|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.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. |
On December 05 2017 08:50 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 08:47 Nyxisto wrote:On December 05 2017 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:42 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:
Speaking of Germany, did y'all read about how Germany is offering the refugees (who are mostly Muslim) money to leave? Who are y'all trying to kid here with this "unfettered Muslim immigration is good" business? Literally no one said "unfettered" immigration of any kind was good, please find a single example of someone doing so. The refugee crisis in Europe was a failure of the EU to deal with it in a way that was both politically expedient and humanitarian regardless, but keep trying to milk it for a poisonous, nationalist agenda. The problem is that EU and most of its individual member states lack the conviction to acknowledge that their first duty is to their citizens and to act accordingly. Immigration should never, ever be used as a charity service. If that means thousands of civilians will die, so be it. If the country can't stomach that thought, then it should send in the military. You can write that into the american constitution but the German constitution guarantees asylum as a humanitarian right (as does just about every country on the planet under international law), regular immigration is called... immigration. My condolences for having such a flaw in your constitution that would force your country to take in over a million refugees at once.
I'm pretty sure the United States treat every refugee arriving on their shore in the exact same way and has in the past. The only difference is that there's more ocean around the United States
|
On December 05 2017 10:14 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 09:51 Plansix wrote:
Xdaunt is just regurgitating the argument used to keep the Italians, Irish, Chinese and any other immigrant group from coming to the US. It's an old argument. The Catholics won't respect our laws, they only listen to the Pope. Chinese don't repspect American values. It's an old argument that tries to paint the newest immigrant population as the worst immigrants. It is so evergreen Xdaunt thinks he has some special insight into culture. This is kind of why I never bought into the assimilation/cultural compatibility argument with who we do and don't let in. Which group people consider "culturally compatible" are just shifting goalposts that change to match what's politically expedient at the time, far more so than those groups actually change in any meaningful way. It wasn't *that* long ago that Irish Catholics were one of the "out" groups, but today basically nobody considers them some sort of cultural danger.
And then the Irish Catholics turned right around and attacked Italian immigrants a generation later, saying they brought crime and their culture was compatable. We couldn't elect a catholic president until the 1960s.
We do this dance every generation. But everyone thinks their reasoning why the new immigrants are bad is some shocking revelation.
|
On December 05 2017 10:14 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 09:51 Plansix wrote:
Xdaunt is just regurgitating the argument used to keep the Italians, Irish, Chinese and any other immigrant group from coming to the US. It's an old argument. The Catholics won't respect our laws, they only listen to the Pope. Chinese don't repspect American values. It's an old argument that tries to paint the newest immigrant population as the worst immigrants. It is so evergreen Xdaunt thinks he has some special insight into culture. This is kind of why I never bought into the assimilation/cultural compatibility argument with who we do and don't let in. Which group people consider "culturally compatible" are just shifting goalposts that change to match what's politically expedient at the time, far more so than those groups actually change in any meaningful way. It wasn't *that* long ago that Irish Catholics were one of the "out" groups, but today basically nobody considers them some sort of cultural danger or worries that Irish Catholic immigrants won't assimilate well into American culture.
I for one am terrified of Boston culture, but that's mostly because I have an irrational fear of red haired people.
Part of the cultural integration that worked for the Irish Catholic communities was "becoming white" which meant exchanging some small QoL gains for perpetuating oppression against non-whites.
A much easier transition for Irish Catholics than Middle Eastern Muslims for obvious reasons.
|
It is in the self interest of those within the nation to adhere to international organizations and conventions, including the UN, the Geneva convention, treaties on refugees, etc. Adhering parties have to make commitments obviously, but those commitments insure the nation's citizens in case they ever do need international solidarity.
