Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[t. fortsorter]

Even if the economic repercussions weren't great, immigrants are also a major source of cultural enrichment. So really, good all around.

I love this argument with all of my heart~
Would you mind terribly if I asked you a few questions? I hope they will not turn out to be much effort for you to answer. ^^
To begin with! How do you quantify this enrichment that is praised so highly? Is it a measure of simple migration, or influence migrants wield in a society, something else mayhaps~? What value does the enrichment have? I expect the answer coming from you to able to be simplified into the word "positive", although you may yet surprise me, haha~

[Sheb]

Kinda sad when your national dish has a different country in its name.

Only in American English. Which ain't a language in Belgium. Anyway, You got to be indulgent with Americans, them being Americans and all... :p

But yeah, I fully support the name "Freedom Fries", to teach to the froggies that fries are Belgian damnit! (Well, technically Belgium didn't exist at the time, but I won't let technicalities in the way of foody patriotism.)

[Chaoswizkid]

Us vs. Them mentality inhibits empathy. You remove the Us vs. Them, you remove one of the major inhibitions to people being aware of the emotional condition of others.
The problem is there's a fuckload of ways to establish Us vs. Them. They're a different race, they have a different culture, they practice a different religion, they're from a different country, they speak a different language, they're from another province/state, they're from a different neighborhood, they have different political/philosophical/should-I-go-to-the-grocery-store-today beliefs, they tie their shoes differently.
You just have to keep saying "Yeah, maybe so, but they are still human beings." It's really too bad that "Yeah, but what if it was you?" doesn't really work anymore.

I for one support Us vs. Them. I support Mine vs. Yours. I reserve the right to draw a line and say "You can't have this." I choose to break the world into People I Care About and People I Don't.

The vast majority of the world lives in worse conditions than me thanks to my luck of being born in a wealthy country. I'm not about to sell all my possessions, throw open the doors of my home and give away everything I have to make that better. I have Nietzschean will to power; a desire for achievement, ambition, to strive to reach the highest possible position in life.

I have no argument with those that choose to spend their life trying to make the world a better place. I also have no intent to support them in any way. Like Orwell said, 'if you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face - forever.'

You completely missed the point of what I was trying to say. I wasn't saying "Hey let's give everything to everyone else!" or "You should care about strangers just as much or more than your family!"

The point was that Us vs. Them stops people from recognizing other people as actual people. It doesn't even have to do with any sort of aggression or resistance or cost-benefit, just grouping. It's too easy to qualify others as "Less than human/not human" with how we actually consider their well-being.

If after you actually recognize their status as a fellow member of humanity with feelings and emotions that aren't irrelevant, and give an amount of fucks greater than 0 about them, you say "Sorry, but I can't care more about you than I care about my own well-being or the well-being of those close to me," that's perfectly fine. In fact, I'd argue that it's natural.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Even if the economic repercussions weren't great, immigrants are also a major source of cultural enrichment. So really, good all around.

I love this argument with all of my heart~
Would you mind terribly if I asked you a few questions? I hope they will not turn out to be much effort for you to answer. ^^
To begin with! How do you quantify this enrichment that is praised so highly? Is it a measure of simple migration, or influence migrants wield in a society, something else mayhaps~? What value does the enrichment have? I expect the answer coming from you to able to be simplified into the word "positive", although you may yet surprise me, haha~

The quantification is in what the immigrants contribute to the culture of the society they are immigrating to. You can't really put it into hard numbers, though I admit I like seeing the numbers of various immigrants. New ways of doing things, new food, new art, and perhaps more importantly a sense of perspective. Through bringing members of other societies into another, the society becomes more able to relate to the rest of the world instead of remaining in its original perception.

Furthermore, there is the subject of increased diversity. That's valuable because a homogenous society has less need and thus generally less respect for things like tolerance and liberty. After all, if we are One People with One Culture, and One Way Of Living, why should you be allowed to have anything else? You already have the (usually seen as superior) one. It was good enough for your ancestors, and by [deity], it will be good enough for you! By contrast, a heterogeneous society has the opposite. You can't force everybody to act the exact same way, so you have to have either freedom or conflict, and the former is preferable (and thus the pressure is to chose it).

The value in these things, I think, is clear on its own. Even if you for whatever reason are willing to dismiss the rest, it certainly makes the society more interesting and varied, which has long since been recognized as one of the basic causes of interest and value in human society. People want to see new and improved things in their lives.

