3 ms·

Good lord, I'm not generalizing anything. I was explaining further the specific phenomenon (which does occur sometimes) that manticore_alpha was talking about.

Good lord, I'm not generalizing anything. I was explaining further the specific phenomenon (which does occur sometimes) that manticore_alpha was talking about. I didn't apply this phenomenon to anyone, nor make any statements about policy nor how it ought to impact policy... Or does the simple description of a phenomenon which sometimes happens, now mean I'm a jingoistic, nationalistic, racist dirtbag? I am in complete agreement that this phenomenon is very unlikely to happen with H1B workers, and I am completely familiar with the fact that many immigrants are well-educated, speak excellent English, and fully integrate into American society.

dasil003 12y ago
The reason is because it's typically ignorant xenophobic racists who complain the loudest about x or y group not assimilating. Now I don't think this is you, but that's just the way the argument smells. Let's step back a minute: what is the big deal with people attempting to preserve their culture when they come to the US? Isn't it a free country? And materially I don't see how it harms anything because the American culture, derided thought it may be by some, is actually extremely alluring and powerful, so even if the parents are nostalgic for the old country the kids are going to gravitate towards assimilation. Where is the harm?
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- valar_m 12y ago
  This is a really great example of how powerful the dog whistle techniques used by racists can actually be. Your instincts picked up on something from silverstorm's comment, but a lack of concrete evidence made it very difficult to say out loud what you were actually thinking. You were forced to go from: this offensively racist image you've got in your head All the way back to: Now I don't think this is you, but that's just the way the argument smells. I went into silverstorm's use of dog whistle techniques a little deeper in my comment above, but the evolution of your exchange with him really demonstrates how effective it can be as a tool for perpetuating racist views with immunity from criticism. It is a strategy based on controlling the conversation and playing off of several deeply ingrained societal tendencies, and it works.
  - dasil003 12y ago
    What? I think you have me confused with someone else.
    - valar_m 12y ago
      You're right. Apologies.
valar_m 12y ago
Saying "You" when not addressing anyone in particular is a classic dog whistle technique. Everyone in the audience knows exactly who you're talking about, and plausible deniability is preserved for future accusations of racism/bigotry. Of course, silverstorm did not actually explain anything at all. All he did was repeat a few standard dog whistle arguments used by racists with a couple of geek culture references thrown in to pander to the audience. Let's take a look. 1. Appeal to imaginary "social contract" -- an attempt to establish a criteria for who should be accepted into society based on some vague, unspecific standard. Used in various forms by dominant demographic to argue against immigration. 2. "Learn to speak English" -- Good to see this is still being used. Incredibly high reliability as an indicator of racism, almost to the point where I expect it to soon fall out of favor among racists. [0] 3. Warnings of radical change to society ("attempt to create Little Elbonia", "completely reshape government") -- A common, highly effective technique based on natural human fear of the unknown and preference to status quo. And of course, silverstorm's response to being challenged was equally standard -- repeated reference to "phenomenon" to avoid potential challenges to assertions, it's only a few bad apples ("a phenomenon which sometimes happens", "many immigrants are well-educated"), preemptive dismissal of direct accusation as self-evidently absurd ("I'm a jingoistic, nationalistic, racist dirtbag?"). [0] See, e.g., Lee Atwater 1981 interview for more on evolution of racist rhetoric and its adaption in response to public awareness of true meanings. http://www.thenation.com/article/170841/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy# http://www.thenation.com/article/170841/exclusive-lee-atwate...
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  If I'm arguing, what am I arguing for? Because it isn't less immigration. If I could have my way, we'd abolish H1B's and Visas and instead simply grant citizenship to basically anyone who wanted it (excepting, I don't know, internationally wanted criminals?). Well, maybe there is still a place for visas if the person only wants to work in the US for a while and their birth country does not allow dual citizenship. But that's beside the point. As for integrating, even people who completely refuse to integrate can be here- that's fine. Personally, I just (selfishly) want them to integrate, so I can meet them and talk with them. It's no different from the way that I want to be friends with my neighbors. I'm not pissed if they don't want to be friendly- just sad. I was just trying to acknowledge that complete and total refusal to integrate does happen (some of my friends growing up had parents like that). That doesn't inform my opinions on policy- they are still welcome to be here.