Similarly, we've evolved a sense of compassion, solidarity and empathy because it is in our genes' self interest.
|
On December 05 2017 10:20 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 10:14 TheYango wrote:On December 05 2017 09:51 Plansix wrote:
Xdaunt is just regurgitating the argument used to keep the Italians, Irish, Chinese and any other immigrant group from coming to the US. It's an old argument. The Catholics won't respect our laws, they only listen to the Pope. Chinese don't repspect American values. It's an old argument that tries to paint the newest immigrant population as the worst immigrants. It is so evergreen Xdaunt thinks he has some special insight into culture. This is kind of why I never bought into the assimilation/cultural compatibility argument with who we do and don't let in. Which group people consider "culturally compatible" are just shifting goalposts that change to match what's politically expedient at the time, far more so than those groups actually change in any meaningful way. It wasn't *that* long ago that Irish Catholics were one of the "out" groups, but today basically nobody considers them some sort of cultural danger or worries that Irish Catholic immigrants won't assimilate well into American culture. I for one am terrified of Boston culture, but that's mostly because I have an irrational fear of red haired people. Part of the cultural integration that worked for the Irish Catholic communities was "becoming white" which meant exchanging some small QoL gains for perpetuating oppression against non-whites. A much easier transition for Irish Catholics than Middle Eastern Muslims for obvious reasons.
Your fear of Boston is pretty valid. Through you would do fine in Dorchester or Roxbury. The last 20-30 years have gotten Boston good and segregated again, just the way the Irish like it. All the poor black people in 2 neighborhoods.
|
On December 05 2017 10:17 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 08:50 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:47 Nyxisto wrote:On December 05 2017 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:42 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:
Speaking of Germany, did y'all read about how Germany is offering the refugees (who are mostly Muslim) money to leave? Who are y'all trying to kid here with this "unfettered Muslim immigration is good" business? Literally no one said "unfettered" immigration of any kind was good, please find a single example of someone doing so. The refugee crisis in Europe was a failure of the EU to deal with it in a way that was both politically expedient and humanitarian regardless, but keep trying to milk it for a poisonous, nationalist agenda. The problem is that EU and most of its individual member states lack the conviction to acknowledge that their first duty is to their citizens and to act accordingly. Immigration should never, ever be used as a charity service. If that means thousands of civilians will die, so be it. If the country can't stomach that thought, then it should send in the military. You can write that into the american constitution but the German constitution guarantees asylum as a humanitarian right (as does just about every country on the planet under international law), regular immigration is called... immigration. My condolences for having such a flaw in your constitution that would force your country to take in over a million refugees at once. I'm pretty sure the United States treat every refugee arriving on their shore in the exact same way and has in the past. The only difference is that there's more ocean around the United States
This is a very dishonest argument. Countries like Sweden and Germany didnt take refugees in 2015 because they were obliged to under international law. Essentially everyone who reached northern Europe the summer of 2015 had passed through a safe third country on the way and could legally (under international law, I have no idea about the German constitution) have been denied entry. They were let in because a majority of people in the country thought it was the right thing to do. And at least in Sweden as soon as a majority said oh fuckit this is too much (1% of the population in a year is kind of crazy), the doors basically slammed shut.
|
The refugees problem did become to much for the EU to handle. But that had way more to do with sheer volume, rather than some inherent flaw with Muslim refugees. Also a lot of US citizens don't understand how small some of the populations are in the EU.
The US does not face any of these problems.
|
On December 05 2017 09:59 biology]major wrote:
You guys talk past each other by considering absolute positions. It's not ban all immigrants vs accept everyone always. The balance should be drawn by guiding principles, and the principle xdaunt is referencing where a state has its duty to its own citizens first, is actually pretty straight forward and common sense. The implementation here is botched by trump with his racist/triggering rhetoric.
I don't disagree with the principle, but historically political groups have tended to over-exaggerate the threat and undervalue the benefit that particular immigrant groups bring (as I mentioned, we do this shit with a new "out" group every generation and bringing those people into the fold hasn't made the US a worse place every generation). It plays to particular xenophobic fears to pretend that immigrants and refugees represent some greater cultural threat than they actually are.
