3 ms·

Irish New Yorkers in 1933 didn't want Irish rights, Irish houses and Irish jobs, they wanted rights, houses and jobs. That's what I mean by individual examples

Irish New Yorkers in 1933 didn't want Irish rights, Irish houses and Irish jobs, they wanted rights, houses and jobs. That's what I mean by individual examples of universal interests. Nobody went around saying, "I'll only work for an Irishman," or "I'll only live in a building built by an Irish mason." LA has always had a lot of gang warfare, which divides itself along ethnic lines because that's the underbelly of human nature. Gang warfare is a great example of everybody doing things that are very bad for themselves and others because of a perceived division with little basis in fact. If there's enough gang warfare I guess you could see racially segregated unions, like in the deep south, but that is again against worker's interests just like how segregated churches oppose God. It is very difficult to find even a selfish motive for segregation unless you are an actual slaveowner or apartheid government official.

lazide 2y ago
Irish New Yorkers were being heavily discriminated against, to the point that worrying about rights, houses, and jobs was a particularly serious and somewhat unique problem for Irish folks (individuals!) there at that time. It’s not like someone fresh off the boat is going to be able to pass as anything else. There were also prevalent crime issues and ethnic gangs at the time. And many people (Irish in particular) DID go around saying those things you assert no one ever said. For people who ‘looked Irish’ it was absolutely in their interest to align with these groups to some extent, or they’d be discriminated against and not have useful power to fight against it, and not have a group of people aligned with them that would provide housing, jobs, etc. to them. In fact, near as I can tell, the only reason the Irish stopped being discriminated against so heavily is because of the political machines and gangs that punished groups for discriminating against them this way. Same with the Catholics, actually. So what are you actually talking about?
- whatshisface 2y ago
  I can see that we have different interpretations of what acts were central to the progress of civil rights, and which were ancillary or even effects. I don't think, for example, the "mafia" was a major contributor to equal rights for Italian immigrants. One obvious piece of evidence is that today, the mafia has been weakened thanks to the efforts of the police, but Italians haven't become persecuted as a result. Membership in the Italian Mafia has turned out to be bad on net for the good of the people the families claim to represent. I think some people can get rich doing it but it is not a beneficial or admirable lifestyle. If you want another example, where were all the Jewish gangs? I'm not aware of a single one. Some famous gangsters were Jewish (at least if you count the movies, I don't know about real life), and I don't think the cause of equal rights has suffered as a result. You have to read this with a smile even though the topic is very serious because the ideas involved would be at home on Saturday Night Live. One final example is what could be the most hated organizations in America: the white nationalist gangs that only exist in prison. They are all in jail, and equal rights for people of European descent hasn't suffered at all. I'm surprised I ever participated in a conversation where I had a reason to write this, but white nationalists have no positive goals, not even for anybody. The advancement of the universal recognition of equal rights for all is a much better explanation because unlike the rise of gangs, it hasn't been reversed.
  - lazide 2y ago
    That is a rather weird shifting of the goal posts, and completely ignores that there is such a thing as collective interests if a collective is being specifically targeted, or has special interests correct? Which is what you seemed to be rejecting?
    - whatshisface 2y ago
      Yes, collectives don't have special interests. Individuals have specific instances of universal interests, like security or freedom. "Black people" doesn't have a separate existence from a black person. By guarding the principle of equality before the law, you are not getting involved in anybody's business but yours. It isn't right to view something like equality before the law as a matter of somebody else's self-interest, or to justify a ruthless pursuit of self-interest by recasting it as service of an imagined collective interest.
      - lazide 2y ago
        I honestly don’t understand the point you are trying to make. Does it have a practical point? If a bunch of, say Catholics, get together to make a community group and lobby for something they want - how is that not that groups ‘special interests’ in every practical way?
        whatshisface 2y ago
        In 100% of cases, that group will either be lobbying for a universal value in a less effective way than if they were defined by the cause, or advocating for the interests of a few of the members of the larger group against the interests or views of other members. Anyone who doesn't find that self-evident, I challenge to think of a single political opinion that is universal to members of any religious sect or ethnicity that is not universal to all human beings.
        lazide 2y ago
        The right for Sikh’s to wear religious weapons in places where weapons are normally forbidden. Dispensation for Orthodox Jews to observe Shabbat even when they would otherwise be compelled to break it due to civil duties. The right for Muslims to take specific breaks for prayer when required, and have a place for such prayer. And I can go on. Or are you going to move the goal posts again?

