www.Tobold.com
Tobold@GMail.com
A blog with my thoughts regarding games I am playing and other stuff in life. Please read my Terms of Service
RSS Feed
Monday, August 21, 2017
I'm shocked, SHOCKED, that racism is going on here!
When viewed from over here in Europe, American politics sometimes appear a bit weird. Last week it was weirder than usual. President Trump flip-flopped on his condemnation of white supremacists and racists, and there was a huge outcry about how he finally failed to take a strong verbal stand against racism. That left me very much confused! I had been under the impression that as a candidate Trump had run on a platform of pretty open racism and hate of foreigners, especially Mexicans and Muslims. I had been under the impression that a large part of the American electorate, somewhere between 30% and 50%, believed that foreigners were to be blamed for many American problems, and that an anti-foreigner "America first" policy would improve things. In short, I thought that once you stripped off the veneer of political correctness, the policies of xenophobia and racism were pretty much American mainstream. So how come everybody is so outraged if a president says what we all know that he is thinking?
What is so weird about political correctness is that people are okay with *actions* that directly target a specific race or religion, like building a wall towards Mexico, or a Muslim travel ban. But *speech* which contains racial or religious or gender discrimination is unacceptable? I can't help but wonder whether it wouldn't be a lot saner to do it the other way around: Have an open discussion about the fears and prejudices people have towards other races, religions, genders, or sexual orientations, but refrain from actually persecuting people for having a different race, religion, or sexual orientation. There is strong scientific evidence that a certain degree of xenophobia is something hard-wired into the parts of our brains from an earlier evolutionary period, and overcoming xenophobia means teaching the newer parts of the brain to override those outdated instincts. Prohibiting people from talking about those instinctive feelings isn't really helpful in that respect, because it doesn't make those feelings go away.
What is so weird about political correctness is that people are okay with *actions* that directly target a specific race or religion, like building a wall towards Mexico, or a Muslim travel ban. But *speech* which contains racial or religious or gender discrimination is unacceptable? I can't help but wonder whether it wouldn't be a lot saner to do it the other way around: Have an open discussion about the fears and prejudices people have towards other races, religions, genders, or sexual orientations, but refrain from actually persecuting people for having a different race, religion, or sexual orientation. There is strong scientific evidence that a certain degree of xenophobia is something hard-wired into the parts of our brains from an earlier evolutionary period, and overcoming xenophobia means teaching the newer parts of the brain to override those outdated instincts. Prohibiting people from talking about those instinctive feelings isn't really helpful in that respect, because it doesn't make those feelings go away.
- posted by Tobold @ 2:42 PM Permanent Link
Comments:
<< Home
Newer› ‹Older
Hating immigrants isn't racist or xenophobic, it's just like hating smokers or too fast drivers. He doesn't hate Mexican people, he hates people who perform the action of moving to the USA illegally.
I don't have too high opinion about those Hungarian people (I'm Hungarian) who leave Hungary to do menial jobs in Germany or UK. Does that make me anti-Hungarian racist?
I don't have too high opinion about those Hungarian people (I'm Hungarian) who leave Hungary to do menial jobs in Germany or UK. Does that make me anti-Hungarian racist?
The left wants to force him to decry his allies in the white supremacist camp. The right wants him to shut up and ix-nay on the atzis-nay or people might catch on that their agenda aligns shockingly well with the white supremacists.
This was a really interesting week in the US. But I think it is safe to say that very few people who are pro-wall had a problem with Trump's running vomit of words on Charlottesville. It's the people who also are pissed off about the wall, and the immigration reform, and the general attitude of the POTUS who see yet one more opportunity to watch him embarrass himself in public like some geriatric grandpa off his meds.
This was a really interesting week in the US. But I think it is safe to say that very few people who are pro-wall had a problem with Trump's running vomit of words on Charlottesville. It's the people who also are pissed off about the wall, and the immigration reform, and the general attitude of the POTUS who see yet one more opportunity to watch him embarrass himself in public like some geriatric grandpa off his meds.
