In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
Nice, solid $100 billion within 4 years. For about a million people. There are many more where those came from.
Alternatively, set up refugee camps in bordering nations, send money through UN missions, arrange for humanitarian corridors, help end the war... and that's going to do a lot more for a lot less money.
There is always something missing in the equation when I listen to american right wingers. The whole empathy thing.
"Meh, let's put all those people in camps in Jordan, that's cheaper".
Well. Let say I hope you'll never be in a situation of extreme vulnerability and need with people like you in front of you.
You know what is the difference between humans and other animals? Humans sometimes think first before acting on their instincts. Empathy, believe it or not, is one of those instincts.
So, ask yourself this simple question: what does acting on empathy to people caught in hell brings you? My argument is that it brings you nothing but trouble. Hell, assuming you carry some proper self-defense tools, interrupting a gang assaulting/raping/robbing someone actually has more potential for benefit to both you and society as a whole than taking in mass of poor people you can't employ and can't realistically sponsor out of poor charity!
Characterizing empathy as an instinct alongside an intimation that people who want to help others are animals is a good way to say nothing while being an asshole. Irrelevant and specious gang violence analogies aside, you haven't said anything other than that letting in people from war torn countries "brings you nothing but trouble," which makes particularly little sense given how foundational "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" is as an outlook here in the US.
My country is built on letting people in who are running from hell.
On February 25 2017 21:33 farvacola wrote: Characterizing empathy as an instinct alongside an intimation that people who want to help others are animals is a good way to say nothing while being an asshole. Irrelevant and specious gang violence analogies aside, you haven't said anything other than that letting in people from war torn countries "brings you nothing but trouble," which makes particularly little sense given how foundational "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" is as an outlook here in the US.
My country is built on letting people in who are running from hell.
Not quite, your country was built on profit. Hell, talking about letting people in.
And yes, i am saying something, and gang violence comparison is entirely relevant. To address comparison first: would you act out of empathy to the victim and get into the brawl, if you were unarmed at the time? Yes? Well then, call me before you do, i will donate some for ceremony. No? See, now you're acting like a rational person. And letting in refugees for no other reason than pure empathy brings little but trouble for your countrymen, and little for "refugees" either, because they just move from one hellhole to another en masse.
Not to mention that the way such "empathy" move is done [i.e. without any meaningful vetting] just establishes that a solid part of people who are not actually running from war-torn country will move in as well.
Yes, my country was also built on a racist constitution and continues to inappropriately address systemic inequalities. I needn't exculpate US history to show that your comment regarding "letting in people from hell" comes from a place of abject ignorance.
Feel free to respond with another non-sequitur coupled with a wikipedia link lacking context, because whatever it is you added in that edit, it doesn't say what you think it does. No one is arguing for purely empathic immigration policies, and stilted analogies to interrupting gang violence that fray upon first glance are not a productive means of understanding what countries do when they allow refugees/asylees in.
Again, because this seems forgotten or otherwise unknown among those attempting to defend anti-immigration policies from afar, the US already and continued to maintain an incredibly strict process of vetting all incoming refugees and asylees prior to Trump's now defunct executive order.
On February 25 2017 22:00 farvacola wrote: Yes, my country was also built on a racist constitution and continues to inappropriately address systemic inequalities. I needn't exculpate US history to show that your comment regarding "letting in people from hell" comes from a place of abject ignorance.
Feel free to respond with another non-sequitur coupled with a wikipedia link lacking context.
Nah, when someone talks about "systemic inequalities", they are generally a lost cause. Have good day, but remember what constitutes a human over an ape.
On February 25 2017 22:00 farvacola wrote:No one is arguing for purely empathic immigration policies, and stilted analogies to interrupting gang violence that fray upon first glance are not a productive means of understanding what countries do when they allow refugees/asylees in.
No one is arguing for purely empathetic immigration policies? I see quite the opposite.
And please, elaborate, what countries do when they allow refugees/asylum seekers in.
Thank you for admitting that you're not actually here to discuss anything and are instead here to parrot nonsense hypotheticals instead of actually engage with the paucity of logic at play in your thinking. Should you ever need to flee your country, I'll still fight for your right to come here, stupid gang analogies notwithstanding.
And no, I'm not going to elaborate when you just flatly stated that you won't read things that include certain terms or phrases. You can look up what our immigration policies were easily enough on your own, and that way, scary words or phrases may not prevent you from learning about the thing you've already taken a strong position on.
Nice, solid $100 billion within 4 years. For about a million people. There are many more where those came from.