How many 3rd generation Irish- or Italian-Americans do you consider to be a threat to white America? We do this shit every generation, but in 1-2 generations none of it matters and all the concern about how they wouldn't integrate well or be some cultural threat to the existing population ends up being nothing. I guess maybe we have shitty Italian restaurants now that we wouldn't have otherwise had. Maybe the US would be a better place if the Olive Garden didn't exist.
|
On December 05 2017 10:10 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 09:45 hunts wrote:On December 05 2017 09:17 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 09:12 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:53 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:42 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:
Speaking of Germany, did y'all read about how Germany is offering the refugees (who are mostly Muslim) money to leave? Who are y'all trying to kid here with this "unfettered Muslim immigration is good" business? Literally no one said "unfettered" immigration of any kind was good, please find a single example of someone doing so. The refugee crisis in Europe was a failure of the EU to deal with it in a way that was both politically expedient and humanitarian regardless, but keep trying to milk it for a poisonous, nationalist agenda. The problem is that EU and most of its individual member states lack the conviction to acknowledge that their first duty is to their citizens and to act accordingly. Immigration should never, ever be used as a charity service. If that means thousands of civilians will die, so be it. If the country can't stomach that thought, then it should send in the military. The problem is that the EU failed to act in a co-ordinated way to disperse refugees across the continent, reducing the ability of far-right parties to exploit them for political ends. A state has no 'first duty' - a nation might do, but they are different things. If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. Neither of those possibilities are worth letting people die for. The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me. And this statement... If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. ...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West. Also, by your logic, Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany would've been denied any form of asylum and left to die in concentration camps. 90% of the Jewish Germans who did not find refuge in another country did, of course, meet this end. Yep. Oh god you're not worth engaging with now I realise Yeah, I know. Most of you on the left have trouble dealing with true moral and factual clarity. Maybe Igne will come around and show you how it's done. Or perhaps it's that you're incapable of not arguing in bad faith? Hmm, nah it's literally everyone you disagree with that's dumb, and not you, totally. Totally that everything you say goes over everyone's heads because it's so well nuanced and so cleverly hides your true bigoted opinions. Totally not that everyone sees through your bullshit but you refuse to ever answer anything and try to hide behind vagueries while pretending that no one gets you. xDaunt can surely speak for himself, but I have something of a similar experience in that many on the left back up their political beliefs largely with emotion, rather than clearly defined principles and objectives. xDaunt's position, from what I can tell, isn't an unreasonable one--he's saying that the state should value its own citizens first, and be somewhat insensitive of the cost to foreign lives if necessary. Whether that's a position you agree with depends on how much you value global utility vs a politician's duty to his constituents (you could definitely argue there's more as well). That's independent of whether it's a reasonable position--one that follows from a set of plausibly realistic axioms. A habit I've noticed among some of the left is to refuse to even engage with those of have differing values from them. Igne, to his credit, will seek to clarify and engage even with those whom he disagrees as as I've noticed as well. For the record, I consider myself fairly pro-refugee and pro-immigration but I won't hesitate to acknowledge that immigration is a complex issue and decisions regarding it shouldn't be made lightly.
many on ALL sides have their political beliefs largely backed by emotion. it's just as much on the right as the left.
it's mostly just a fact of how human cognition works.
|
On December 05 2017 10:32 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 10:10 mozoku wrote:On December 05 2017 09:45 hunts wrote:On December 05 2017 09:17 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 09:12 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:53 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:42 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:
Speaking of Germany, did y'all read about how Germany is offering the refugees (who are mostly Muslim) money to leave? Who are y'all trying to kid here with this "unfettered Muslim immigration is good" business? Literally no one said "unfettered" immigration of any kind was good, please find a single example of someone doing so. The refugee crisis in Europe was a failure of the EU to deal with it in a way that was both politically expedient and humanitarian regardless, but keep trying to milk it for a poisonous, nationalist agenda. The problem is that EU and most of its individual member states lack the conviction to acknowledge that their first duty is to their citizens and to act accordingly. Immigration should never, ever be used as a charity service. If that means thousands of civilians will die, so be it. If the country can't stomach that thought, then it should send in the military. The problem is that the EU failed to act in a co-ordinated way to disperse refugees across the continent, reducing the ability of far-right parties to exploit them for political ends. A state has no 'first duty' - a nation might do, but they are different things. If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. Neither of those possibilities are worth letting people die for. The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me. And this statement... If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. ...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West. Also, by your logic, Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany would've been denied any form of asylum and left to die in concentration camps. 