"President Trump flip-flopped on his condemnation of white supremacists and racists"
Trump was only "against" white supremacists are racists when he was reading the prepared remarks, written by one of his staff and saying only what you expect from a republican response (vague condemnation of hate, but nothing too explicit because you are still courting those votes). As soon as he went off-script, he was in clear support of them. I don't think we can pretend there was ever any confusion as to which side he stands on.
Trump was only "against" white supremacists are racists when he was reading the prepared remarks, written by one of his staff and saying only what you expect from a republican response (vague condemnation of hate, but nothing too explicit because you are still courting those votes). As soon as he went off-script, he was in clear support of them. I don't think we can pretend there was ever any confusion as to which side he stands on.
"I had been under the impression that a large part of the American electorate, somewhere between 30% and 50%, believed that foreigners were to be blamed for many American problems"
So, somewhere between 50% and 70% would not have believed that, then? And you're surprised there was outrage over his statements? That figures how, exactly?
So, somewhere between 50% and 70% would not have believed that, then? And you're surprised there was outrage over his statements? That figures how, exactly?
Well, how can you have any political dialogue if you react with immediate outrage to anything the other half of the people say? To be really unspeakable an opinion cannot be held by a large portion of the populace. Otherwise you are just engaging in an exercise in which you use a fake moral code to prevent your political opponent to say anything at all.
Sadly, the only reason this dialog is occurring at all is because a neo-Nazi drove his car into protesters AND Trump bungled the message. Had only one of those happened, it would have been just another week. Hell, could be that we're at the "just another week where nothing matters" already.
Welcome to America under Republican government.
Welcome to America under Republican government.
"Otherwise you are just engaging in an exercise in which you use a fake moral code to prevent your political opponent to say anything at all."
Absolutely correct, sir. And yes, that's the point.
Absolutely correct, sir. And yes, that's the point.
@Tobold
Well, how can you have any political dialogue if you react with immediate outrage to anything the other half of the people say?
You keep representing your thoughts as if the US is split right down the middle of center, with "half" being on one side or the other. Why do you keep doing this? You know full well that what we are experiencing is due to fringe groups that exist at the very extremes of the political spectrum. And both sides are happily using the media mouths to further their agendas. I'd really like to know which group(s) you think are behind defacing national monuments that have nothing to do with slavery or the civil war? Some of these people are not going to be happy until they see America burn or collapse. Should we sit idle-by and let them have their way?
Well, how can you have any political dialogue if you react with immediate outrage to anything the other half of the people say?
You keep representing your thoughts as if the US is split right down the middle of center, with "half" being on one side or the other. Why do you keep doing this? You know full well that what we are experiencing is due to fringe groups that exist at the very extremes of the political spectrum. And both sides are happily using the media mouths to further their agendas. I'd really like to know which group(s) you think are behind defacing national monuments that have nothing to do with slavery or the civil war? Some of these people are not going to be happy until they see America burn or collapse. Should we sit idle-by and let them have their way?
@NoGuff: But that is exactly my point. Those *aren't* fringe groups. Yes, okay, the guys waving Nazi flags or killing protesters are fringe. But the side that is generally in favor of making laws against "Mexicans" or "Muslims" is about half of the population and obviously more than half of the electoral college.
There was a news story today about a poll in swing states saying that 20% of Trump voters wouldn't vote for him again. Great jubilation on the left, because if you translate that to votes in the mid-term or next presidential election it means the Democrats win. But did anyone realize that it also means that 80% of the Trump voters still think that he is doing a good job, regardless of what he is saying about white supremacists? That is *not* a fringe group!
And I must say the so-called "liberal" forces are doing a very bad job of addressing the fears and problems of that rather large group. This is the group that lost out from globalisation and you are still trying to ram globalisation down their throat. The liberal economic system has fundamental flaws of distribution, where the majority of benefits goes to a well-educated elite, and lots of people are left behind. Are you surprised that opinions move toward the fringe if both the center right and the center left are favoring the elite over the middle class?