Alternatively, set up refugee camps in bordering nations, send money through UN missions, arrange for humanitarian corridors, help end the war... and that's going to do a lot more for a lot less money.
There is always something missing in the equation when I listen to american right wingers. The whole empathy thing.
"Meh, let's put all those people in camps in Jordan, that's cheaper".
Well. Let say I hope you'll never be in a situation of extreme vulnerability and need with people like you in front of you.
What does acting on empathy to people caught in hell brings you? My argument is that it brings you nothing but trouble.
Your argument's ridiculous, of course it's difficult but that doesn't mean you should abandon people in this kind of need.
Assuming you have a conscience, you don't hate yourself afterwards.
Not everything is about you, facing some difficulty is surely worth it in the long run, and it's not like refugees have been a huge drag on nations in the past. You develop a more diverse, inclusive, peaceful society. Just look at the massive amounts of Asian refugees in the last century and how the 'yellow peril' never materialized. But sure, they were nothing but trouble.
It sets an example for the community, rather than a shitty 'every man for himself' race to the top. A society that does this is more likely to help you or your family in tough circumstances. Drug addicts? Jail 'em, nothing but trouble. People in poverty? Exploit the shit out of them with short-term loans. Affordable medicine? Screw that, the poor need to work harder. America's priorities are backward and much of it comes from a profound lack of empathy for the poor and disadvantaged.
And for the people scared of terrorism, the best recruitment method is leaving innocent families to burn when you could've helped. If America showed some empathy, ISIS and co. would have a much harder time recruiting, and America's international reputation could be salvaged somewhat.
edit: your analogy is hilariously bad. You're really comparing taking in refugees to going into a brawl without a weapon to save someone? Go troll somewhere else.
On February 25 2017 22:06 farvacola wrote: Thank you for admitting that you're not actually here to discuss anything and are instead here to parrot nonsense hypotheticals instead of actually engage with the paucity of logic at play in your thinking. Should you ever need to flee your country, I'll still fight for your right to come here, stupid gang analogies notwithstanding.
See, that's why that does not work. You did not address even once what was wrong with my argument. And calling it stupid or non-sense barely works in a debate, if you can't do that.
Delivering on campaign promises AND cracking jokes along the way. Let the hand wringing from the outrage machine continue!
Deeply unpopular president does thing that his opponent do not like, also make joke. They express disliking what he is doing. Fan of president says they are whiners because president is doing what he promised, knowing that they would not like it.
In other news, Trump will never willful his promise to fix Obama care, because that is hard. Also those regulations he just formed a task force for, they will remain in place because that is also hard. But he tried and that is all that matters.
If you'll remember back a few posts ago, I talked about the relationship between Trump and spineless GOP legislators. Obamacare isn't just one executive order away.
On February 25 2017 10:19 KwarK wrote:
On February 25 2017 10:13 Danglars wrote: They were worried about government being able to vet refugees from the middle east, when ISIS promised and had snuck terrorists into the streams.
We absolutely get that people talk about this shit at the dinner table, especially after having read a facebook forward from their racist uncle. The problem is that there isn't actually a real problem underneath all the fears. It's not that Obama wasn't listening to the fears, it's that he was better informed. The solution to people being afraid isn't to pander harder to ignorance, and yet that's exactly what Trump did. The only positive note was that in his case he probably wasn't pandering, he was the racist uncle on facebook.
It comes back to Newt.
The real problem is this strange idea that the ivory tower elitists have lost track of the problems facing America because they're lost in all their facts, statistics and real news and won't stop spending all their time listening to experts. Somehow it's become reasonable for an individual who doesn't experience any violent crime to hear about it on his daily fearmongering Fox News segment and decide that he knows that the experts aren't doing enough.
Well, we know you subscribe to the racist uncles on FB and But They're Wrong theories. Kind of the reason this stuff had been bubbling up for a while before Trump hit the national scene with a major immigration message. And most of America didn't give a damn about Newt beyond Contract with America and the '94 revolt against Clinton.
Well, let's examine the claim. You said that the side of America that Trump tapped into was worried about the streams of ISIS terrorists hiding among the Syrian refugees, right? And thought that Obama wasn't doing enough to keep them safe from those. How many Americans killed by ISIS members posing as Syrian refugees would be an acceptable number for you in terms of Obama keeping us safe? Obviously you can never make a perfect system, but there are hundreds of millions of Americans. If, say, he kept the number of people killed by the ISIS refugees under five per year, would that get a passing grade?