90% of the Jewish Germans who did not find refuge in another country did, of course, meet this end. Yep. Oh god you're not worth engaging with now I realise Yeah, I know. Most of you on the left have trouble dealing with true moral and factual clarity. Maybe Igne will come around and show you how it's done. Or perhaps it's that you're incapable of not arguing in bad faith? Hmm, nah it's literally everyone you disagree with that's dumb, and not you, totally. Totally that everything you say goes over everyone's heads because it's so well nuanced and so cleverly hides your true bigoted opinions. Totally not that everyone sees through your bullshit but you refuse to ever answer anything and try to hide behind vagueries while pretending that no one gets you. xDaunt can surely speak for himself, but I have something of a similar experience in that many on the left back up their political beliefs largely with emotion, rather than clearly defined principles and objectives. xDaunt's position, from what I can tell, isn't an unreasonable one--he's saying that the state should value its own citizens first, and be somewhat insensitive of the cost to foreign lives if necessary. Whether that's a position you agree with depends on how much you value global utility vs a politician's duty to his constituents (you could definitely argue there's more as well). That's independent of whether it's a reasonable position--one that follows from a set of plausibly realistic axioms. A habit I've noticed among some of the left is to refuse to even engage with those of have differing values from them. Igne, to his credit, will seek to clarify and engage even with those whom he disagrees as as I've noticed as well. For the record, I consider myself fairly pro-refugee and pro-immigration but I won't hesitate to acknowledge that immigration is a complex issue and decisions regarding it shouldn't be made lightly. many on ALL sides have their political beliefs largely backed by emotion. it's just as much on the right as the left. it's mostly just a fact of how human cognition works.
I would also add, that the left has more facts and less obfuscation of those facts than the right. The reason the left doesn't bother with introducing facts, figures, etc in every discussion is that more than not, the sources of that information is pretty credible. Sure, the right has information that is equally valid, but they're typically skewed in favor of whatever degenerate argument they are in favor of at the moment. xDaunt, to his credit, has good information to present and is relatively well informed on a lot of political topics.
|
On December 05 2017 10:32 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 10:10 mozoku wrote:On December 05 2017 09:45 hunts wrote:On December 05 2017 09:17 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 09:12 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:53 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:42 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:
Speaking of Germany, did y'all read about how Germany is offering the refugees (who are mostly Muslim) money to leave? Who are y'all trying to kid here with this "unfettered Muslim immigration is good" business? Literally no one said "unfettered" immigration of any kind was good, please find a single example of someone doing so. The refugee crisis in Europe was a failure of the EU to deal with it in a way that was both politically expedient and humanitarian regardless, but keep trying to milk it for a poisonous, nationalist agenda. The problem is that EU and most of its individual member states lack the conviction to acknowledge that their first duty is to their citizens and to act accordingly. Immigration should never, ever be used as a charity service. If that means thousands of civilians will die, so be it. If the country can't stomach that thought, then it should send in the military. The problem is that the EU failed to act in a co-ordinated way to disperse refugees across the continent, reducing the ability of far-right parties to exploit them for political ends. A state has no 'first duty' - a nation might do, but they are different things. If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. Neither of those possibilities are worth letting people die for. The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me. And this statement... If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. ...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West. Also, by your logic, Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany would've been denied any form of asylum and left to die in concentration camps. 90% of the Jewish Germans who did not find refuge in another country did, of course, meet this end. Yep. Oh god you're not worth engaging with now I realise Yeah, I know. Most of you on the left have trouble dealing with true moral and factual clarity. Maybe Igne will come around and show you how it's done. Or perhaps it's that you're incapable of not arguing in bad faith? Hmm, nah it's literally everyone you disagree with that's dumb, and not you, totally. Totally that everything you say goes over everyone's heads because it's so well nuanced and so cleverly hides your true bigoted opinions. Totally not that everyone sees through your bullshit but you refuse to ever answer anything and try to hide behind vagueries while pretending that no one gets you. xDaunt can surely speak for himself, but I have something of a similar experience in that many on the left back up their political beliefs largely with emotion, rather than clearly defined principles and objectives. xDaunt's position, from what I can tell, isn't an unreasonable one--he's saying that the state should value its own citizens first, and be somewhat insensitive of the cost to foreign lives if necessary. Whether that's a position you agree with depends on how much you value global utility vs a politician's duty to his constituents (you could definitely argue there's more as well). That's independent of whether it's a reasonable position--one that follows from a set of plausibly realistic axioms. A habit I've noticed among some of the left is to refuse to even engage with those of have differing values from them. Igne, to his credit, will seek to clarify and engage even with those whom he disagrees as as I've noticed as well. For the record, I consider myself fairly pro-refugee and pro-immigration but I won't hesitate to acknowledge that immigration is a complex issue and decisions regarding it shouldn't be made lightly. many on ALL sides have their political beliefs largely backed by emotion. it's just as much on the right as the left. it's mostly just a fact of how human cognition works.
