3 ms·
> inflammatory ... more angry ... I did not conflate the two. The wording in the OP definitely suggests a concern about hating as opposed to being against. It
by somewhereoutth 3y ago
> inflammatory ... more angry ...
I did not conflate the two. The wording in the OP definitely suggests a concern about hating as opposed to being against. It is possible to be against something without being inflamed or more angry.
We should also be cognisant of where any anger is directed - is it to the policy makers in government, or to the immigrants themselves?
- curtisblaine 3y agoIf you're angry about immigration, it's fair to say your anger goes towards the policy or even the very concept of it. If you're angry with immigrant you're angry with the people. Yet the author of the article chose the first, suggesting it's not ok to be against immigration.
- somewhereoutth 3y agoExcept of course that a lot of the 'anger about immigration' in the way you put it is thinly disguised racism or xenophobia. It is quite hard to separate these (on both sides of the debate), and so have a sensible discussion on what a good policy on immigration should be.
- curtisblaine 3y agoHaving a sensible discussion is even harder when people like the article's author want to preventively censor any criticism of immigration policies by banning every tool that might help generating said criticism. You can have a sensible discussion only if both sides are able to freely express and disseminate their point of view.