Check Your Privilege Holocaust Survivors

Posted by khalling 10 years, 11 months ago to Culture
166 comments | Share | Flag

I am not a tweeter by habit-but this is ridiculous (MSNBC). My favorite retweet-they got free healthcare and all!

All Comments

  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Maphesdus 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No, it shouldn't. The government should NEVER be given authority or power to decide who gets to prosper and who doesn't.
    Reply | Permalink  
    • Robbie53024 replied 10 years, 11 months ago
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Maphesdus 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No, because that's your personal private property. You own your orchard. Property lines and national borders are not equivalent.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Maphesdus 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The fact that laws are xenophobic and racist towards more than just one race does not mean they aren't still xenophobic and racist.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Maphesdus 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Hey, you're connecting the dots! Good job! And just so you know, the word "Nazi" is actually an abbreviation of the word "National," according to its Germanic pronunciation "Natsional."

    From wikipedia:
    –––––––––––––––––––––––
    The shorthand Nazi was formed from the first two syllables of the German pronunciation of the word "national" (IPA: [na-tsi̯-o-ˈnaːl]).
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism#Etym...
    –––––––––––––––––––––––

    For a more in depth philosophical analysis of Nazism/Nationalism, I suggest you watch this video:

    Slavoj Žižek on Jaws and Fascism:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQHoGwnX...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Maphesdus 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Invasive != Invasion

    As for your examples, I don't know anything about any Germanic invasion of Rome, but I will assert that the Latino presence in the United States is most certainly NOT an invasion, and to label it as such is racist.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It's an interesting idea. Racism and xenophobia are one possible motivation among many for controlling immigration, so I don't see it as _inherently_ racist. This may be a moot point b/c so much value is in data now and data is so easily transferred across boarders. I think where people physically are located is slowly becoming less important; therefore immigration is less important.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It's "fair", but it sounds like the tu quoque ("yeah, but you do it too") fallacy.

    Where are these people who say it. It must be because I work with almost all males of European and Asian race.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Maphesdus 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Depends on what the action is. Speech can absolutely be a form of persecution, and so can exercising your religion, if your religion tells you to persecute a certain group of people.

    For example: refusing service to a particular group of people because your religion tells you those people are sinners? Oppression. Verbally harassing your coworker(s) and/or employees because you don't like the group they belong to? Oppression. Firing an employee who decides to come out of the closet? Oppression. Evicting a tenet from an apartment because you disagree with their choice of partner? Oppression. Passing legislation which forbids people from getting married if they disagree with your religion's definition of marriage? Oppression.

    It all depends on context.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Maphesdus 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Oh, well that's certainly an interesting twist on the debate. University preference for African-Americans pushing out Asian-Americans? That's definitely something worth looking into, and I thank you for bringing it to my attention.

    Though I would point out that case this does not appear to involve any detrimental impact on white people, which is generally the typical right-wing argument against affirmative action. When we've had debates on this issue in the past, you've stated that Asians didn't ever complain about their civil rights being violated. And now here you are presenting me with an article about an Asian-American complaining about his civil rights being violated. Don't you think that's interesting? I think that's very interesting... ;)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What I agree to is that an entity has the ability to define whatever criterion it wants in determining immigration. It does not have to pass some 3rd party approval, merely that of it's inhabitants.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by iamA2u 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Sometimes you have valid points, then you make idiotic replies like this and lose all credibility. Thought experiments are important logical tests used in every science ever conceived since the Greek philosophers. But also, in the real world of 5, 8, 13 applications for every place in a class, there are many statistically identical candidates. Aside, please look at the further discussions on immigration, you may have interest.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by iamA2u 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ok. Mostly agree. To take this one step further, the current system of immigration is protectionist, and needs to be mostly open to anyone who can demonstrate a job, reasonable assets, or at least significant skills. Basically, if an employer wants to hire you, or you have the resources to start a business, or you can support yourself otherwise, the visa process should be a rubber stamp. Permanent residence should then be a reasonably non - bureaucratic process, that requires some waiting to demonstrate stability and commitment.

    Do we have common ground? Maph?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What you describe is that the state gets to create standards or criterion by which they allow immigration, and to that I whole heartedly agree. I do not accept, nor endorse, unlimited nor unregulated immigration as espoused by Maph. That is nationalistic suicide, in my opinion.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by iamA2u 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ok. This is actually a debate.

    Asserting immigration restrictions are racist is patently fallacious. Maphesdus needs to stop looking idiotic with the victim rhetoric.

    The point that immigration should be open has a great deal of validity in a free market world. If you, Robbie, hypothetically ignore the welfare/socialist benefits bestowed by residency, I believe you would agree. Restricting immigration is a suboptimal economic condition (given our hypothetical world), and imposes costs even on residents, through higher prices, or reduced opportunities. This part I agree with Maphesdus on (though I hope I'm making it a little less inflammatory.)

    HOWEVER, that position, if unqualified like Maphesdus' does (though he later suggests modified conditions), ignores the reality that residency DOES grant benefits, and therefore costs on current residents. So, the reality is that these benefits to immigrants should be mitigated. Reduction in overall benefits would be favored by us on this site, but alternatives exist. All the exceptions and special cases need codification (e.g. The $100k phd from India probably gets full benefits, the unemployed Swiss partying all day doesn't).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -2
    Posted by Maphesdus 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That's a nice conceptual thought experiment, but in the real world, there is never any such thing as two perfectly identical applications.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    How can you disprove that affirmative action discriminates against whites - when the very nature of the program is to provide advantage for non-whites over and above that which they would have had? The only argument that is rational is that this discrimination is necessary or advantageous to overcome current inequities or as a remedy for past inequities. But to state that it isn't discrimination against whites is to totally disregard the objectives of the program.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Once again, you blow smoke screens. I can name rational reasons to be against those. What is your rational reason for open and unrestricted immigration? And some ethereal idea that "all should be free" is not a rational reason.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Robbie53024 10 years, 11 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Any nation should have the ability to decide which people it wants to allow to immigrate to its own soil. As you say, emigration must be free, but immigration must be controlled.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo