11 ms·

You're conflating race with citizenship. One of the ostensible goals of a state is to protect the interests of its citizens. Less politely: a state is an in-

You're conflating race with citizenship. One of the ostensible goals of a state is to protect the interests of its citizens. Less politely: a state is an in-group that knows it's an in-group, and excludes the out-group, in accordance with all in-groups ever, everywhere. I feel perfectly justified valuing the interests of, say, my family, over someone else's family. I extend the same to my countrymen, over some other country's citizens.

crdoconnor 12y ago
He's also conflating the individual foreign immigrant with the foreign country. What is good for the immigrant is not necessarily good for the country as a whole.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  Similarly, the anti-segregationists don't realize that what's good for a black man is not necessarily good for black America as a whole. Sure, it's great to allow black people to shop at white stores, but what if they all decide "white man's ice is colder" and the black business community suffers? <- real thing that happened. Since you seem to want to bring up a variety of empirical criteria, what are the specific empirical criteria that would justify laws which require black Americans to get a visa before living/working in white America? I.e., what has to happen before you favor segregation?
  - crdoconnor 12y ago
    So you think that allowing black people to shop at white stores is bad for black people as a whole? Jesus, you're racist as fuck.
    - yummyfajitas 12y ago
      It's an empirical question that I don't know the answer to. I can identify pluses and minuses and never much thought about it. Can you say with much confidence that allowing grinnbearit to enter the US would harm India? Whether yes or no, I don't think it justifies treating black Americans the way we treat Nigerians and Indians. You again ducked the question - if black Americans satisfy the same empirical criteria as Indians or Nigerians, should we treat them the same way? As for your ad hominem, I have no idea what I've said here that leads you to believe this. In the lingo of social justice types, one of the largest systemic barriers keeping non-white people out of power is national boundaries. I favor reducing that barrier as much as possible. This makes me "racist as fuck"? Um, ok.
      - crdoconnor 12y ago
        >It's an empirical question that I don't know the answer to. Your argument appears to be confused as well as mildly racist. >Can you say with much confidence that allowing grinnbearit to enter the US would harm India? If he was educated by India I would say that there is a very high likelihood. India would lose its investment in his education. >You again ducked the question - if black Americans satisfy the same empirical criteria as Indians or Nigerians, should we treat them the same way? You mean if black Americans were actually Nigerians or citizens of some other African country should we restrict the issuance of H1Bs to them... Um, yes? Sorry, I didn't think that wasn't obvious. Same deal for Europeans. Obviously. Just in case you again assumed that I give some special consideration to being white (P.S. I'm European and I don't think I'm being done any great favors by having H1B as an option). >This makes me "racist as fuck"? Stating outright that black people would be better off shopping in black only shops makes you racist as fuck, yes. Hell, even just raising the possibility that it might be true implies racism. If I were you I would retract what I just said because it doesn't look at all good either in or out of context.
        yummyfajitas 12y ago