But yeah, I fully support the name "Freedom Fries", to teach to the froggies that fries are Belgian damnit! (Well, technically Belgium didn't exist at the time, but I won't let technicalities in the way of foody patriotism.)

Then I'm afraid you're the only one, I haven't heard even the most rampant nationalist use the term Freedom Fries since 2004.

[Sheb]

Then I'm afraid you're the only one, I haven't heard even the most rampant nationalist use the term Freedom Fries since 2004.

I know. Can't you guys invade some country for stupid reasons so the French can refuse to follow you and I get my fries back? I heard from totally not-pulled-out-of-my-arse sources than Sierra Leone got WMDs.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Then I'm afraid you're the only one, I haven't heard even the most rampant nationalist use the term Freedom Fries since 2004.

I know. Can't you guys invade some country for stupid reasons so the French can refuse to follow you and I get my fries back? I heard from totally not-pulled-out-of-my-arse sources than Sierra Leone got WMDs.

Sorry Sheb, but it's over. We're best friends again.

[Sheb]

Damn! Hey, do you work at Gallup, or do you just painstakingly archive their every single polls like a philatelists might look after stamps?

[Chaoswizkid]

Sorry Sheb, but it's over. We're best friends again.

I like how the two graphs are "Americans' view of France" and "French view of U.S. Government". This should actually cause us Americans to dislike the French even more, considering we completely disagree on Congress and aren't liking Obama much either.
I looked at it wrong. We can now be totally buddies with France, although I still want to see the "French view of American people" graph.

Damn! Hey, do you work at Gallup, or do you just painstakingly archive their every single polls like a philatelists might look after stamps?

I think it's more that Gallup is one of the most well-respected pollers out there, so if you're looking for a poll, you look for Gallup's poll.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Damn! Hey, do you work at Gallup, or do you just painstakingly archive their every single polls like a philatelists might look after stamps?

I just read their polls pretty often and I have an excellent memory for statistics. I read Pew's polls as well, but they don't publish as often. I actually have resentment towards Rasmussen for putting all their data behind paywalls.

I like how the two graphs are "Americans' view of France" and "French view of U.S. Government". This should actually cause us Americans to dislike the French even more, considering we completely disagree on Congress and aren't liking Obama much either.
I looked at it wrong. We can now be totally buddies with France, although I still want to see the "French view of American people" graph.

I remember seeing what I think was a Pew poll that had French opinion of Americans, but I couldn't find it again (if it did in fact exist). If I am remembering correctly, the French are slightly less warm towards Americans than Americans are towards the French, but not meaningfully so.

[t. fortsorter]

Even if the economic repercussions weren't great, immigrants are also a major source of cultural enrichment. So really, good all around.

I love this argument with all of my heart~
Would you mind terribly if I asked you a few questions? I hope they will not turn out to be much effort for you to answer. ^^
To begin with! How do you quantify this enrichment that is praised so highly? Is it a measure of simple migration, or influence migrants wield in a society, something else mayhaps~? What value does the enrichment have? I expect the answer coming from you to able to be simplified into the word "positive", although you may yet surprise me, haha~

The quantification is in what the immigrants contribute to the culture of the society they are immigrating to. You can't really put it into hard numbers, though I admit I like seeing the numbers of various immigrants. New ways of doing things, new food, new art, and perhaps more importantly a sense of perspective. Through bringing members of other societies into another, the society becomes more able to relate to the rest of the world instead of remaining in its original perception.

Furthermore, there is the subject of increased diversity. That's valuable because a homogenous society has less need and thus generally less respect for things like tolerance and liberty. After all, if we are One People with One Culture, and One Way Of Living, why should you be allowed to have anything else? You already have the (usually seen as superior) one. It was good enough for your ancestors, and by [deity], it will be good enough for you! By contrast, a heterogeneous society has the opposite. You can't force everybody to act the exact same way, so you have to have either freedom or conflict, and the former is preferable (and thus the pressure is to chose it).

The value in these things, I think, is clear on its own. Even if you for whatever reason are willing to dismiss the rest, it certainly makes the society more interesting and varied, which has long since been recognized as one of the basic causes of interest and value in human society. People want to see new and improved things in their lives.

