3 ms·

It is wild to me that this is trotted out when "Saudi" is both a demonym and yet also an actual ruling family name. (And for context, I think it was accurate to

It is wild to me that this is trotted out when "Saudi" is both a demonym and yet also an actual ruling family name. (And for context, I think it was accurate to describe it as a xenophobic "Muslim ban" and I think "Chinese coronavirus" is racist.) Yes, it's bad even if Americans do it, but it's definitely worse if it goes to Saud. Would you object to "Rockefeller company draws unlimited etc"? What if they also literally owned a country?

slg 4y ago
>Would you object to "Rockefellers draw unlimited etc"? What if they also literally owned a country? Maybe you misunderstood my point. I'm not giving the Saudis a pass. I would object to anyone doing this whether it is the Saudis, the Rockefellers, or some middle class farmer. The problem here is a poorly constructed regulatory environment which created a tragedy of the commons situation. We made it profitable to do something that is bad for the local environment and inherently stupid. People shouldn't grow water intensive plans in the desert. The problem here is "company draws unlimited Arizona ground water amid drought". There doesn't need to be an adjective before "company".
- morelisp 4y ago
  You also said "such an openly xenophobic way." I reject the idea that a) the framing is xenophobic in this case, and b) it needs to be framed more generally before we can fix this specific case.
  - slg 4y ago
    From the article: >"We cannot afford to give our water away frankly to anyone, let alone the Saudis, for free," said Mayes. This person is saying that giving the water away to the Saudis is worse than just giving it away. It isn't simply the action of taking the water that is troubling them. It is that it is going to a scary other. This is classic xenophobia.
    - morelisp 4y ago
      "Saudi" is not just a demonym like "German" or "Chinese" but a specific political program, and even a specific small set of extremely bad people. Fixing that would not make a "free Saudi Arabia of free Saudis" in the way we might imagine a "free Tibet of free Tibetans" but literally a different country not named after their psychopathic kings. It names a regime, not a nationality. It is not xenophobia to acknowledge it's worse to do something dumb which enriches your ideological and material enemies than to just do something dumb.
      - seventhtiger 4y ago
        As a Saudi, good job dehumanizing us.

slg 4y ago

>Would you object to "Rockefellers draw unlimited etc"? What if they also literally owned a country? Maybe you misunderstood my point. I'm not giving the Saudis a pass. I would object to anyone doing this whether it is the Saudis, the Rockefellers, or some middle class farmer. The problem here is a poorly constructed regulatory environment which created a tragedy of the commons situation. We made it profitable to do something that is bad for the local environment and inherently stupid. People shouldn't grow water intensive plans in the desert. The problem here is "company draws unlimited Arizona ground water amid drought". There doesn't need to be an adjective before "company".

morelisp 4y ago
You also said "such an openly xenophobic way." I reject the idea that a) the framing is xenophobic in this case, and b) it needs to be framed more generally before we can fix this specific case.
- slg 4y ago
  From the article: >"We cannot afford to give our water away frankly to anyone, let alone the Saudis, for free," said Mayes. This person is saying that giving the water away to the Saudis is worse than just giving it away. It isn't simply the action of taking the water that is troubling them. It is that it is going to a scary other. This is classic xenophobia.
  - morelisp 4y ago
    "Saudi" is not just a demonym like "German" or "Chinese" but a specific political program, and even a specific small set of extremely bad people. Fixing that would not make a "free Saudi Arabia of free Saudis" in the way we might imagine a "free Tibet of free Tibetans" but literally a different country not named after their psychopathic kings. It names a regime, not a nationality. It is not xenophobia to acknowledge it's worse to do something dumb which enriches your ideological and material enemies than to just do something dumb.
    - seventhtiger 4y ago
      As a Saudi, good job dehumanizing us.