4 ms·

Then other groups will exploit you for unreciprocated cooperation, as described in the articles I linked. You won't be able to differentiate candidates that tru

• esoterica 7y ago
  As if Americans don’t sometimes exploit other Americans? Cooperation is good and necessary, designating arbitrary in-groups and out-groups through primal bigotry is not.
  • deogeo 7y ago
    Too bad, because that's what other groups do, putting those that don't at a disadvantage. And I should add - you speak as if discrimination against nativists is just a hypothetical. But it is already a fact: In a survey, a third of liberal professors admitted they'd discriminate against conservatives. "Generally speaking, the more liberal the respondent, the more willingness to discriminate and, paradoxically, the higher the assumption that conservatives do not face a hostile climate in the academy.": https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/1/liberal-majority-on-campus-yes-were-biased/ https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/1/liberal-majo... The University of California requires job applicants to submit a statement on how they helped advance diversity: https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201911/rnoti-p1778.pdf https://www.ams.org/journals/notices/201911/rnoti-p1778.pdf
    • esoterica 7y ago
      Ummm, you’re the one arguing that in-group out-group divisions are desirable. According to YOUR logic, not mine, discriminating based on political viewpoints is a good thing.
      • deogeo 7y ago
        I'm arguing it is advantageous for groups that discriminate, but aren't discriminated against. Good is a moral judgement that doesn't enter the picture.
        • esoterica 7y ago
          > Good is a moral judgement that doesn't enter the picture. Cool, then we agree that it's fine for Apple to hire immigrants. Have a nice day.
          • 1996 7y ago
            Well done, I must say.