Sort of, but that misses the point. Your values (which play a large part in determining the positions you agree with) may be emotionally derived, but that shouldn't preclude you from being able to identify those values and evaluate which positions are derived from which values. Even if I think you're a heinous person, I should still be able to either determine a set of axioms from which your conclusions are deduced or find a flaw in your reasoning.
Also I was referring mostly to here (which I certainly did not make clear originally), where survivorship bias and site demographics likely acts as a pretty strong filter for certain posting styles depending on your political positions.
|
On December 05 2017 10:32 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 10:10 mozoku wrote:On December 05 2017 09:45 hunts wrote:On December 05 2017 09:17 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 09:12 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:53 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:42 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:
Speaking of Germany, did y'all read about how Germany is offering the refugees (who are mostly Muslim) money to leave? Who are y'all trying to kid here with this "unfettered Muslim immigration is good" business? Literally no one said "unfettered" immigration of any kind was good, please find a single example of someone doing so. The refugee crisis in Europe was a failure of the EU to deal with it in a way that was both politically expedient and humanitarian regardless, but keep trying to milk it for a poisonous, nationalist agenda. The problem is that EU and most of its individual member states lack the conviction to acknowledge that their first duty is to their citizens and to act accordingly. Immigration should never, ever be used as a charity service. If that means thousands of civilians will die, so be it. If the country can't stomach that thought, then it should send in the military. The problem is that the EU failed to act in a co-ordinated way to disperse refugees across the continent, reducing the ability of far-right parties to exploit them for political ends. A state has no 'first duty' - a nation might do, but they are different things. If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. Neither of those possibilities are worth letting people die for. The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me. And this statement... If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. ...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West. Also, by your logic, Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany would've been denied any form of asylum and left to die in concentration camps. 90% of the Jewish Germans who did not find refuge in another country did, of course, meet this end. Yep. Oh god you're not worth engaging with now I realise Yeah, I know. Most of you on the left have trouble dealing with true moral and factual clarity. Maybe Igne will come around and show you how it's done. Or perhaps it's that you're incapable of not arguing in bad faith? Hmm, nah it's literally everyone you disagree with that's dumb, and not you, totally. Totally that everything you say goes over everyone's heads because it's so well nuanced and so cleverly hides your true bigoted opinions. Totally not that everyone sees through your bullshit but you refuse to ever answer anything and try to hide behind vagueries while pretending that no one gets you. xDaunt can surely speak for himself, but I have something of a similar experience in that many on the left back up their political beliefs largely with emotion, rather than clearly defined principles and objectives. xDaunt's position, from what I can tell, isn't an unreasonable one--he's saying that the state should value its own citizens first, and be somewhat insensitive of the cost to foreign lives if necessary. Whether that's a position you agree with depends on how much you value global utility vs a politician's duty to his constituents (you could definitely argue there's more as well). That's independent of whether it's a reasonable position--one that follows from a set of plausibly realistic axioms. A habit I've noticed among some of the left is to refuse to even engage with those of have differing values from them. Igne, to his credit, will seek to clarify and engage even with those whom he disagrees as as I've noticed as well. For the record, I consider myself fairly pro-refugee and pro-immigration but I won't hesitate to acknowledge that immigration is a complex issue and decisions regarding it shouldn't be made lightly. many on ALL sides have their political beliefs largely backed by emotion. it's just as much on the right as the left. it's mostly just a fact of how human cognition works.
It is most definitely not just as much on the left as the right.
|
And emotions are not invalid in discussion. If anything left leaning folks should do less talking down to emotional responses to issues, rather than addressing them.
|
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/power-causes-brain-damage/528711/
Some people here might find this interesting.
“Hubris syndrome,” as [Lord David Owen] and a co-author, Jonathan Davidson, defined it in a 2009 article published in Brain, “is a disorder of the possession of power, particularly power which has been associated with overwhelming success, held for a period of years and with minimal constraint on the leader.” Its 14 clinical features include: manifest contempt for others, loss of contact with reality, restless or reckless actions, and displays of incompetence.
Does this sound like anyone we know of? Those symptoms seems familiar, but I just can't quite place who they remind me of... /s
|
On December 05 2017 10:42 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 10:32 zlefin wrote:On December 05 2017 10:10 mozoku wrote:On December 05 2017 09:45 hunts wrote:On December 05 2017 09:17 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 09:12 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:53 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:42 kollin wrote:
[quote]
Literally no one said "unfettered" immigration of any kind was good, please find a single example of someone doing so. The refugee crisis in Europe was a failure of the EU to deal with it in a way that was both politically expedient and humanitarian regardless, but keep trying to milk it for a poisonous, nationalist agenda. The problem is that EU and most of its individual member states lack the conviction to acknowledge that their first duty is to their citizens and to act accordingly. Immigration should never, ever be used as a charity service. If that means thousands of civilians will die, so be it. If the country can't stomach that thought, then it should send in the military. The problem is that the EU failed to act in a co-ordinated way to disperse refugees across the continent, reducing the ability of far-right parties to exploit them for political ends. A state has no 'first duty' - a nation might do, but they are different things. If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. Neither of those possibilities are worth letting people die for. The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me. And this statement... If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. ...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West. Also, by your logic, Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany would've been denied any form of asylum and left to die in concentration camps. 90% of the Jewish Germans who did not find refuge in another country did, of course, meet this end. Yep. Oh god you're not worth engaging with now I realise Yeah, I know. Most of you on the left have trouble dealing with true moral and factual clarity. Maybe Igne will come around and show you how it's done. Or perhaps it's that you're incapable of not arguing in bad faith? Hmm, nah it's literally everyone you disagree with that's dumb, and not you, totally. Totally that everything you say goes over everyone's heads because it's so well nuanced and so cleverly hides your true bigoted opinions. Totally not that everyone sees through your bullshit but you refuse to ever answer anything and try to hide behind vagueries while pretending that no one gets you. xDaunt can surely speak for himself, but I have something of a similar experience in that many on the left back up their political beliefs largely with emotion, rather than clearly defined principles and objectives. xDaunt's position, from what I can tell, isn't an unreasonable one--he's saying that the state should value its own citizens first, and be somewhat insensitive of the cost to foreign lives if necessary. Whether that's a position you agree with depends on how much you value global utility vs a politician's duty to his constituents (you could definitely argue there's more as well). That's independent of whether it's a reasonable position--one that follows from a set of plausibly realistic axioms. A habit I've noticed among some of the left is to refuse to even engage with those of have differing values from them. Igne, to his credit, will seek to clarify and engage even with those whom he disagrees as as I've noticed as well. For the record, I consider myself fairly pro-refugee and pro-immigration but I won't hesitate to acknowledge that immigration is a complex issue and decisions regarding it shouldn't be made lightly. many on ALL sides have their political beliefs largely backed by emotion. it's just as much on the right as the left. it's mostly just a fact of how human cognition works. Sort of, but that misses the point. Your values (which play a large part in determining the positions you agree with) may be emotionally derived, but that shouldn't preclude you from being able to identify those values and evaluate which positions are derived from which values. Even if I think you're a heinous person, I should still be able to either determine a set of axioms from which your conclusions are deduced or find a flaw in your reasoning. Also I was referring mostly to here (which I certainly did not make clear originally), where survivorship bias and site demographics likely acts as a pretty strong filter for certain posting styles depending on your political positions.
just because you think you identified the values does not mean you did, nor that you did correctly. especially when they are examined for consistency, it often turns out that it's really about something other than what people ostensibly claim to be their values.
and in many cases here flaws are found in that reasoning, and deep inconsistencies have been shown for some of the right-leaning posters (as well as undoubtedly some of the left).
flaws in reasoning matter little to finding conclusions anyways, as conclusions themselves are often not based in reason, rather the conclusion is based in emotion, then reasons are found to justify that conclusion. such is the basis for rationalization processes (which are very well documented to occur in general, and occur quite a bit in the thread).