There was a news story today about a poll in swing states saying that 20% of Trump voters wouldn't vote for him again. Great jubilation on the left, because if you translate that to votes in the mid-term or next presidential election it means the Democrats win. But did anyone realize that it also means that 80% of the Trump voters still think that he is doing a good job, regardless of what he is saying about white supremacists? That is *not* a fringe group!
And I must say the so-called "liberal" forces are doing a very bad job of addressing the fears and problems of that rather large group. This is the group that lost out from globalisation and you are still trying to ram globalisation down their throat. The liberal economic system has fundamental flaws of distribution, where the majority of benefits goes to a well-educated elite, and lots of people are left behind. Are you surprised that opinions move toward the fringe if both the center right and the center left are favoring the elite over the middle class?
Please don't apply your earlier remarks about racism to people wanting immigration reform and more secure borders. Hundreds of people, from many countries, attempt to fraudulently enter this country each and every day. If the person being sent back is Russian, does that make us racist against Russians? Hell no it doesn't.
This is the group that lost out from globalisation and you are still trying to ram globalisation down their throat.
Wait, aren't you a supporter of globalization? If you are to be truthful about globalization, then you know as well as I do that the entities behind it's push reside all over the political spectrum and have no true, fixed position between left and right. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the recent rise of "alt-right" and "alt-left" movements who actually go out in public and use fear and physical intimidation tactics on each other. These fringe movements are NOT representative of the true American sentiment and the majority of Americans are separating themselves from both extremist positions. Yes, Trump botched his handling of this and he will pay the price.
This is the group that lost out from globalisation and you are still trying to ram globalisation down their throat.
Wait, aren't you a supporter of globalization? If you are to be truthful about globalization, then you know as well as I do that the entities behind it's push reside all over the political spectrum and have no true, fixed position between left and right. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the recent rise of "alt-right" and "alt-left" movements who actually go out in public and use fear and physical intimidation tactics on each other. These fringe movements are NOT representative of the true American sentiment and the majority of Americans are separating themselves from both extremist positions. Yes, Trump botched his handling of this and he will pay the price.
Don't insult my intelligence by pretending that a wall towards Mexico isn't motivated by racism. Or that there is the slightest chance of a wall effectively keeping illegal immigrants out (Newsflash: Most of them come by plane!). I'm pretty sure there are also illegal Canadians in the USA, and nobody proposes to build a wall to the north. It is a pure show-piece designed to cater to xenophobic fears of "the base".
I do believe that globalization is the greatest generator of wealth in the history of mankind. However we completely failed to distribute that wealth evenly and fairly. Instead there is some sort of an S-curve, where very rich people got most of the benefits, a good number of well-educated people (like me) got a solid chunk of the created wealth, and an even larger number of people with less education got totally shafted and are made poorer by globalization. The solution is not to reverse globalization. The solution is to mix globalization with a fairer distribution system of the created wealth.
I do believe that globalization is the greatest generator of wealth in the history of mankind. However we completely failed to distribute that wealth evenly and fairly. Instead there is some sort of an S-curve, where very rich people got most of the benefits, a good number of well-educated people (like me) got a solid chunk of the created wealth, and an even larger number of people with less education got totally shafted and are made poorer by globalization. The solution is not to reverse globalization. The solution is to mix globalization with a fairer distribution system of the created wealth.
I don't have too high opinion about those Hungarian people (I'm Hungarian) who leave Hungary to do menial jobs in Germany or UK.
But those people are in Germany legally due to the Schengen accord. And they go to Germany or the USA to improve their situation, earning more than they would at home. Isn't that exactly what Ayn Rand would have recommended to them, to take the initiative and improve their life through hard work?
But those people are in Germany legally due to the Schengen accord. And they go to Germany or the USA to improve their situation, earning more than they would at home. Isn't that exactly what Ayn Rand would have recommended to them, to take the initiative and improve their life through hard work?
@Tobold:
1: you can't call anti-immigration racist and then logically argue on a Randian basis. I'm either a Hungarian-hating Nazi for objecting Hungarians doing menial jobs in Germany or not. Also, Trump got more "hispanic" vote than Mitt Romney, so maybe the American citizens of Mexican and Cuban and such origins don't want the Mexican underclass to march in, bringing drugs, bringing crime and raping. But probably they are racist too.
