4 ms·

>Choosing "first world" rather than "white America" is a completely arbitrary division of humanity. I'm asking why a nationalistic division is legitimate but a

>Choosing "first world" rather than "white America" is a completely arbitrary division of humanity. I'm asking why a nationalistic division is legitimate but a racial one is not. Government. A nation is served by an institution that delivers (more or less) consistent policy that can be shaped to benefit (or harm) those under it. It makes sense to have opinions about how institutions should operate. It does not make sense to have opinions about how the government of the non-existent nation of American white (or black) people should operate because it does not exist. >Are you merely taking the legitimacy of the nation state as some moral first principle? I'm not trying to wish it away like you are. Given that it does exist, it should operate for the benefit of its citizens. >Ah yes - dislike what someone has to say, so hint that they are racist. ...is exactly what you were doing by bringing race into this discussion. >I'm currently interpreting your comment as being intended in a somewhat hostile manner. Am I correct in doing so? Amusing :)

yummyfajitas 12y ago
Given that it does exist, it should operate for the benefit of its citizens. We aren't discussing giving welfare or medicaid to Americans but not Nigerians. We are discussing threatening the Nigerian with violence if he works for an American in America. ...is exactly what you were doing by bringing race into this discussion. I did nothing of the sort. I said directly that nationalism is just as bad (morally) as racism. I didn't say it was racism. I'll note that you've yet again ducked the question of whether it's morally correct to treat black Americans as badly as we treat Kenyans under any particular circumstance.
- crdoconnor 12y ago
  >We aren't discussing giving welfare or medicaid to Americans but not Nigerians. We are discussing threatening the Nigerian with violence if he works for an American in America. Nah, threaten the profit-seeking employer with imprisonment, not the Nigerian. >I did nothing of the sort. Bringing race into a discussion where it was clearly not warranted and using it to imply racism is something of the sort, actually. >I said directly that nationalism is just as bad (morally) as racism. And I said that I am not nationalistic. I'm not even American. Again I fail to see why you needed to raise the issue of race at all. >I'll note that you've yet again ducked the question I haven't ducked any questions at all. >whether it's morally correct to treat black Americans as badly as we treat Kenyans under any particular circumstance. I'm happy to answer but your question lacks precision. In what sense are we using the term 'treat as badly'? Who do you mean by 'we'?
  - yummyfajitas 12y ago
    Nah, threaten the profit-seeking employer with imprisonment, not the Nigerian. How do you distinguish this from threatening those who might choose to employ black Americans in order to make a buck? Again I fail to see why you needed to raise the issue of race at all. Because in the case of racial bias, people are shocked and horrified. Yet in the case of national bias, people aren't. I'm attempting to point out that there are few good distinguishing principles between the two cases, so the dichotomy is unjustified. In what sense are we using the term 'treat as badly'? Who do you mean by 'we' I've repeatedly said that "treat badly" means "threaten with violence for engaging in mutually agreeable trade" and "we" means "organizations that purport to act on our behalf" (US Govt, white supremicist groups, etc).
    - crdoconnor 12y ago
      >How do you distinguish this from threatening those who might choose to employ black Americans in order to make a buck? Quite easily. Nobody needs a visa to employ black Americans. I'm sure black Americans would feel somewhat relieved that they were not forced to compete with Nigerians. >Because in the case of racial bias, people are shocked and horrified. Yet in the case of national bias, people aren't. I fail to see why this horrifies you so much. White skin didn't pay for my education. The nation I was born and grew up in did. It's no use pretending that employers are pro-immigration thanks to their worldliness and desire to help non-Americans, either. Nigel Farage in the UK represents the epitome of national bias yet guess what he did when he wanted to hire somebody for cheap? Yup, that's right. Immigrants. >I'm attempting to point out that there are few good distinguishing principles between the two cases Failing I would say. >I've repeatedly said that "treat badly" means "threaten with violence for engaging in mutually agreeable trade" and "we" means "organizations that purport to act on our behalf" (US Govt, white supremicist groups, etc). Ok, so I agreed - no violence towards Nigerians who come to the US looking for work. Perhaps a mild deportation, that's all (it's happened to me before due to a visa mixup and it didn't leave any bruises).
      - yummyfajitas 12y ago
        Quite easily. Nobody needs a visa to employ black Americans. As I expected - another smug non-sequitur and ducking the core question. Have fun.
chongli 12y ago
In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread. -- Anatole France

yummyfajitas 12y ago

Given that it does exist, it should operate for the benefit of its citizens. We aren't discussing giving welfare or medicaid to Americans but not Nigerians. We are discussing threatening the Nigerian with violence if he works for an American in America. ...is exactly what you were doing by bringing race into this discussion. I did nothing of the sort. I said directly that nationalism is just as bad (morally) as racism. I didn't say it was racism. I'll note that you've yet again ducked the question of whether it's morally correct to treat black Americans as badly as we treat Kenyans under any particular circumstance.

crdoconnor 12y ago
>We aren't discussing giving welfare or medicaid to Americans but not Nigerians. We are discussing threatening the Nigerian with violence if he works for an American in America. Nah, threaten the profit-seeking employer with imprisonment, not the Nigerian. >I did nothing of the sort. Bringing race into a discussion where it was clearly not warranted and using it to imply racism is something of the sort, actually. >I said directly that nationalism is just as bad (morally) as racism. And I said that I am not nationalistic. I'm not even American. Again I fail to see why you needed to raise the issue of race at all. >I'll note that you've yet again ducked the question I haven't ducked any questions at all. >whether it's morally correct to treat black Americans as badly as we treat Kenyans under any particular circumstance. I'm happy to answer but your question lacks precision. In what sense are we using the term 'treat as badly'? Who do you mean by 'we'?
- yummyfajitas 12y ago
  Nah, threaten the profit-seeking employer with imprisonment, not the Nigerian. How do you distinguish this from threatening those who might choose to employ black Americans in order to make a buck? Again I fail to see why you needed to raise the issue of race at all. Because in the case of racial bias, people are shocked and horrified. Yet in the case of national bias, people aren't. I'm attempting to point out that there are few good distinguishing principles between the two cases, so the dichotomy is unjustified. In what sense are we using the term 'treat as badly'? Who do you mean by 'we' I've repeatedly said that "treat badly" means "threaten with violence for engaging in mutually agreeable trade" and "we" means "organizations that purport to act on our behalf" (US Govt, white supremicist groups, etc).
  - crdoconnor 12y ago
    >How do you distinguish this from threatening those who might choose to employ black Americans in order to make a buck? Quite easily. Nobody needs a visa to employ black Americans. I'm sure black Americans would feel somewhat relieved that they were not forced to compete with Nigerians. >Because in the case of racial bias, people are shocked and horrified. Yet in the case of national bias, people aren't. I fail to see why this horrifies you so much. White skin didn't pay for my education. The nation I was born and grew up in did. It's no use pretending that employers are pro-immigration thanks to their worldliness and desire to help non-Americans, either. Nigel Farage in the UK represents the epitome of national bias yet guess what he did when he wanted to hire somebody for cheap? Yup, that's right. Immigrants. >I'm attempting to point out that there are few good distinguishing principles between the two cases Failing I would say. >I've repeatedly said that "treat badly" means "threaten with violence for engaging in mutually agreeable trade" and "we" means "organizations that purport to act on our behalf" (US Govt, white supremicist groups, etc). Ok, so I agreed - no violence towards Nigerians who come to the US looking for work. Perhaps a mild deportation, that's all (it's happened to me before due to a visa mixup and it didn't leave any bruises).
    - yummyfajitas 12y ago
      Quite easily. Nobody needs a visa to employ black Americans. As I expected - another smug non-sequitur and ducking the core question. Have fun.

chongli 12y ago

In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread. -- Anatole France