Sorry, the quality of the debate today requires me to establish the basics before we go to implications. I do not say Obama didn't do enough, but you did snip that part out of the quote. I don't even know if you can do enough at this point in time, but Obama wouldn't even acknowledge justified fears. Terrorism is about more than net kill count since the aim is to spread fear, not to get people checking how many die from airplane crashes and determine whether or not to go to the mall. Now, at the basic level, can you first say that we know ISIS has promised to infiltrate refugee streams (hide among them before/after) (German Intelligence) and are responsible for prior terrorist attacks (eg Bataclan, also with a side of castration/sexual torture)? This all not to mention refugee violence (WaPo German NYE). Can you also confirm that there are extreme and enduring problems vetting terrorists embedded in refugee streams seeking harm on US citizens going about their daily lives? Because, frankly the moral argument, similar to why we view homicide as such a heinous crime and not in light of how few homicides happen relative to accidental deaths so who cares, is probably too nuanced for this forum. If we're talking about bridging "savage, despicable evil" (Chris Kyle), the implications of the threat of terror, and cold, hard statistics, we're in for a few too many paragraphs and much time I'd rather like to invest in something I'm being paid to do. This is just idle time at work and home and I know too well the divide in thinking about deaths from terrorism as something quite different than deaths from other means.
Erm, if you argue that terrorism is not just about the actual effects of terrorism in terms of destruction caused, but that the aim is also to spread fear, are not politicians who fear-monger (maybe you don't think Trump does this?) guilty of advancing the goals of terrorists?
I'm not even talking about escalating the conflict now, which is the usual argument for how 'strong against terror' policies advance terrorism, but in this case, you're arguing that causing fear is a primary aim of terrorism, but still targeting Obama for not acknowledging justified fears. (Which I disagree with, but fair enough.) Imo, the logical conclusion of your first argument (that terrorism is not just about kill count - which I agree with), is that we should deal with terrorism in an as prudent manner as possible; focusing on how unlikely you are to be affected by a terrorist attack, making sure people keep on living their lives as they normally would, stating that thunder storms are more dangerous than arab-looking individuals..
Or is the argument more that the fear of terrorism is advanced by the appearance of 'non-extreme-vetting', and that to stifle the fear of terrorism, we must have an appearance of extreme measures? In a way, I can understand this argument as well, but I do think prudency is a more sensible approach.
On February 25 2017 22:06 farvacola wrote: Thank you for admitting that you're not actually here to discuss anything and are instead here to parrot nonsense hypotheticals instead of actually engage with the paucity of logic at play in your thinking. Should you ever need to flee your country, I'll still fight for your right to come here, stupid gang analogies notwithstanding.
See, that's why that does not work. You did not address even once what was wrong with my argument. And calling it stupid or non-sense barely works in a debate, if you can't do that.
Both Scarecrow and I pointed to the same essential problem; your choice of analogy is improper, and that accordingly poisons any logic contingent on the sufficiency of said analogy. The dilemmas surrounding immigration policy, particularly regarding refugees/asylees, are complicated and implicate concerns that are simply not present in the context of simply ascertaining whether one should break up a gang fight given proper self-defense tools. Accordingly, I think it'd be better to either come up with another analogy or instead simply argue on the merits of the topic at hand, which is why I mentioned previous refugee policies and the extent to which anyone who wanted to come into the US already had to jump through a huge number of hoops (see KwarK's posts on his own journey, and remember that he's a white brit lol).
Also, if someone has advocated for a purely empathic immigration policy, please point me to their posts, because I ain't seeing it.
Nice, solid $100 billion within 4 years. For about a million people. There are many more where those came from.
Alternatively, set up refugee camps in bordering nations, send money through UN missions, arrange for humanitarian corridors, help end the war... and that's going to do a lot more for a lot less money.
There is always something missing in the equation when I listen to american right wingers. The whole empathy thing.
"Meh, let's put all those people in camps in Jordan, that's cheaper".
Well. Let say I hope you'll never be in a situation of extreme vulnerability and need with people like you in front of you.
What does acting on empathy to people caught in hell brings you? My argument is that it brings you nothing but trouble.
Your argument's ridiculous, of course it's difficult but that doesn't mean you should abandon people in this kind of need.
Assuming you have a conscience, you don't hate yourself afterwards.
Not everything is about you, facing some difficulty is surely worth it in the long run, and it's not like refugees have been a huge drag on nations in the past. You develop a more diverse, inclusive, peaceful society. Just look at the massive amounts of Asian refugees in the last century and how the 'yellow peril' never materialized. But sure, they were nothing but trouble.
