|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On August 04 2017 23:41 Plansix wrote:
The cultural superiority argument created an “us vs them” dynamic by default, labeling outside cultures as inferior and Othering people of different cultures. It is hardly an original concept and been used by some of the worst actors in history.
So what is the solution? Pretend there is no 'us' and 'them'? Forsake competition in favour of denial of reality? Just keep the competition civil and we'll do alright. We all 'other' each other, anyway. Europeans think Americans are vulgar, middle easterners think westerners are degenerate, Americans think Europeans are effeminate, etc. Kind of wish I would hear more positive comments from people talking about their own cultures. People should take more pride in what makes them exceptional and spend less time trying to make everybody equal. That's the good kind of diversity.
|
On August 05 2017 00:06 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2017 23:41 Plansix wrote:
The cultural superiority argument created an “us vs them” dynamic by default, labeling outside cultures as inferior and Othering people of different cultures. It is hardly an original concept and been used by some of the worst actors in history. So what is the solution? Pretend there is no 'us' and 'them'? Forsake competition in favour of denial of reality? Just keep the competition civil and we'll do alright. We all 'other' each other, anyway. Europeans think Americans are vulgar, middle easterners think westerners are degenerate, Americans think Europeans are effeminate, etc. Kind of wish I would hear more positive comments from people talking about their own cultures. People should take more pride in what makes them exceptional and spend less time trying to make everybody equal. That's the good kind of diversity.
I can't think of a definition of "us" vs "them" that is vague enough that it would have me, somewhere left of standard social democracy and somewhere right of socialism, have something in common with everyone of "us" including the far right, but at the same time specific enough that it makes me have nothing in common with "them".
|
On August 05 2017 00:06 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On August 04 2017 23:41 Plansix wrote:
The cultural superiority argument created an “us vs them” dynamic by default, labeling outside cultures as inferior and Othering people of different cultures. It is hardly an original concept and been used by some of the worst actors in history. So what is the solution? Pretend there is no 'us' and 'them'? Forsake competition in favour of denial of reality? Just keep the competition civil and we'll do alright. We all 'other' each other, anyway. Europeans think Americans are vulgar, middle easterners think westerners are degenerate, Americans think Europeans are effeminate, etc. Kind of wish I would hear more positive comments from people talking about their own cultures. People should take more pride in what makes them exceptional and spend less time trying to make everybody equal. That's the good kind of diversity.
You are confusing self awareness with self loathing. Self critique is a critical aspect of improving. We cannot improve as a people without being aware of our own flaws and addressing them. Believing your culture is superior to all others is the antithesis of critique. It also leaves no room for new ideas to come from those cultures to enter yours.
|
I think the idea that we should define people by where they are on some nonsensical spectrum is very, very sad.
|
Norway28852 Posts
Besides, I think the idea that there is an us and them is mostly perpetuated by the idea that there is an us and them.
|
Norway28852 Posts
On August 05 2017 00:16 bardtown wrote:
I think the idea that we should define people by where they are on some nonsensical spectrum is very, very sad.
What should we define people by, then? Isn't chosen political affiliation at the very least more fair than cultural/ethnic/regional origin?
I'm personally on board with 'we should try not to define people and group people' but that seems heavily opposed to your favoring of the us and them narrative.
|
We Germans had some quite bad experiences with your "good kind of diversity". We neither should or have to indulge our worst instincts. I doubt you actually followed that particular thought to the end but thats where the "Manifest Destiny" or "Final Solution" come from. Tribalism is something to struggle against not to indulge.
The official motto of the EU happens to be In varietate concordia - "Unity in diversity".
|
On August 05 2017 00:18 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Besides, I think the idea that there is an us and them is mostly perpetuated by the idea that there is an us and them.
People have found clever ways to mask that simple argument throughout political history. Our President is currently pushing the factually inaccurate concept that legal immigrants are stealing jobs from American workers and depressing wages nationwide. It creates a false US worker vs immigrant dynamic that has been exploited throughout history for political gain.
|
On August 05 2017 00:16 bardtown wrote:
I think the idea that we should define people by where they are on some nonsensical spectrum is very, very sad.
I honestly don't think that you really believe it's that sad. And I struggle to find a logical justification for a worldview where political appartenance is a sad way to define people but cultural appartenance isn't.
|
On August 05 2017 00:21 Unentschieden wrote:
We Germans had some quite bad experiences with your "good kind of diversity". We neither should or have to indulge our worst instincts. I doubt you actually followed that particular thought to the end but thats where the "Manifest Destiny" or "Final Solution" come from. Tribalism is something to struggle against not to indulge.
The official motto of the EU happens to be In varietate concordia - "Unity in diversity".
I think it's more accurate to say that non-Germans had some bad experiences with your attempt to completely eradicate diversity, actually. I find the idea that the EU cares about diversity quite interesting, too. It is a constantly centralising force that is trampling over the unique institutions and economies of its member states.
'Us vs them' applies to any sphere of competition just as a matter of fact. If I had to choose only one association it would be with friends/family. I disagree politically with all the people that I like most. But everything is competition. Starting a business, running a country, playing a sport, politics, whatever.
|
On August 04 2017 20:58 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
New Zealand. A large low density landmass with aboriginals that cannot resist the colonisers. An economy that grew due to said landmass being appropriate to sheep and exporting them to Britain. I have no idea why it has a Dutch name though.
Canada. A large low density landmass with aboriginals that cannot resist the colonisers. Was mostly a French colony before the British just happen to recieve the area after fighting a few wars.
Australia. A large low density landmass with aboriginals that cannot resist the colonisers. Insert joke about being a dumping ground for criminals.
Lets look at South Africa. Colonised by Dutch, before Dutch individuality got overridden by massed British conformity. And then...oh. Oh dear. It's culture right?
USA. A large landmass with aboriginals that cannot resist the colonisers. Was a Dutch colony, but see above. And then...Oh. Oh dear. It's culture right?
Morally there is a lot of "...oh. Oh dear." about Australia's treatment of the native Aboriginals as well. Maybe we ended up in a better place than the US or South Africa (depends how you think about it) but we did a lot of terrible things before getting there.
I don't know about Canada, but I think New Zealand has a considerably better track record.
|
On August 05 2017 00:38 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2017 00:21 Unentschieden wrote:
We Germans had some quite bad experiences with your "good kind of diversity". We neither should or have to indulge our worst instincts. I doubt you actually followed that particular thought to the end but thats where the "Manifest Destiny" or "Final Solution" come from. Tribalism is something to struggle against not to indulge.
The official motto of the EU happens to be In varietate concordia - "Unity in diversity". I think it's more accurate to say that non-Germans had some bad experiences with your attempt to completely eradicate diversity, actually. I find the idea that the EU cares about diversity quite interesting, too. It is a constantly centralising force that is trampling over the unique institutions and economies of its member states. 'Us vs them' applies to any sphere of competition just as a matter of fact. If I had to choose only one association it would be with friends/family. I disagree politically with all the people that I like most. But everything is competition. Starting a business, running a country, playing a sport, politics, whatever.
There are levels of us vs them. I can work for a company and hang out with a person working for a competitor (respecting the company secrets as with any other person not from a competitor). I can play for a team and then switch to their direct competitor and still talk to my old team mates.
When it gets bad is when you can't talk normally to people in the other group for some strange reason.
|
On August 05 2017 00:43 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2017 00:38 bardtown wrote:On August 05 2017 00:21 Unentschieden wrote:
We Germans had some quite bad experiences with your "good kind of diversity". We neither should or have to indulge our worst instincts. I doubt you actually followed that particular thought to the end but thats where the "Manifest Destiny" or "Final Solution" come from. Tribalism is something to struggle against not to indulge.
The official motto of the EU happens to be In varietate concordia - "Unity in diversity". I think it's more accurate to say that non-Germans had some bad experiences with your attempt to completely eradicate diversity, actually. I find the idea that the EU cares about diversity quite interesting, too. It is a constantly centralising force that is trampling over the unique institutions and economies of its member states. 'Us vs them' applies to any sphere of competition just as a matter of fact. If I had to choose only one association it would be with friends/family. I disagree politically with all the people that I like most. But everything is competition. Starting a business, running a country, playing a sport, politics, whatever. There are levels of us vs them. I can work for a company and hang out with a person working for a competitor (respecting the company secrets as with any other person not from a competitor). I can play for a team and then switch to their direct competitor and still talk to my old team mates. When it gets bad is when you can't talk normally to people in the other group for some strange reason.
I agree completely.
|
The existence competition in a capitalistic system is not the Us vs Them dynamic that people are discussing. The Us vs Them dynamic is an often fictional competitive dynamic pushed by people in power to pit two groups against each other. As I said earlier, the fictional Us Worker vs Immigrant dynamic is an often exploited drum up political engagement. There is no evidence to support immigrants depressing wages or taking jobs, as all the areas they immigrate to have nearly full employment and a labor shortage. But it is still pushed as if it is reality.
|
On August 05 2017 00:46 Plansix wrote:
The existence competition in a capitalistic system is not the Us vs Them dynamic that people are discussing. The Us vs Them dynamic is an often fictional competitive dynamic pushed by people in power to pit two groups against each other. As I said earlier, the fictional Us Worker vs Immigrant dynamic is an often exploited drum up political engagement. There is no evidence to support immigrants depressing wages or taking jobs, as all the areas they immigrate to have nearly full employment and a labor shortage. But it is still pushed as if it is reality.
There is plenty of evidence. It is well understood that unskilled immigration results in wage depression for the lowest earners in society, and so the working class are correct in seeing them as competition and also in seeing people who claim that there is 'no evidence' as a threat to their livelihoods; especially when it tends to be the middle class telling them this, who, coincidentally I'm sure, benefit from cheap labour.
|
On August 05 2017 00:59 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2017 00:46 Plansix wrote:
The existence competition in a capitalistic system is not the Us vs Them dynamic that people are discussing. The Us vs Them dynamic is an often fictional competitive dynamic pushed by people in power to pit two groups against each other. As I said earlier, the fictional Us Worker vs Immigrant dynamic is an often exploited drum up political engagement. There is no evidence to support immigrants depressing wages or taking jobs, as all the areas they immigrate to have nearly full employment and a labor shortage. But it is still pushed as if it is reality. There is plenty of evidence. It is well understood that unskilled immigration results in wage depression for the lowest earners in society, and so the working class are correct in seeing them as competition and also in seeing people who claim that there is 'no evidence' as a threat to their livelihoods.
There is currently a labor shortage in the US, especially in unskilled labor and construction. There is no evidence(or broad support) to cut down on legal immigration in the US. There is also no evidence that wages are being depressed by immigrants. It is an often cited by pro-business groups who would rather not pay their workers more. It is a fictional narrative created by the Trumps administration to fire up his base after their failure on healthcare.
Edit: http://www.npr.org/2017/08/04/541321716/fact-check-have-low-skilled-immigrants-taken-american-jobs
A recent analysis commissioned and published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine found "the literature on employment impacts finds little evidence that immigration significantly affects the overall employment levels of native-born workers."
Overall, the analysis called the inflow of foreign-born people "a relatively minor factor in the $18 trillion U.S. economy." However, the analysis does cite recent research that immigration could reduce the number of hours worked by teenagers and some evidence that recent immigrants reduce the employment rate of prior immigrants.
The reality is that immigration has a small impact on some local areas employment and wages, but those can all be addressed at the local level. Nationally(which is the discuss, as the federal goverment is pushing to reduce immigration) they have almost no impact.
|
I wonder how you get half a million homeless and a simultaneous unskilled labour shortage. I can't imagine the US offers many visas for unskilled workers, either. Seems rather more like an issue with illegal immigration than legal immigration, but anyway this is US politics.
|
On August 05 2017 01:13 bardtown wrote:
I wonder how you get half a million homeless and a simultaneous unskilled labour shortage. I can't imagine the US offers many visas for unskilled workers, either. Seems rather more like an issue with illegal immigration than legal immigration, but anyway this is US politics.
The vast majority of homeless work and the rest are disabled and incapable of working. People are almost never homeless on purpose. And we don't offer enough unskilled visas in the US, that is why we have an illegal immigration problem. The demand for unskilled labor is that high and Americans won't do the jobs.
|
On August 05 2017 00:59 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On August 05 2017 00:46 Plansix wrote:
The existence competition in a capitalistic system is not the Us vs Them dynamic that people are discussing. The Us vs Them dynamic is an often fictional competitive dynamic pushed by people in power to pit two groups against each other. As I said earlier, the fictional Us Worker vs Immigrant dynamic is an often exploited drum up political engagement. There is no evidence to support immigrants depressing wages or taking jobs, as all the areas they immigrate to have nearly full employment and a labor shortage. But it is still pushed as if it is reality. There is plenty of evidence. It is well understood that unskilled immigration results in wage depression for the lowest earners in society, and so the working class are correct in seeing them as competition and also in seeing people who claim that there is 'no evidence' as a threat to their livelihoods; especially when it tends to be the middle class telling them this, who, coincidentally I'm sure, benefit from cheap labour.
They are a competition regardless of whether they migrate or not for as long as the market is open. If you don't want them to be a competition the least you have to do is either introduce trade barriers that raise the cost of imports to your local prices or make your own prices competitive through state support. If you don't do either firms just leave for other countries because they still have access to your market but can produce abroad.
Open borders for goods is the exact same as open border for people, just without the social implications of migration.
|
On August 05 2017 01:13 bardtown wrote:
I wonder how you get half a million homeless and a simultaneous unskilled labour shortage. I can't imagine the US offers many visas for unskilled workers, either. Seems rather more like an issue with illegal immigration than legal immigration, but anyway this is US politics.
We should indeed just force people to relocate and work. I hear there are some empty camps in Siberia we might be able to use.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