2: the scheme of doing menial tasks in Germany instead of skilled work in Hungary might work for the individual, but only because the government has socialist programs, so their children and elderly parents get taxpayer support from Hungary - and they don't pay tax in Hungary, but in Germany. Even worse, if they get unemployed or sick, they come home and take benefits.
In a perfectly Randian scheme we would let their families starve to death and refuse to cure them when they come home unless they pay for it. No way in hell they could pay for German health care from the salary they make in Germany, so they would stay in Hungary for their health insurance. They aren't Shrugged Atlases, they are simple loophole exploiters, with the loophole is intentionally placed into Schengen with the explicit intent for Germany to exploit Eastern Europe:
- globalized workforce
- globalized capital
- globalized products
- localized welfare
1: you can't call anti-immigration racist and then logically argue on a Randian basis. I'm either a Hungarian-hating Nazi for objecting Hungarians doing menial jobs in Germany or not. Also, Trump got more "hispanic" vote than Mitt Romney, so maybe the American citizens of Mexican and Cuban and such origins don't want the Mexican underclass to march in, bringing drugs, bringing crime and raping. But probably they are racist too.
2: the scheme of doing menial tasks in Germany instead of skilled work in Hungary might work for the individual, but only because the government has socialist programs, so their children and elderly parents get taxpayer support from Hungary - and they don't pay tax in Hungary, but in Germany. Even worse, if they get unemployed or sick, they come home and take benefits.
In a perfectly Randian scheme we would let their families starve to death and refuse to cure them when they come home unless they pay for it. No way in hell they could pay for German health care from the salary they make in Germany, so they would stay in Hungary for their health insurance. They aren't Shrugged Atlases, they are simple loophole exploiters, with the loophole is intentionally placed into Schengen with the explicit intent for Germany to exploit Eastern Europe:
- globalized workforce
- globalized capital
- globalized products
- localized welfare
Huh? The Hungarian government is socialist? I'm pretty sure it is fascist. At least that is what every European news outlet calls them. And regardless of what they are, we all agree that it is up to the Hungarian government to make the rules about Hungarian welfare, not the German government. So why don't they close the loophole?
It seems to me what you hate are what the British Prime Minister calls the "citizens of nowhere". The people who have enough intelligence to understand how the world works, and enough initiative to use that understanding to their benefit. A much cleverer bunch that the "nationalists" who believe that there is some spiritual value to staying in their "fatherland" or keeping the foreigners out of it.
It seems to me what you hate are what the British Prime Minister calls the "citizens of nowhere". The people who have enough intelligence to understand how the world works, and enough initiative to use that understanding to their benefit. A much cleverer bunch that the "nationalists" who believe that there is some spiritual value to staying in their "fatherland" or keeping the foreigners out of it.
@Tobold: if Hungary is fascist, why France and Spain are losing Jews rapidly to exodus while Hungarian Jewish community is fine?
How to close the loophole?
Deny welfare from people who have family members abroad? Even if it would be politically feasible, don't you think the same Eurocrats would demand "help for the vulnerable" with sanctions and whatnot? I WOULD agree to a system where no one gets welfare and inactives are left with what their active family members give them, but this is very far from the current reality.
The current reality is that taxpayers pay money to welfare recipients. The EU exploits this by taking away the taxpayers while leaving the welfare recipients at the expense of the poor Eastern countries.
I don't believe in the spiritual value of fatherland. I believe that problems must be solved instead of pushed around hoping that someone else solves them. The solution for Africans being illiterates therefore starving is to teach them to read and not to give them food in a camp at Calais.
Fun fact: I WOULD support a United States of Europe with one president, one budget, one army, one law. Angela and the rest of the globalist plunderers don't, because the whole scheme is about exploitation instead of union. They want the productive Greeks, Poles, Hungarians but they don't want the inactives.