It sets an example for the community, rather than a shitty 'every man for himself' race to the top. A society that does this is more likely to help you or your family in tough circumstances. Drug addicts? Jail 'em, nothing but trouble. People in poverty? Exploit the shit out of them with short-term loans. Affordable medicine? Screw that, the poor need to work harder. America's priorities are backward and much of it comes from a profound lack of empathy for the poor and disadvantaged.
And for the people scared of terrorism, the best recruitment method is leaving innocent families to burn when you could've helped. If America showed some empathy, ISIS and co. would have a much harder time recruiting, and America's international reputation could be salvaged somewhat.
My argument is not ridiculous, it is egoistic. Matter of fact, i see nothing wrong with taking people in, as long as evidence of them not being a waste of whatever investment exists. Next, i take issue with claiming that diverse society is peaceful, because that is assertion that i would like to see examples of. Because you know, some of the most peaceful communities i have heard of were homogeneous. Some of the most violent ones too, though. Next, make no mistake, i am myself not an American, i am just a Russian that has seen what happens when you put priorities of the others ahead of your own. Hell, i know grandson of a man who have funded bolshevik's coup out of motivations you think are "forward"... only to get himself robbed of his property as a result of it. So, yes, i, an objectively poor man who does not even make $2/hour for my part time job, say that, the poor need to work harder, or to live in a state where you get paid for existing, not for working. The sooner later states go bankrupt, the better in the long run.
And that applies to any immigration. Thankfully for my own case, US does not border any wartorn country i know of.
On February 25 2017 22:12 Plansix wrote: Farvacola vs whataboutism. Always good to watch when it happens.
Wait, you call that guy a specialist? He is pretty underwhelming.
On February 25 2017 22:26 farvacola wrote: Also, if someone has advocated for a purely empathic immigration policy, please point me to their posts, because I ain't seeing it.
My position is that any degree of empathy in immigration policies is unnecessary risk taking.
And yes, my analogy with gangs translates perfectly to immigration. Replace arms with intelligence on each and every immigrant, gang with mass of people seeking residency/asylum and victim with your own citizens.
Delivering on campaign promises AND cracking jokes along the way. Let the hand wringing from the outrage machine continue!
Deeply unpopular president does thing that his opponent do not like, also make joke. They express disliking what he is doing. Fan of president says they are whiners because president is doing what he promised, knowing that they would not like it.
In other news, Trump will never willful his promise to fix Obama care, because that is hard. Also those regulations he just formed a task force for, they will remain in place because that is also hard. But he tried and that is all that matters.
If you'll remember back a few posts ago, I talked about the relationship between Trump and spineless GOP legislators. Obamacare isn't just one executive order away.
On February 25 2017 10:19 KwarK wrote:
On February 25 2017 10:13 Danglars wrote: They were worried about government being able to vet refugees from the middle east, when ISIS promised and had snuck terrorists into the streams.
We absolutely get that people talk about this shit at the dinner table, especially after having read a facebook forward from their racist uncle. The problem is that there isn't actually a real problem underneath all the fears. It's not that Obama wasn't listening to the fears, it's that he was better informed. The solution to people being afraid isn't to pander harder to ignorance, and yet that's exactly what Trump did. The only positive note was that in his case he probably wasn't pandering, he was the racist uncle on facebook.
The real problem is this strange idea that the ivory tower elitists have lost track of the problems facing America because they're lost in all their facts, statistics and real news and won't stop spending all their time listening to experts. Somehow it's become reasonable for an individual who doesn't experience any violent crime to hear about it on his daily fearmongering Fox News segment and decide that he knows that the experts aren't doing enough.
Well, we know you subscribe to the racist uncles on FB and But They're Wrong theories. Kind of the reason this stuff had been bubbling up for a while before Trump hit the national scene with a major immigration message. And most of America didn't give a damn about Newt beyond Contract with America and the '94 revolt against Clinton.
Well, let's examine the claim. You said that the side of America that Trump tapped into was worried about the streams of ISIS terrorists hiding among the Syrian refugees, right? And thought that Obama wasn't doing enough to keep them safe from those. How many Americans killed by ISIS members posing as Syrian refugees would be an acceptable number for you in terms of Obama keeping us safe? Obviously you can never make a perfect system, but there are hundreds of millions of Americans. If, say, he kept the number of people killed by the ISIS refugees under five per year, would that get a passing grade?
Sorry, the quality of the debate today requires me to establish the basics before we go to implications. I do not say Obama didn't do enough, but you did snip that part out of the quote. I don't even know if you can do enough at this point in time, but Obama wouldn't even acknowledge justified fears. Terrorism is about more than net kill count since the aim is to spread fear, not to get people checking how many die from airplane crashes and determine whether or not to go to the mall. Now, at the basic level, can you first say that we know ISIS has promised to infiltrate refugee streams (hide among them before/after) (German Intelligence) and are responsible for prior terrorist attacks (eg Bataclan, also with a side of castration/sexual torture)?
This is a shitty hoax spread by sensationnalist foreign medias. No such thing happened. (Edit: in case it's not clear, talking about the torture stuff at the Bataclan.)
Nice, solid $100 billion within 4 years. For about a million people. There are many more where those came from.
Alternatively, set up refugee camps in bordering nations, send money through UN missions, arrange for humanitarian corridors, help end the war... and that's going to do a lot more for a lot less money.
There is always something missing in the equation when I listen to american right wingers. The whole empathy thing.
"Meh, let's put all those people in camps in Jordan, that's cheaper".
Well. Let say I hope you'll never be in a situation of extreme vulnerability and need with people like you in front of you.
Being in a refugee camp isn't fun. Being a refugee isn't fun in general. And those refugee camps are actually not that bad by refugee camp standards.
... But it's not our job to provide the luxuries of a first world country to them. Any human rights obligations end at keeping them out of a deadly war and not leaving them to die in a similarly terrible situation. The moral argument doesn't hold water here.
Nice, solid $100 billion within 4 years. For about a million people. There are many more where those came from.
Alternatively, set up refugee camps in bordering nations, send money through UN missions, arrange for humanitarian corridors, help end the war... and that's going to do a lot more for a lot less money.
There is always something missing in the equation when I listen to american right wingers. The whole empathy thing.
"Meh, let's put all those people in camps in Jordan, that's cheaper".
Well. Let say I hope you'll never be in a situation of extreme vulnerability and need with people like you in front of you.
Being in a refugee camp isn't fun. Being a refugee isn't fun in general. And those refugee camps are actually not that bad by refugee camp standards.
... But it's not our job to provide the luxuries of a first world country to them. Any human rights obligations end at keeping them out of a deadly war and not leaving them to die in a similarly terrible situation. The moral argument doesn't hold water here.
And what first world luxuries do they get exactly as of now?
If americans are talking about a refugee crysis, are you talking about the one in the middle east, the one you only take refugees in about extreme vetting even before trump? Because if you call that "a crysis for your country" then you are full of shit.
Accepting refugees is all about the long term. Wars define generations and how their children are raised. How we treat people fleeing violence today will impact how that nation and is surrounding neighbors view us for twenty years or more. Leaving people in refugee camps half a decade and refusing to accept any of them will sour relationships for a generation.
Today is judgement day for the Democratic party. Not off to a great start coincidentally not starting their stream yet, while they currently debate banning corporate lobbyists.
Nice, solid $100 billion within 4 years. For about a million people. There are many more where those came from.
Alternatively, set up refugee camps in bordering nations, send money through UN missions, arrange for humanitarian corridors, help end the war... and that's going to do a lot more for a lot less money.
There is always something missing in the equation when I listen to american right wingers. The whole empathy thing.
"Meh, let's put all those people in camps in Jordan, that's cheaper".
Well. Let say I hope you'll never be in a situation of extreme vulnerability and need with people like you in front of you.
Being in a refugee camp isn't fun. Being a refugee isn't fun in general. And those refugee camps are actually not that bad by refugee camp standards.
... But it's not our job to provide the luxuries of a first world country to them. Any human rights obligations end at keeping them out of a deadly war and not leaving them to die in a similarly terrible situation. The moral argument doesn't hold water here.
The moral argument "doesn't hold water" because you think it doesn't. It's a subjective position. Others believe it is the moral responsibility and obligation of the U.S. to welcome refugees within its borders.
This line of discussion started with Elroi defending precisely such a position, and it was replied to his moral objection to the closure of borders that it would be cheaper and more effective to fund refugee camps closer to the conflict zone, implying that this would be just as morally acceptable (if not more so). The problem is that this is a false dichotomy -- in the real world, while it is indeed important to provide support to international organizations and local authorities helping with refugee camps, this does not suffice to improve the situation to such an extent that there will no longer be asylum seekers applying for refugee status in Western countries. So the matter of how to deal with those asylum seekers still presents itself, and putting legal considerations aside it can perfectly well be argued that the U.S. should let them in and help them (after proper vetting) for humane and even economic reasons.
EPT
