5 ms·

> employ and inform your enemies This is literally presumption of guilt based on where someone was born. It's the literal definition of prejudice. Very illibe

> employ and inform your enemies This is literally presumption of guilt based on where someone was born. It's the literal definition of prejudice. Very illiberal. Mind you, I am not claiming that you have to be liberal. I just want honesty and consistency. If we all oppose China because they threaten liberty, then we must protect liberty. But if you oppose China just because it's a pissing contest between superpowers, that's fine but then maybe it's not my problem.

tristor 3y ago
> This is literally presumption of guilt based on where someone was born. Not where someone is born, but whom they owe allegiance to. If you do not discriminate based on someone's allegiances, then on what basis would you expect it to be appropriate to discriminate? The idea that all discrimination is immoral or unethical is not only suspect, it's clearly foolhardy. China is an enemy to everyone who is not China, they aren't even subtle about this. China only cares about China, and will sabotage or interrupt deals and commit espionage in order to get ahead. Anyone who owes allegiance to China is not a friend of the West, full stop. The West and the entities operating in it owe no benefit of the doubt or benefit at all towards anyone who has allegiance to China. China holds no such ridiculous notion as that they shouldn't discriminate based on allegiance, they make it clear you are either theirs or you are unwelcome. Note, I am also /not/ saying that China is necessarily doing anything immoral within their own framework here, I am simply observing that they are not, and have not been, any friend to the West, and they are clearly at this point our enemy. Just because they are our enemy does not mean that their behaviors aren't rational from their perspective or point of view and don't align with their own moral systems. We don't owe them any regard or benefit of the doubt however, as they are our enemy, and it's just as much not immoral for us to uphold ourselves against our enemies. > It's the literal definition of prejudice. Very illiberal. You and I have different definitions of prejudice and what it means to be Liberal. My definition of prejudice matches what's in the dictionary: noun 1. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. 2. An adverse judgment or opinion formed unfairly or without knowledge of the facts. 3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular social group, such as a race or the adherents of a religion. Acting to protect yourself from an enemy and its nationals is not unreasonable, based on any unfairness, based on lack of knowledge of the facts, nor is it irrational, therefore the preconditions of prejudice aren't present. When you have a clear, rational, open basis for discrimination, it's not prejudicial, it's simply prudent.
- hughesjj 3y ago
  Being born someone does not force you to have an undying allegiance to that place, what are you on about?
  - tristor 3y ago
    I don't think your response is in good faith, since you are responding to a comment where I explicitly say that I have made no reference to where someone is born, only to their allegiance. Do you not understand what the term "national" means? A significant number of US nationals were not born here, being born here is not a prerequisite to be a national. While the same is largely not true for China, there are many people born in China who are no longer Chinese nationals because they have renounced their citizenship as part of immigrating and naturalizing elsewhere. The statement I made is not about ethnicity or birthplace, it's about allegiance. /Every/ citizen of China is required by Chinese law to participate in espionage either directly or indirectly as requested, and they are requested, the evidence is insurmountable.
    - hughesjj 3y ago
      > there are many people born in China who are no longer Chinese nationals because they have renounced their citizenship as part of immigrating and naturalizing elsewhere. Do tell, how does one go about naturalizing elsewhere? In the country I live in, it typically takes over ten years and requires establishing a support system in said country first (employment, social connection, etc). If you ban everyone from a country from immigrating (which is exactly what you're proposing for all birthright citizenship countries), you prevent naturalization from even being a possibility. You claiming I'm arguing in bad faith while ignoring the Titanic sinking your argument did give me a chuckle though, I grant you that.
      - tristor 3y ago
        I stopped replying in this thread earlier due to dang’s comment. I am not going to respond fully, as your response is clearly /not/ in good faith. > If you ban everyone from a country from immigrating (which is exactly what you're proposing for all birthright citizenship countries) Nowhere do I say anything of the sort. I am pro—immigration generally. Stop trying to put words in my mouth and then battling the straw man.
toss1 3y ago
You say "it's not my problem" But you do not live there, you live in the West. Just because the problem is diffuse and distant for you now, does not mean it is not your problem. If we all fail to treat it as the problem, it will become concentrated and local here also. (but sure, right now, it's more convenient to ignore it and party)
- ClumsyPilot 3y ago
  It seems awfully convenient that when western corporations were cutting jobs and outsourcing to China we were told to take one for the team capitalism. Same concerns about human rights in China existed. And now when cheaper Chinese cars/5G/etc threaten profits, we are again told to take one for the team. I don’t think we get to party, looks a bit like a racket
  - toss1 3y ago
    I completely agree — the entire concept of "manufacturing isn't important, outsource it to the cheapest poor countries" is one of the most insane and fundamentally stupid strategic failures in history. While the west earned a few year's worth of higher profits by outsourcing their entire manufacturing base, intellectual property advantage, and middle class lifestyle to China, China created a strategic dependency, modernized military, and massive ability to backdoor and spy on it's adversaries, as well as global advantage in key markets. Yes, that was extremely costly for the western working and middle class, and as you point out, even stupidly short-sighted for the capital class. However, reversing that and bringing key manufacturing back to the democratic allies (US, EU, Japan, SK, AUS, etc.) will massively benefit workers who will no longer be competing with China's cheap labor. So, I'm not sure how this is 'taking one for the team'? (And yes, the strategic concept that open trade and info flow will naturally bring democracy, based on the post-WWII experience of EU and Japan rebuilding efforts, massively failed; all it did was empower the dictators in CCP and RU. So, the human rights issues for Chinese workers still exists, but they got a couple decades of improved economics. Too bad we can't just depose China's and Russia's leadership and bring real progress,, but if we don't preserve our own democracy, we'll never be able to help anyone else).