lazide 2y ago

Irish New Yorkers were being heavily discriminated against, to the point that worrying about rights, houses, and jobs was a particularly serious and somewhat unique problem for Irish folks (individuals!) there at that time. It’s not like someone fresh off the boat is going to be able to pass as anything else. There were also prevalent crime issues and ethnic gangs at the time. And many people (Irish in particular) DID go around saying those things you assert no one ever said. For people who ‘looked Irish’ it was absolutely in their interest to align with these groups to some extent, or they’d be discriminated against and not have useful power to fight against it, and not have a group of people aligned with them that would provide housing, jobs, etc. to them. In fact, near as I can tell, the only reason the Irish stopped being discriminated against so heavily is because of the political machines and gangs that punished groups for discriminating against them this way. Same with the Catholics, actually. So what are you actually talking about?

whatshisface 2y ago
I can see that we have different interpretations of what acts were central to the progress of civil rights, and which were ancillary or even effects. I don't think, for example, the "mafia" was a major contributor to equal rights for Italian immigrants. One obvious piece of evidence is that today, the mafia has been weakened thanks to the efforts of the police, but Italians haven't become persecuted as a result. Membership in the Italian Mafia has turned out to be bad on net for the good of the people the families claim to represent. I think some people can get rich doing it but it is not a beneficial or admirable lifestyle. If you want another example, where were all the Jewish gangs? I'm not aware of a single one. Some famous gangsters were Jewish (at least if you count the movies, I don't know about real life), and I don't think the cause of equal rights has suffered as a result. You have to read this with a smile even though the topic is very serious because the ideas involved would be at home on Saturday Night Live. One final example is what could be the most hated organizations in America: the white nationalist gangs that only exist in prison. They are all in jail, and equal rights for people of European descent hasn't suffered at all. I'm surprised I ever participated in a conversation where I had a reason to write this, but white nationalists have no positive goals, not even for anybody. The advancement of the universal recognition of equal rights for all is a much better explanation because unlike the rise of gangs, it hasn't been reversed.
- lazide 2y ago
  That is a rather weird shifting of the goal posts, and completely ignores that there is such a thing as collective interests if a collective is being specifically targeted, or has special interests correct? Which is what you seemed to be rejecting?
  - whatshisface 2y ago
    Yes, collectives don't have special interests. Individuals have specific instances of universal interests, like security or freedom. "Black people" doesn't have a separate existence from a black person. By guarding the principle of equality before the law, you are not getting involved in anybody's business but yours. It isn't right to view something like equality before the law as a matter of somebody else's self-interest, or to justify a ruthless pursuit of self-interest by recasting it as service of an imagined collective interest.
    - lazide 2y ago
      I honestly don’t understand the point you are trying to make. Does it have a practical point? If a bunch of, say Catholics, get together to make a community group and lobby for something they want - how is that not that groups ‘special interests’ in every practical way?
      - whatshisface 2y ago
        In 100% of cases, that group will either be lobbying for a universal value in a less effective way than if they were defined by the cause, or advocating for the interests of a few of the members of the larger group against the interests or views of other members. Anyone who doesn't find that self-evident, I challenge to think of a single political opinion that is universal to members of any religious sect or ethnicity that is not universal to all human beings.
        lazide 2y ago
        The right for Sikh’s to wear religious weapons in places where weapons are normally forbidden. Dispensation for Orthodox Jews to observe Shabbat even when they would otherwise be compelled to break it due to civil duties. The right for Muslims to take specific breaks for prayer when required, and have a place for such prayer. And I can go on. Or are you going to move the goal posts again?