4 ms·

Assuming you have an accurate individual level test, and the policy action you suggest is to not administer the test to each applicant and instead treat them al

Assuming you have an accurate individual level test, and the policy action you suggest is to not administer the test to each applicant and instead treat them all as homogeneous group and reject them based on older test results? Yeah that's a racist idea.

mjburgess 4mo ago
Right, so what's the state policy you advocate here? Import 1 million people, 800,000 of which are racist, sexist, homophobic and militantly conservative -- and you'll do that because the policy to prevent it is, as you say, "Racist" ? You may think these imports are on your side for now, because of the cross you've nailed yourself to -- but be assured, as you see today in the US, their cultural conservatism comes out when their social position is safe. You are importing the very people you claim to despise : racists, sexists, misoginsits, and the like. And you're doing it why?
- willmarch 4mo ago
  I said it was "discriminatory" (which it is), I never said "racist" (but that case could easily be made). How are you determining this group that holds these views? What criteria? Because I don't know any group that matches that description exactly. Could you be specific? I think a human is a human and is deserving of the same rights as any other person. I don't believe this position is radical in any way; it is what most doctrines of fairness are based upon. Again, who are these people? How are you lumping them together (their views or their religion or their race?) because no large group is a hegemony of exactly the same ideas or views; all groups have a diverse set of individuals and ideas among them (both progressive and regressive).
  - remarkEon 4mo ago
    It’s a little befuddling that you are pretending it’s not possible to simply observe the nature of the countries from which these people arrived and make high probability conclusions about the mean views on, say, women’s rights. Is your belief that any particular view can and does get patched like software when someone passes through customs and stamps their passport?
    - willmarch 4mo ago
      It's a little befuddling that you are pretending there are countries where every person in that country share the exact same thoughts, ideas, and beliefs. Where is this mythical place? Are we determining an individual's potential, liberty, rights and character based on group population polling now, or do we believe in individual autonomy and potential? Anyone claiming an entire country holds one singular view (on any topic) is not truly discussing in good faith.
      - mjburgess 4mo ago
        No one has claimed that. You're the only one claiming a border immigration policy needs to correctly quantify over the universal non-citizen class. No state in the world today, nor in all of history, has that view. Nor is it, on the face of it, even really coherent. There is nothing to be said about the "All" of the others. Only that we don't owe them much.
        willmarch 4mo ago
        If you're not claiming entire nations think and act the same way, then what you're describing (a blanket ban on entire nations of people because of some arbitrary numbers in a theoretical poll) is, without a doubt, discriminatory. How is that not arbitrarily discriminatory on its face?
        hackinthebochs 4mo ago
        >How is that not arbitrarily discriminatory on its face? A nation discriminating against non-citizens is not arbitrary, it is the core feature of the citizen classification. What you are implying is that the concept of "citizen" is unjust, therefore the concept of countries and borders are unjust. Of course when its put into these words few people will cop to this viewpoint. That's why there's endless obfuscation in these discussions, to avoid articulating the plain truth of your views.
        4mo ago

mjburgess 4mo ago

Right, so what's the state policy you advocate here? Import 1 million people, 800,000 of which are racist, sexist, homophobic and militantly conservative -- and you'll do that because the policy to prevent it is, as you say, "Racist" ? You may think these imports are on your side for now, because of the cross you've nailed yourself to -- but be assured, as you see today in the US, their cultural conservatism comes out when their social position is safe. You are importing the very people you claim to despise : racists, sexists, misoginsits, and the like. And you're doing it why?

willmarch 4mo ago
I said it was "discriminatory" (which it is), I never said "racist" (but that case could easily be made). How are you determining this group that holds these views? What criteria? Because I don't know any group that matches that description exactly. Could you be specific? I think a human is a human and is deserving of the same rights as any other person. I don't believe this position is radical in any way; it is what most doctrines of fairness are based upon. Again, who are these people? How are you lumping them together (their views or their religion or their race?) because no large group is a hegemony of exactly the same ideas or views; all groups have a diverse set of individuals and ideas among them (both progressive and regressive).
- remarkEon 4mo ago
  It’s a little befuddling that you are pretending it’s not possible to simply observe the nature of the countries from which these people arrived and make high probability conclusions about the mean views on, say, women’s rights. Is your belief that any particular view can and does get patched like software when someone passes through customs and stamps their passport?
  - willmarch 4mo ago
    It's a little befuddling that you are pretending there are countries where every person in that country share the exact same thoughts, ideas, and beliefs. Where is this mythical place? Are we determining an individual's potential, liberty, rights and character based on group population polling now, or do we believe in individual autonomy and potential? Anyone claiming an entire country holds one singular view (on any topic) is not truly discussing in good faith.
    - mjburgess 4mo ago
      No one has claimed that. You're the only one claiming a border immigration policy needs to correctly quantify over the universal non-citizen class. No state in the world today, nor in all of history, has that view. Nor is it, on the face of it, even really coherent. There is nothing to be said about the "All" of the others. Only that we don't owe them much.
      - willmarch 4mo ago
        If you're not claiming entire nations think and act the same way, then what you're describing (a blanket ban on entire nations of people because of some arbitrary numbers in a theoretical poll) is, without a doubt, discriminatory. How is that not arbitrarily discriminatory on its face?
        hackinthebochs 4mo ago
        >How is that not arbitrarily discriminatory on its face? A nation discriminating against non-citizens is not arbitrary, it is the core feature of the citizen classification. What you are implying is that the concept of "citizen" is unjust, therefore the concept of countries and borders are unjust. Of course when its put into these words few people will cop to this viewpoint. That's why there's endless obfuscation in these discussions, to avoid articulating the plain truth of your views.
        4mo ago