Why are you so eager to claim I'm dismissing anything~? Have you been fighting the monsters for too long? (´･_･`)
It is my wish to learn a little from you and your experiences, not undermine your ideology! I cannot even imagine from where the thought might have hailed from...
I would love to move towards the next of my questions, yet as much as I find your first paragraph agreeable the second is much more of a problem to process. I'm afraid to say, societies mostly composed of immigrants (I shall use the United States as a prominent example!) are the societies where liberty is eroding fastest! Compare this if you will with Japan, a country I believe we can agree to be at the least moderately xenophobic, or the democracies of Europe (with the exception of the UK, which has been turning into an immigrant society for a rather long period of time now). In America, immigration has not been hindered, while problems with tolerance remain more pronounced than anyplace else in the West (LGBT issues for one) and the previously free society is eroding into a corporate police state. In the meantime, Europe has been allowing immigration but a slight yet significant erosion of rights can be distinguished (I will dismiss this as US influence, if you allow me to.) and Japan remains relatively stable regarding the rights of people yet is a society conservative and sheltered from most immigration. How does this information affect what you have already written?

[Sheb]

Well, the US are more progressive than Japan on stuff like gay rights for example. (Just saying this because you cited it as an example).

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Why are you so eager to claim I'm dismissing anything~? Have you been fighting the monsters for too long? (´･_･`)
It is my wish to learn a little from you and your experiences, not undermine your ideology! I cannot even imagine from where the thought might have hailed from...

It's a preemptive response to move the discussion along slightly faster. There are usually obvious things to say in regards to certain arguments, so I tend to include the most obvious response ahead of time as to not bog us down.

I would love to move towards the next of my questions, yet as much as I find your first paragraph agreeable the second is much more of a problem to process. I'm afraid to say, societies mostly composed of immigrants (I shall use the United States as a prominent example!) are the societies where liberty is eroding fastest! Compare this if you will with Japan, a country I believe we can agree to be at the least moderately xenophobic, or the democracies of Europe (with the exception of the UK, which has been turning into an immigrant society for a rather long period of time now). Immigration has not been hindered, while problems with tolerance remain more pronounced than anyplace else in the West (LGBT issues for one) and the previously free society is eroding into a corporate police state. How does this information affect what you have already written?

Compare what with Japan? It's a decent place, but they've got serious problems when it comes to civil liberties (the police can detain you without trial or charge for a month. A month! A person's whole life can collapse in a month of sitting in a cell.).

I do not agree with your prospect that liberty is eroding fastest in the United States. While there are always problems in trying to maintain a free society, the US is doing well. There are the Constitutional freedoms, and to use your example things like LGBT issues are progressing rapidly. Same-sex relationships were illegal in a lot of the US in 2003, when they were struck down by the Supreme Court. It is now 2014, and LGBT rights are spreading rapidly throughout America. That's 11 years from homosexuality being a crime to nearing full equality in a lot of the country, a process that is speeding up rather than slowing down. Now, freedom can never spread quickly enough, but I think that's rather impressive given the history of how non-heterosexuals have been treated in Western culture.

The problems with tolerance in regards to immigrants are, I think, a false equivalence. If a society reacts badly to immigrants, it isn't the development of intolerance, they were never tolerant to begin with. The presence of the immigrants is just bringing that intolerance into view. It's like I said, a homogenous society will not want to accept those who differ from them. They may not even know they're intolerant until the reality of it arrives on their doorstep.

[Max White]

Fuck I hat sociopaths.

Yea, me too, but they get a vote just like anybody else so you need to try and tickle their 'me' bone. Once you realize they are actually just as easy to manipulate, if not more so than anybody else due to the total lack of nuance in their thinking the hard bit becomes detecting them early enough to pick the right point of attack rather than treating them like actual people.

Suggesting we increase our migrant intake is well and good, but who? We want the maximum return for investment. The people most likely to have marketable skills and financial security. In other words, the 'plane people.' We get to cherry pick the best in that scenario. Is it right to do this? From a purely economic and primitive survival aspect, absolutely. From a moral perspective? That depends on the definition of morality by the national herd, as shown in the results of the election.

You are making the assumption that 'best' means already is a strong personal financial position. You need all rungs in your economy, including low qualification workers. They work your cash registers and clean your buildings, and economically they stand to directly benefit you a lot more than a executive of some sort. These are essential jobs after all, somebody has to do them, and less and less it is Australians who have access to good education.

The value in these things, I think, is clear on its own. Even if you for whatever reason are willing to dismiss the rest, it certainly makes the society more interesting and varied, which has long since been recognized as one of the basic causes of interest and value in human society. People want to see new and improved things in their lives.