dasil003 12y ago

The reason is because it's typically ignorant xenophobic racists who complain the loudest about x or y group not assimilating. Now I don't think this is you, but that's just the way the argument smells. Let's step back a minute: what is the big deal with people attempting to preserve their culture when they come to the US? Isn't it a free country? And materially I don't see how it harms anything because the American culture, derided thought it may be by some, is actually extremely alluring and powerful, so even if the parents are nostalgic for the old country the kids are going to gravitate towards assimilation. Where is the harm?

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
valar_m 12y ago
This is a really great example of how powerful the dog whistle techniques used by racists can actually be. Your instincts picked up on something from silverstorm's comment, but a lack of concrete evidence made it very difficult to say out loud what you were actually thinking. You were forced to go from: this offensively racist image you've got in your head All the way back to: Now I don't think this is you, but that's just the way the argument smells. I went into silverstorm's use of dog whistle techniques a little deeper in my comment above, but the evolution of your exchange with him really demonstrates how effective it can be as a tool for perpetuating racist views with immunity from criticism. It is a strategy based on controlling the conversation and playing off of several deeply ingrained societal tendencies, and it works.
- dasil003 12y ago
  What? I think you have me confused with someone else.
  - valar_m 12y ago
    You're right. Apologies.

valar_m 12y ago

Saying "You" when not addressing anyone in particular is a classic dog whistle technique. Everyone in the audience knows exactly who you're talking about, and plausible deniability is preserved for future accusations of racism/bigotry. Of course, silverstorm did not actually explain anything at all. All he did was repeat a few standard dog whistle arguments used by racists with a couple of geek culture references thrown in to pander to the audience. Let's take a look. 1. Appeal to imaginary "social contract" -- an attempt to establish a criteria for who should be accepted into society based on some vague, unspecific standard. Used in various forms by dominant demographic to argue against immigration. 2. "Learn to speak English" -- Good to see this is still being used. Incredibly high reliability as an indicator of racism, almost to the point where I expect it to soon fall out of favor among racists. [0] 3. Warnings of radical change to society ("attempt to create Little Elbonia", "completely reshape government") -- A common, highly effective technique based on natural human fear of the unknown and preference to status quo. And of course, silverstorm's response to being challenged was equally standard -- repeated reference to "phenomenon" to avoid potential challenges to assertions, it's only a few bad apples ("a phenomenon which sometimes happens", "many immigrants are well-educated"), preemptive dismissal of direct accusation as self-evidently absurd ("I'm a jingoistic, nationalistic, racist dirtbag?"). [0] See, e.g., Lee Atwater 1981 interview for more on evolution of racist rhetoric and its adaption in response to public awareness of true meanings. http://www.thenation.com/article/170841/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy# http://www.thenation.com/article/170841/exclusive-lee-atwate...

sliverstorm 12y ago
If I'm arguing, what am I arguing for? Because it isn't less immigration. If I could have my way, we'd abolish H1B's and Visas and instead simply grant citizenship to basically anyone who wanted it (excepting, I don't know, internationally wanted criminals?). Well, maybe there is still a place for visas if the person only wants to work in the US for a while and their birth country does not allow dual citizenship. But that's beside the point. As for integrating, even people who completely refuse to integrate can be here- that's fine. Personally, I just (selfishly) want them to integrate, so I can meet them and talk with them. It's no different from the way that I want to be friends with my neighbors. I'm not pissed if they don't want to be friendly- just sad. I was just trying to acknowledge that complete and total refusal to integrate does happen (some of my friends growing up had parents like that). That doesn't inform my opinions on policy- they are still welcome to be here.