tristor 3y ago

> This is literally presumption of guilt based on where someone was born. Not where someone is born, but whom they owe allegiance to. If you do not discriminate based on someone's allegiances, then on what basis would you expect it to be appropriate to discriminate? The idea that all discrimination is immoral or unethical is not only suspect, it's clearly foolhardy. China is an enemy to everyone who is not China, they aren't even subtle about this. China only cares about China, and will sabotage or interrupt deals and commit espionage in order to get ahead. Anyone who owes allegiance to China is not a friend of the West, full stop. The West and the entities operating in it owe no benefit of the doubt or benefit at all towards anyone who has allegiance to China. China holds no such ridiculous notion as that they shouldn't discriminate based on allegiance, they make it clear you are either theirs or you are unwelcome. Note, I am also /not/ saying that China is necessarily doing anything immoral within their own framework here, I am simply observing that they are not, and have not been, any friend to the West, and they are clearly at this point our enemy. Just because they are our enemy does not mean that their behaviors aren't rational from their perspective or point of view and don't align with their own moral systems. We don't owe them any regard or benefit of the doubt however, as they are our enemy, and it's just as much not immoral for us to uphold ourselves against our enemies. > It's the literal definition of prejudice. Very illiberal. You and I have different definitions of prejudice and what it means to be Liberal. My definition of prejudice matches what's in the dictionary: noun 1. The act or state of holding unreasonable preconceived judgments or convictions. 2. An adverse judgment or opinion formed unfairly or without knowledge of the facts. 3. Irrational suspicion or hatred of a particular social group, such as a race or the adherents of a religion. Acting to protect yourself from an enemy and its nationals is not unreasonable, based on any unfairness, based on lack of knowledge of the facts, nor is it irrational, therefore the preconditions of prejudice aren't present. When you have a clear, rational, open basis for discrimination, it's not prejudicial, it's simply prudent.

hughesjj 3y ago
Being born someone does not force you to have an undying allegiance to that place, what are you on about?
- tristor 3y ago
  I don't think your response is in good faith, since you are responding to a comment where I explicitly say that I have made no reference to where someone is born, only to their allegiance. Do you not understand what the term "national" means? A significant number of US nationals were not born here, being born here is not a prerequisite to be a national. While the same is largely not true for China, there are many people born in China who are no longer Chinese nationals because they have renounced their citizenship as part of immigrating and naturalizing elsewhere. The statement I made is not about ethnicity or birthplace, it's about allegiance. /Every/ citizen of China is required by Chinese law to participate in espionage either directly or indirectly as requested, and they are requested, the evidence is insurmountable.
  - hughesjj 3y ago
    > there are many people born in China who are no longer Chinese nationals because they have renounced their citizenship as part of immigrating and naturalizing elsewhere. Do tell, how does one go about naturalizing elsewhere? In the country I live in, it typically takes over ten years and requires establishing a support system in said country first (employment, social connection, etc). If you ban everyone from a country from immigrating (which is exactly what you're proposing for all birthright citizenship countries), you prevent naturalization from even being a possibility. You claiming I'm arguing in bad faith while ignoring the Titanic sinking your argument did give me a chuckle though, I grant you that.
    - tristor 3y ago
      I stopped replying in this thread earlier due to dang’s comment. I am not going to respond fully, as your response is clearly /not/ in good faith. > If you ban everyone from a country from immigrating (which is exactly what you're proposing for all birthright citizenship countries) Nowhere do I say anything of the sort. I am pro—immigration generally. Stop trying to put words in my mouth and then battling the straw man.

toss1 3y ago

You say "it's not my problem" But you do not live there, you live in the West. Just because the problem is diffuse and distant for you now, does not mean it is not your problem. If we all fail to treat it as the problem, it will become concentrated and local here also. (but sure, right now, it's more convenient to ignore it and party)

ClumsyPilot 3y ago
It seems awfully convenient that when western corporations were cutting jobs and outsourcing to China we were told to take one for the team capitalism. Same concerns about human rights in China existed. And now when cheaper Chinese cars/5G/etc threaten profits, we are again told to take one for the team. I don’t think we get to party, looks a bit like a racket
- toss1 3y ago
  I completely agree — the entire concept of "manufacturing isn't important, outsource it to the cheapest poor countries" is one of the most insane and fundamentally stupid strategic failures in history. While the west earned a few year's worth of higher profits by outsourcing their entire manufacturing base, intellectual property advantage, and middle class lifestyle to China, China created a strategic dependency, modernized military, and massive ability to backdoor and spy on it's adversaries, as well as global advantage in key markets. Yes, that was extremely costly for the western working and middle class, and as you point out, even stupidly short-sighted for the capital class. However, reversing that and bringing key manufacturing back to the democratic allies (US, EU, Japan, SK, AUS, etc.) will massively benefit workers who will no longer be competing with China's cheap labor. So, I'm not sure how this is 'taking one for the team'? (And yes, the strategic concept that open trade and info flow will naturally bring democracy, based on the post-WWII experience of EU and Japan rebuilding efforts, massively failed; all it did was empower the dictators in CCP and RU. So, the human rights issues for Chinese workers still exists, but they got a couple decades of improved economics. Too bad we can't just depose China's and Russia's leadership and bring real progress,, but if we don't preserve our own democracy, we'll never be able to help anyone else).