If you are after a more scientific answer, ethnic diversity is pretty much the cure for genetic diseases.

[alexandertnt]

A lack of compassion is not a crime. Indeed, it's a core aspect of our primal survival instincts. It's tempered by our instinctual herd mentality that wills us to value certain people around us for the protection and skills they can provide towards our mutual survival. That line between the Us of our group and the Them outside it create everything from our families to our nations.

Screw instincts, and screw nature. We dont have to to anything just because its supposedly instincual, natural or any of that mumbo jumbo.

We, as intelligent creatures have the ability to ignore and go against any supposed-instincts we may have. And we should if we can improve the lives of other people.

[t. fortsorter]

Why are you so eager to claim I'm dismissing anything~? Have you been fighting the monsters for too long? (´･_･`)
It is my wish to learn a little from you and your experiences, not undermine your ideology! I cannot even imagine from where the thought might have hailed from...

It's a preemptive response to move the discussion along slightly faster. There are usually obvious things to say in regards to certain arguments, so I tend to include the most obvious response ahead of time as to not bog us down.

It's not really a kind thing to do, though~ How would you feel if I put such unpleasant words in your mouth instead of the way in which it actually happened?

I would love to move towards the next of my questions, yet as much as I find your first paragraph agreeable the second is much more of a problem to process. I'm afraid to say, societies mostly composed of immigrants (I shall use the United States as a prominent example!) are the societies where liberty is eroding fastest! Compare this if you will with Japan, a country I believe we can agree to be at the least moderately xenophobic, or the democracies of Europe (with the exception of the UK, which has been turning into an immigrant society for a rather long period of time now). Immigration has not been hindered, while problems with tolerance remain more pronounced than anyplace else in the West (LGBT issues for one) and the previously free society is eroding into a corporate police state. How does this information affect what you have already written?

Compare what with Japan? It's a decent place, but they've got serious problems when it comes to civil liberties (the police can detain you without trial or charge for a month. A month! A person's whole life can collapse in a month of sitting in a cell.).

I do not agree with your prospect that liberty is eroding fastest in the United States. While there are always problems in trying to maintain a free society, the US is doing well. There are the Constitutional freedoms, and to use your example things like LGBT issues are progressing rapidly. Same-sex relationships were illegal in a lot of the US in 2003, when they were struck down by the Supreme Court. It is now 2014, and LGBT rights are spreading rapidly throughout America. That's 11 years from homosexuality being a crime to nearing full equality in a lot of the country, a process that is speeding up rather than slowing down. Now, freedom can never spread quickly enough, but I think that's rather impressive given the history of how non-heterosexuals have been treated in Western culture.

The problems with tolerance in regards to immigrants are, I think, a false equivalence. If a society reacts badly to immigrants, it isn't the development of intolerance, they were never tolerant to begin with. The presence of the immigrants is just bringing that intolerance into view. It's like I said, a homogenous society will not want to accept those who differ from them. They may not even know they're intolerant until the reality of it arrives on their doorstep.

Japan might have such a law indeed, but at the least it abides by the country's constitution, which New York's Stop and Frisk doesn't. ^^ Hasn't Bloomberg referred to the NYPD as his personal army at one point too? (¬_¬) The office has changed tenants since then, but I doubt anything important actually has...
The fact that LGBT rights are quickly catching up with the rest of the world is great~! but it is that they have to catch up in the first place that is the essence of what I meant!
My, my~ What you said at the end leads me perfectly into my next question, as I really wishn't this thread to be hijacked into "why Japan and the US have problems with civil rights general". (^_^;)
Of course, that's unless you want to keep discussing that topic! I will be glad to oblige in that case!

Okay, number two! Now that we have defined the value of an immigrant, what reason is there for an intolerant country to accept them? Can we allow the tolerant societies to become the host of all migrants while intolerant societies remain immigrant-free and locals not burdened with hate towards the freshly arrived migrant? As far as I know, the official answer to racism and xenophobia has been attracting more migration to the problematic areas so that diversity is increased, but this has only ended in escalation of hatred... （・_・） It also feels like forcing views onto others - the tolerant view of a tolerant society onto the intolerant one - for which I have a heartfelt disdain for in all aspects, no matter how noble the cause!
While thinking of an answer, I request that you keep the uniting factor of a common enemy in mind. ^^