Of course at the end the joke is on her, because the African and Asian migrants wanted to go where the big welfare is and just passed trough Eastern Europe and now squatting in Germany, France and Sweden. I'd much rather take a dozen Hungarian inactives who just take my money instead of those migrants who have some strange desire to drive cars into pedestrians and then stab them.
How to close the loophole?
Deny welfare from people who have family members abroad? Even if it would be politically feasible, don't you think the same Eurocrats would demand "help for the vulnerable" with sanctions and whatnot? I WOULD agree to a system where no one gets welfare and inactives are left with what their active family members give them, but this is very far from the current reality.
The current reality is that taxpayers pay money to welfare recipients. The EU exploits this by taking away the taxpayers while leaving the welfare recipients at the expense of the poor Eastern countries.
I don't believe in the spiritual value of fatherland. I believe that problems must be solved instead of pushed around hoping that someone else solves them. The solution for Africans being illiterates therefore starving is to teach them to read and not to give them food in a camp at Calais.
Fun fact: I WOULD support a United States of Europe with one president, one budget, one army, one law. Angela and the rest of the globalist plunderers don't, because the whole scheme is about exploitation instead of union. They want the productive Greeks, Poles, Hungarians but they don't want the inactives.
Of course at the end the joke is on her, because the African and Asian migrants wanted to go where the big welfare is and just passed trough Eastern Europe and now squatting in Germany, France and Sweden. I'd much rather take a dozen Hungarian inactives who just take my money instead of those migrants who have some strange desire to drive cars into pedestrians and then stab them.
Don't insult my intelligence by pretending that a wall towards Mexico isn't motivated by racism.
According to that logic, then a wall along the Mexican border would also be perceived as racist towards those who use that same border to enter the US illegally from places like Guatemala, El Salvador or Honduras, right? That's why making such statements is complete and utter crap.
According to that logic, then a wall along the Mexican border would also be perceived as racist towards those who use that same border to enter the US illegally from places like Guatemala, El Salvador or Honduras, right? That's why making such statements is complete and utter crap.
@NoGuff: You don't understand. The wall isn't for Mexicans. It isn't for Guatemalans, El Salvadorians, or Hondurans either. It is for Americans. It is a symbol. It is Trump saying to his base "I hear your fears about these people down south, and I will build a beautiful wall as monument for me addressing those fears". The wall doesn't actually do anything. You can get a cheap flight from Mexico City to Washington DC for a fraction of the cost that it would take you to hire a coyote to get you over the border on foot. The idea of hordes of Hispanics crossing the Mexican/US border at night is a relic from the 90's, and even in the 90's already 40% of illegals came in by flights. Today's reality looks totally different. The wall is make rednecks happy, not to keep illegals out.
If you don't believe me, check the National Review, a solidly conservative news outlet.
If you don't believe me, check the National Review, a solidly conservative news outlet.
@Tobold: we are getting offtopic. Are we in agreement that anti-immigration is about the (right or wrong) rejection of "citizens of nowhere", a CULTURAL group and not the rejection of any RACE?
The wall is necessary, because the "hordes of Hispanics crossing the Mexican/US border at night" - while not the main form of immigration - is the fallback immigration. You can stop people from boarding a plane with a piece of paper. But then they just cross the border at the night. You can deport them and they return at the night. You need the wall to have ANY OTHER immigration control.
Also, can you spot on the graph when Hungary built a fence (poor man's wall) in 2015:
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fconservativetribune.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F10%2FHungary-daily-illegal-immigration-chart.png&f=1
The wall is necessary, because the "hordes of Hispanics crossing the Mexican/US border at night" - while not the main form of immigration - is the fallback immigration. You can stop people from boarding a plane with a piece of paper. But then they just cross the border at the night. You can deport them and they return at the night. You need the wall to have ANY OTHER immigration control.