        You mean if black Americans were actually Nigerians... No. I asked if it is morally acceptable under any circumstances to treat a black American the way we treat Nigerians, by threatening them (or their employer) with violence for economic competition. And I'm wondering, if not, why not? I'm reasonably confident you knew this is what I'm asking. Hell, even just raising the possibility that it might be true implies racism. I'm confused. Uncertainty and admission that an empirical question can have multiple answers is racist?
        crdoconnor 12y ago
        >No. I asked if it is morally acceptable under any circumstances to treat a black American the way we treat Nigerians, by threatening them (or their employer) with violence for economic competition. And I'm wondering, if not, why not? Because they are citizens of the country born under the United States government, and thus should be afforded certain guarantees from that same government. Including a decently paid job. I think that Nigerians deserve the same guarantees from their country too. I don't believe that Nigeria owes American citizens a job, though. Or vice versa. Unfortunately to prevent the emergence of poverty, it is necessary for some employers to face an implicit threat of violence that restricts competition among workers. Minimum wage, etc. >I'm confused. Uncertainty and admission that an empirical question can have multiple answers is racist? You remind me of this amusing episode: http://foxnewsboycott.com/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-raped-and-murdered-a-girl-in-1990/ http://foxnewsboycott.com/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-raped-and-mu...
  - matwood 12y ago
    Sure, it's great to allow black people to shop at white stores, but what if they all decide "white man's ice is colder" and the black business community suffers? <- real thing that happened. And here is the problem. You're still differentiating between white stores and black stores. Only when you view them as stores is racism gone. It is the same thing as looking a black America versus America as a whole.
    - snowwrestler 12y ago
      He doesn't actually believe what he's writing; he's attempting to equate racism and anti-immigration. The more you point out the flaws in racism, the more he feels you are pointing out the flaws in anti-immigration.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
yummyfajitas 12y ago
I'm doing so quite deliberately. Wasn't it obvious? One of the ostensible goals of a white supremicist group is to protect the interests of white people. I feel perfectly justified valuing the interests of, say, my race, over some other race. As a moral matter, I don't see why my white supremicist group is somehow less legitimate than your state. (Note that I don't actually hold the views I espouse above, I'm just writing in parallel language. Most of the people I care about are not of the same race or nationality as me, so both nationalism and racism are quite silly for me.)
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  Racism and nationalism are equally silly, yes. However, that does not automatically mean that institutions (i.e. governments) that are set up to help a specific group of people should refrain from helping them because other people might need the help more. The US government would help the outside world a lot more if it stopped trying to "help" the world (e.g. by bombing it) and focused exclusively on helping its ownc citizens.
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    There is nothing wrong with the KKK giving money to white people only. There is something wrong with the KKK threatening black people with violence for taking a job that a white person might have wanted.
    - crdoconnor 12y ago
      I'm really not sure what you're getting at here, nor why you think the KKK is relevant to a discussion about H1Bs.
      - yummyfajitas 12y ago
        The US government and the KKK are both organizations that help people (by, e.g., funding scholarships) and also threaten people with violence for engaging in peaceful behavior, particularly economic competition. I'm asking for a moral argument justifying the latter behavior.

