3 ms·

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 citizens

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.

valar_m 12y ago
Here we see silverstorm employ a pair common techniques for handling criticism of dog whistle rhetoric. First, he attempts to leverage previous deliberately vague language with a trap -- a demand for the respondent to place his vague language into precise terms: If I'm arguing, what am I arguing for? Of course, this is a can't lose situation if the respondent obliges. It does not matter what answer is given, the response will be that they are wrong and mistaken about challenges of racism, as evidenced by their wrongness. Vague language is what allows this to happen. Silverstorm uses this as a starting point for an attempt to regain control of the conversation. As I mentioned below, this is a key concept of dog whistle techniques: It is a strategy based on controlling the conversation The comment to which silverstorm is responding makes no mention of H1Bs or Visas or dual citizenship, nor does it take any position on grants of citizenship. But that's what silverstorm is going to pretend happened. It's an attempt to take control of the conversation. For an interesting exercise, open the links to the two comments in separate tabs. See if you think you could tell just from reading that one of those was in direct response to the other when the comments are no longer stacked and indented.
- sliverstorm 12y ago
  In my previous post I just explained I am 100% for immigration. All immigration. I welcome any and all peoples. Is that still too vague for you? Too much dog whistle? Too much covert racism? How can I be sufficiently clear? I brought up H1B's because they were part of the original conversation, before you joined.

valar_m 12y ago

Here we see silverstorm employ a pair common techniques for handling criticism of dog whistle rhetoric. First, he attempts to leverage previous deliberately vague language with a trap -- a demand for the respondent to place his vague language into precise terms: If I'm arguing, what am I arguing for? Of course, this is a can't lose situation if the respondent obliges. It does not matter what answer is given, the response will be that they are wrong and mistaken about challenges of racism, as evidenced by their wrongness. Vague language is what allows this to happen. Silverstorm uses this as a starting point for an attempt to regain control of the conversation. As I mentioned below, this is a key concept of dog whistle techniques: It is a strategy based on controlling the conversation The comment to which silverstorm is responding makes no mention of H1Bs or Visas or dual citizenship, nor does it take any position on grants of citizenship. But that's what silverstorm is going to pretend happened. It's an attempt to take control of the conversation. For an interesting exercise, open the links to the two comments in separate tabs. See if you think you could tell just from reading that one of those was in direct response to the other when the comments are no longer stacked and indented.

sliverstorm 12y ago
In my previous post I just explained I am 100% for immigration. All immigration. I welcome any and all peoples. Is that still too vague for you? Too much dog whistle? Too much covert racism? How can I be sufficiently clear? I brought up H1B's because they were part of the original conversation, before you joined.