Also, can you spot on the graph when Hungary built a fence (poor man's wall) in 2015:
https://images.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fconservativetribune.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F10%2FHungary-daily-illegal-immigration-chart.png&f=1
The reason for the outrage is that there is a double standard in America regarding rights. It is generally unacceptable to say "lets go out and shoot every Mexican we see" because many are US citizens. Thus talk like that is limited to the alt-right fringe group. HOWEVER if we said "let's shoot any Mexican that tries to cross the border "suddenly you're reaching a much wider level of acceptance. Basically, many of he people who voted for trump would be concerned if he started targeting black citizens the way the KKK does, however few of his voters would care if he killed "brown people" anywhere else in the world.
There is absolutely a screw anyone who isn't American nationalism at play, and the mainstream media doesn't tend to report atrocities or human-rights violations that occur in far off lands, even more liberal media won't spend a ton of time covering it.
There is absolutely a screw anyone who isn't American nationalism at play, and the mainstream media doesn't tend to report atrocities or human-rights violations that occur in far off lands, even more liberal media won't spend a ton of time covering it.
Are we in agreement that anti-immigration is about the (right or wrong) rejection of "citizens of nowhere", a CULTURAL group and not the rejection of any RACE?
I was talking about you, a highly educated person, who is actually more likely to be on the winning side of globalization than on the losing side. You are perfectly able to make the difference between a cultural group and a racial one. You are also perfectly able to detest a Canadian or Hungarian member of that cultural group as much as you detest a Mexican one. Unfortunately I don't believe that the average Trump voter is approaching the problem with that much differentiation. That is why Trump explicitly says "Mexicans" in his hate speeches, and doesn't mention Canadians, or keep his discourse to a origin-neutral term like "illegal immigrants".
Even if the US had a perfect wall on the southern border, and a perfect system in place to not let anybody of South or Middle American origin board a flight into the USA (which is politically and practically impossible), the fallback immigration scheme would simply become a plane ticket to Montreal followed by a short trip south. The USA will never build a wall along its northern border. Because a wall is more symbolic than practical the wall *only* makes sense on the Mexican border, where it does a whole lot more to address Trump voter fears than to actually keep people out.
I was talking about you, a highly educated person, who is actually more likely to be on the winning side of globalization than on the losing side. You are perfectly able to make the difference between a cultural group and a racial one. You are also perfectly able to detest a Canadian or Hungarian member of that cultural group as much as you detest a Mexican one. Unfortunately I don't believe that the average Trump voter is approaching the problem with that much differentiation. That is why Trump explicitly says "Mexicans" in his hate speeches, and doesn't mention Canadians, or keep his discourse to a origin-neutral term like "illegal immigrants".
Even if the US had a perfect wall on the southern border, and a perfect system in place to not let anybody of South or Middle American origin board a flight into the USA (which is politically and practically impossible), the fallback immigration scheme would simply become a plane ticket to Montreal followed by a short trip south. The USA will never build a wall along its northern border. Because a wall is more symbolic than practical the wall *only* makes sense on the Mexican border, where it does a whole lot more to address Trump voter fears than to actually keep people out.
@Tobold: now this is pure elitism and looking down on the common man. You now claim that despite I agree with the average Trump voter, I'm capable of doing the SAME THING in a cultural-economic ideological debate, while that "stupid redneck in flyover country" is just plain racist.
Shame on you!
Shame on you!
I'm trying without much success to make sense of Gevlon's last retort, so I'll concentrate on the last idea. Some people are quite proud of being rednecks where I live, and Tobold didn't call them stupid. He merely said a wall would make them happy, which, for the most part, is true, regardless of their level of intelligence.
Shame on you for building a straw man and calling it racist!
Shame on you for building a straw man and calling it racist!
Don't insult my intelligence by pretending that a wall towards Mexico isn't motivated by racism.
Don't insist that you have intelligence when Mexico already has a wall on its southern border.
Don't insist that you have intelligence when Mexico already has a wall on its southern border.
So why is he also curtailing forms of legal immigration?
I tend to avoid these political threads by Tobold but come on. You don't really think Trump wants more legal immigration right?
Post a Comment
I tend to avoid these political threads by Tobold but come on. You don't really think Trump wants more legal immigration right?
<< Home