crdoconnor 12y ago

He's also conflating the individual foreign immigrant with the foreign country. What is good for the immigrant is not necessarily good for the country as a whole.

yummyfajitas 12y ago
Similarly, the anti-segregationists don't realize that what's good for a black man is not necessarily good for black America as a whole. Sure, it's great to allow black people to shop at white stores, but what if they all decide "white man's ice is colder" and the black business community suffers? <- real thing that happened. Since you seem to want to bring up a variety of empirical criteria, what are the specific empirical criteria that would justify laws which require black Americans to get a visa before living/working in white America? I.e., what has to happen before you favor segregation?
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  So you think that allowing black people to shop at white stores is bad for black people as a whole? Jesus, you're racist as fuck.
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    It's an empirical question that I don't know the answer to. I can identify pluses and minuses and never much thought about it. Can you say with much confidence that allowing grinnbearit to enter the US would harm India? Whether yes or no, I don't think it justifies treating black Americans the way we treat Nigerians and Indians. You again ducked the question - if black Americans satisfy the same empirical criteria as Indians or Nigerians, should we treat them the same way? As for your ad hominem, I have no idea what I've said here that leads you to believe this. In the lingo of social justice types, one of the largest systemic barriers keeping non-white people out of power is national boundaries. I favor reducing that barrier as much as possible. This makes me "racist as fuck"? Um, ok.
    - crdoconnor 12y ago
      >It's an empirical question that I don't know the answer to. Your argument appears to be confused as well as mildly racist. >Can you say with much confidence that allowing grinnbearit to enter the US would harm India? If he was educated by India I would say that there is a very high likelihood. India would lose its investment in his education. >You again ducked the question - if black Americans satisfy the same empirical criteria as Indians or Nigerians, should we treat them the same way? You mean if black Americans were actually Nigerians or citizens of some other African country should we restrict the issuance of H1Bs to them... Um, yes? Sorry, I didn't think that wasn't obvious. Same deal for Europeans. Obviously. Just in case you again assumed that I give some special consideration to being white (P.S. I'm European and I don't think I'm being done any great favors by having H1B as an option). >This makes me "racist as fuck"? Stating outright that black people would be better off shopping in black only shops makes you racist as fuck, yes. Hell, even just raising the possibility that it might be true implies racism. If I were you I would retract what I just said because it doesn't look at all good either in or out of context.
      - yummyfajitas 12y ago
        You mean if black Americans were actually Nigerians... No. I asked if it is morally acceptable under any circumstances to treat a black American the way we treat Nigerians, by threatening them (or their employer) with violence for economic competition. And I'm wondering, if not, why not? I'm reasonably confident you knew this is what I'm asking. Hell, even just raising the possibility that it might be true implies racism. I'm confused. Uncertainty and admission that an empirical question can have multiple answers is racist?
        crdoconnor 12y ago
        >No. I asked if it is morally acceptable under any circumstances to treat a black American the way we treat Nigerians, by threatening them (or their employer) with violence for economic competition. And I'm wondering, if not, why not? Because they are citizens of the country born under the United States government, and thus should be afforded certain guarantees from that same government. Including a decently paid job. I think that Nigerians deserve the same guarantees from their country too. I don't believe that Nigeria owes American citizens a job, though. Or vice versa. Unfortunately to prevent the emergence of poverty, it is necessary for some employers to face an implicit threat of violence that restricts competition among workers. Minimum wage, etc. >I'm confused. Uncertainty and admission that an empirical question can have multiple answers is racist? You remind me of this amusing episode: http://foxnewsboycott.com/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-raped-and-murdered-a-girl-in-1990/ http://foxnewsboycott.com/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-raped-and-mu...
- matwood 12y ago
  Sure, it's great to allow black people to shop at white stores, but what if they all decide "white man's ice is colder" and the black business community suffers? <- real thing that happened. And here is the problem. You're still differentiating between white stores and black stores. Only when you view them as stores is racism gone. It is the same thing as looking a black America versus America as a whole.
  - snowwrestler 12y ago
    He doesn't actually believe what he's writing; he's attempting to equate racism and anti-immigration. The more you point out the flaws in racism, the more he feels you are pointing out the flaws in anti-immigration.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]

yummyfajitas 12y ago

I'm doing so quite deliberately. Wasn't it obvious? One of the ostensible goals of a white supremicist group is to protect the interests of white people. I feel perfectly justified valuing the interests of, say, my race, over some other race. As a moral matter, I don't see why my white supremicist group is somehow less legitimate than your state. (Note that I don't actually hold the views I espouse above, I'm just writing in parallel language. Most of the people I care about are not of the same race or nationality as me, so both nationalism and racism are quite silly for me.)

crdoconnor 12y ago
Racism and nationalism are equally silly, yes. However, that does not automatically mean that institutions (i.e. governments) that are set up to help a specific group of people should refrain from helping them because other people might need the help more. The US government would help the outside world a lot more if it stopped trying to "help" the world (e.g. by bombing it) and focused exclusively on helping its ownc citizens.
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  There is nothing wrong with the KKK giving money to white people only. There is something wrong with the KKK threatening black people with violence for taking a job that a white person might have wanted.
  - crdoconnor 12y ago
    I'm really not sure what you're getting at here, nor why you think the KKK is relevant to a discussion about H1Bs.
    - yummyfajitas 12y ago
      The US government and the KKK are both organizations that help people (by, e.g., funding scholarships) and also threaten people with violence for engaging in peaceful behavior, particularly economic competition. I'm asking for a moral argument justifying the latter behavior.