and it doesn't miss my point, I was amending your statement to correct an improper bias that placed such behavior more on the left than was actually the case, from a comparative standpoint. (i.e. your statement made it seem like it was more a problem occuring on the left than the right)
this site does not seem much different in general (aside from the general tendency for people who are more engaged in politics itself, as well as those more prone to posting on the 'net)
PS also note that those underlying values you refer to may be bigotry, which one will not openly admit to, but can nonetheless be demonstrated to be the most consistent explanation of the conclusions reached.
|
Party before country. Winning by any means necessary. The Republican Party.
|
If you want to argue about immigration pushing down wages I'll listen. That's a real concern. A vanishing nebulous idea of culture is bullshit and always has been and doesn't deserve the breath it takes to dismiss it.
|
Republicans can cringe and faux-denounce Moore all they want, but as long as they try to rattle off the idea that voting for a Democrat is somehow worse, it all rings rather hollow. They are complicit in supporting a pedophile at this stage, and don't seem to mind.
|
On December 05 2017 11:22 NewSunshine wrote:Republicans can cringe and faux-denounce Moore all they want, but as long as they try to rattle off the idea that voting for a Democrat is somehow worse, it all rings rather hollow. They are complicit in supporting a pedophile at this stage, and don't seem to mind.
The guy wants to ban people from congress based on their religion. There is 0 chance Republicans would ever support someone who decided that religion was Christianity, but they'll do it for someone who hates the Muslim religion.
They are completely without integrity.
|
On December 05 2017 09:48 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2017 09:06 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:53 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:44 xDaunt wrote:On December 05 2017 08:42 kollin wrote:On December 05 2017 08:39 xDaunt wrote:
Speaking of Germany, did y'all read about how Germany is offering the refugees (who are mostly Muslim) money to leave? Who are y'all trying to kid here with this "unfettered Muslim immigration is good" business? Literally no one said "unfettered" immigration of any kind was good, please find a single example of someone doing so. The refugee crisis in Europe was a failure of the EU to deal with it in a way that was both politically expedient and humanitarian regardless, but keep trying to milk it for a poisonous, nationalist agenda. The problem is that EU and most of its individual member states lack the conviction to acknowledge that their first duty is to their citizens and to act accordingly. Immigration should never, ever be used as a charity service. If that means thousands of civilians will die, so be it. If the country can't stomach that thought, then it should send in the military. The problem is that the EU failed to act in a co-ordinated way to disperse refugees across the continent, reducing the ability of far-right parties to exploit them for political ends. A state has no 'first duty' - a nation might do, but they are different things. If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. Neither of those possibilities are worth letting people die for. The state is the government. The nation is the people. In a democratic form of government, the state's power is derived from the people through a social contract with the people to govern in their interests. This is why the state's first duty is to the welfare of the people -- ie the nation. Why you would challenge any of these basic propositions is beyond me. And this statement... If the members of a nation can't recognise and cope with people of different nations coming in, then it is either a nation which is founded on very weak premises, or currently feels as if it is founded on weak premises and is consequently reacting with a flare of nationalist fervour. ...is not grounded in any kind of factual reality. To the contrary, history is littered with examples of conflict and war erupting where peoples with conflicting values live in close proximity to each other. Virtually everyone understands this with the exception of the leftist multiculturalists in the West. Also, by your logic, Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany would've been denied any form of asylum and left to die in concentration camps. 90% of the Jewish Germans who did not find refuge in another country did, of course, meet this end. Yep. You are using one of Vox Day's talking points, which you brought up mid August, argued with everyone who took issue with them, but also claimed you didn't actually believe. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=26692998Are you still trying to argue that you're not some sort of white ethno-nationalist?
does foucault strike you as an ethno-nationalist? "politics is war by another means?" does that ring any bells?
i feel like most of you are unconsciously reading all of xdaunt's posts as if they were written by darth vader. and/or maybe theres some reading comprehension issues going on.
on the cake issue, my question is: why would you want a cake from someone who hates you anyway? maybe i've just heard too many stories from friends in the restaurabt biz about how employees do some fucked up shit to get back at rude and disrespectful customers
|
|
|
|
|
|
173
EPT
