word for the same thing change anything? Racist, sexist, nationalist, whatever, people are having their livelihoods broken and you want to debate grammar?
        blodstone 7y ago
        It is not grammar issue but vocabulary. Having the right word is important if you want to be taken seriously. As you have pointed, these issues are serious, and the least thing people want to hear is to be accused for something that they didn't do. You don't call a thief a rapist even though both of them broke the law.
    - bsaul 7y ago
      You’re just using a broader abstraction to define the original problem. This usually doesn’t help solving or understanding problems in general (you end up with general statement as « it’s wrong », which frankly doesn’t lead to anything). As an example, it would be interesting to know if relocating to some other country, or give up your nationality solves the issue. In the case of racism, it wouldn’t for sure. In this case, i don’t know.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    Race includes nationality in any useful definition of racism, and has done for many many years. From 2010, written into UK law: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/9 https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/9 > 9 Race > (1)Race includes— > (a)colour; > (b)nationality; > (c)ethnic or national origins. From 1976 (over 40 year ago), written into the previous UK law: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/74/enacted https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1976/74/enacted > 1 Racial discrimination [...] > (ii) which he cannot show to be justifiable irrespective of the colour, race, nationality or ethnic or national origins of the person to whom it is applied ; and
    - skissane 7y ago
      See also Article 1 of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination: > In this Convention, the term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. Both "descent" and "national or ethnic origin" appear relevant here. https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/3ae6b3940.pdf https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/3ae6b3940.pdf
  - alehul 7y ago
    In the top-level comment, the issue was presumably Iranian citizenship (not descent), or, in other words, nationality.
  - DomreiRoam 7y ago
    By definition it is more xenophobia than racism according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophobia .
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- qaq 7y ago
  You do realize that Iran means "the land of Aryans"?
  - emiliobumachar 7y ago
    Interesting, but so what? Can Aryans not be the victims of racism?
    - qaq 7y ago
      "prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."
- raxxorrax 7y ago
  It is extremely shitty behavior, but not racism. The sanctions are in place because the Iranian government is racist and innocents suffer from that, which could in turn increase racism again.
chaosite 7y ago
That's because having US citizens as customers requires them to file tax information for those customers with the US government, and the German banks don't want the overhead.
- q3k 7y ago
  And that's because for some unknown reason the US is one of the few countries that tax based on citizenship, and not residence [1]. It's absurd. Even resigning your citizenship is taxed [2]. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_taxation#Citizenship https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_taxation#Citizen... [2] - https://nomadcapitalist.com/2018/06/16/tax-consequences-of-renouncing/ https://nomadcapitalist.com/2018/06/16/tax-consequences-of-r...
  - arcticfox 7y ago
    > It's absurd As someone who has paid a truckload of these taxes: I don't think it's that absurd. You're not double-taxed. And if you want to relinquish citizenship, you can.
mpweiher 7y ago
Oh, not just Americans. I am German. When I moved to the US for a while, most German banks wanted nothing more to do with me.
saiya-jin 7y ago
> No it's not, Americans have had difficulties getting banking in Germany because banks fear having US customers exposes them to liabilities. That's just reaction to stupid US FATCA laws pushed by US down the throat all countries out there. Same is for Switzerland - quite hard to open an account for anybody qualifying as US citizen, although banks are mostly fully compliant with FATCA processes. But this was pushed by the guy before the Big Blonde

espeed 7y ago

Regardless what you think of the tactics, the sanctions are an economic vise -- a negotiating tactic to leverage a position -- it has nothing to do with race.

qubex 7y ago
The reasons for the power asymmetry do not affect the severity of the asymmetry.
- alehul 7y ago
  I’m trying to understand and make this analogous to what you were replying to: The reasons for the act (racist or not) does not affect it being racism?
  - qubex 7y ago
    Perhaps it makes more sense if I phrase it thusly: the consequences of the decision do not depend upon why the decision was taken. It certainly sounds like a discriminatory practice, based on what is indicated. For sure, even if it had a decorous reason behind it, the consequences thereof are no less severe and irksome.
    - sokoloff 7y ago
      In this case, it seems that the companies are following a reasonable interpretation of the law of the land in which they operate. I don't the vast asymmetry of "break this law, do a [relatively] small amount of good for a [relatively] small number of people, put a substantial amount of the company at risk" makes any kind of logical business sense.
  - gwd 7y ago
    I think part of the problem is the fact that there's a real phenomenon that's important to talk about and describe, but rather than invent a new term, that the word 'racism' has repurposed to describe it instead. 200 years ago, everyone would have understood "racism" to mean what you have implied it means: conscious individual racial prejudice. And of course, one problem that (say) blacks in the US face is widespread, individual, conscious racial prejudice. But there's yet another problem blacks face: the mechanisms of society as a whole disproportionately cause problems for black people, even when nobody involved is consciously prejudiced. When this was pointed out, people would respond, "But nobody in this organization is prejudiced". Well, it doesn't matter if the people are prejudiced or not, the emergent property of the system as a whole affects black people as though it was set up by people who are racist; and so the system is called "racist", even if nobody in it is trying to be racist. I think the argument here is the same: Iranians are facing persecution for no other reason than the country they were born in. It doesn't matter if people making the policies of the US government is prejudiced against Iranians as individuals or not; the net effect is the same. (FWIW I think the concept of "institutional racism" is useful, but the overloading of the term 'racist' to describe it is counterproductive in the long run.)

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

tomxor 7y ago

> That is straight up racism. More specifically discrimination of nationality, but almost the same as discrimination of race in this case. Either way, it's not fair on any of the people affected.