Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Immigration restrictions

Rate this topic


MisterSwig

Recommended Posts

On 9/20/2019 at 10:11 PM, Eiuol said:

 

If you think that's a contradiction, you don't know what a contradiction even is.

Yet you won't answer my question. If you invoke the right not to give the most basic information (one's name) in one area; but overturn the right in another, that's having your cake and eating it. Self-contradiction.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any careful reader would recognize that I'm saying that the government demanding your information in order for you to be allowed to drive is a violation of rights as well. It's just not as bad as what the violation is with regards to immigration and isn't as directly a violation of the 4A. We are talking about a level of abstraction that you aren't even on right now. You have been stuck distinguishing between how things are versus how things should be, and stuck about how to draw inferences about what I would say. I don't have the time or inclination to teach you how to reason about this. You aren't even wrong it's so bad; it's that you don't even understand what I'm talking about, or what the thread is about, and you don't see it. 

Edited by Eiuol
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/18/2019 at 5:46 PM, Eiuol said:

Your standard for picking individuals to question or detain is arbitrary other than they are foreigners (because you are not advocating anything similar for people crossing between New York and New Jersey). Something as vague as "he looked like a man".

 

Not that they're foreigners, but that they're crossing from one government's jurisdiction to another. That's why I asked DA whether the stops he's advocating should be applied equally to vacationers returning to their homes in, say, New York or New Jersey. The question of citizenship isn't relevant to the argument he's making.

 

That was a pretty funny video, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Any careful reader would recognize that I'm saying that the government demanding your information in order for you to be allowed to drive is a violation of rights as well. It's just not as bad as what the violation is with regards to immigration and isn't as directly a violation of the 4A. We are talking about a level of abstraction that you aren't even on right now. You have been stuck distinguishing between how things are versus how things should be, and stuck about how to draw inferences about what I would say. I don't have the time or inclination to teach you how to reason about this. You aren't even wrong it's so bad; it's that you don't even understand what I'm talking about, or what the thread is about, and you don't see it. 

We are "talking about a level of abstraction" which is - rationalism. And "the violation" with regards to immigrants, - ie., to not even identify who a person is! -  is a violation of the rights of all citizens - which prospective immigrants are not, as yet. Dropping context.

Losing touch with principles *and* reality, would be the open admittance of unknown migrants, who - by the opinions of some - would have 'easy' access, but 'hard' citizenship. Therefore, we'd have a second-class person whose presumed function is his menial labor. Compare with the Gastarbeiter to Germany ("guest" workers who came from other countries, who were disallowed citizenship and many of whom had to be eventually induced from the public coffer to make them return home):https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastarbeiter

A rational person of a free and sovereign nation would reject this distinction between migrants, economic migrants and immigrants. It is moral and proper that every applying *immigrant* has clear access to, and will reasonably soon become, a full citizen - after he/she has undergone a minimal, objective check and in the US, sworn the Oath of Allegiance.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd just like to point out that if a Paraguayan murderer can get a clean slate by simply moving past some totally open border (without so much as giving his name) then not only would he be a threat to all the citizens of the new country but a grave injustice to all his victims in the old. Totally open immigration (like Binswanger argues for) wouldn't just harm us.

 

I've recently realized that this whole debate has been framed by terms like "foreigners" this entire time (even in Binswanger's essay, which you'd expect to be of a slightly higher caliber than whatever we can come up with here) when it could have been framed as a question of how to handle people moving from the territory policed by one government to that of another. The latter would be a nuanced and very interesting question, the answer to which would probably dissolve any genuine confusion about the former.

It seems like some on this thread (as well as Binswanger, himself) - even me; we either wanted to respond to the open xenophobia that's starting to crop up all over the place or to nuts like Angela Merkel who'll hand out free money to anyone from anywhere on Earth. And in our haste to give those truly despicable phenomena the answer they so desperately need, we seem to have uncritically and unTHINKINGLY accepted the warped terminology used by the rest of the anti-intellectual culture, at large (even Binswanger and I). Perhaps the endless rabbit-holes we now find ourselves stuck in are the punishment we deserve for failing to challenge the roots of their premises.

I won't name any names other than Binswanger's and my own, but if you're reading this you should ask yourself if the shoe might fit you, too.

 

Binswanger is absolutely right that foreigners have all the same rights we do and must be treated accordingly. The only thing that's wrong with his essay is the context it drops: that the American justice system doesn't concern itself with those who live beyond its geographical territory, and consequently that there's a real question to be asked about how to handle peoples' entrance to AND exit from that territory. As I pointed out at the very beginning of this post, the consequences of dropping that context would perpetuate danger and injustice to everyone on either side of the border. As the consequences of any failure to think usually tend to.

As to that question of how to handle movement across different jurisdictions, I don't know what the right answer would be. I'm inclined to agree with DA about border stops, but maybe it would be better for our government to share its criminal database with Mexico (and vice-versa) or maybe there's a completely different third solution; I really don't know. But given what most of this thread has been about so far, it doesn't seem like the right place to start trying to sort that out. Neither do I see a point in correcting anything else I've added to it before this.

 

Personally, I'm very disappointed in myself. But I intend to challenge those premises and step outside of that frame (as I should've done before I said one word to anyone else about it) and say something once I arrive at some well-reasoned conclusion.

Spoiler

What did you think would happen

What did you think would happen

When you put me in an unnatural space?

Cold dark box where a shadow took my place

 

Monday is January; Friday is December

The calendar means nothing when you can't remember who you are

Losing hope; not sure what to believe

If you're lost have a look at where you've been

It's getting old; loving everyone else

More than you love your self

 

What did you think would happen

What did you think would happen

When you put me in an unnatural space?

Cold dark box where a shadow took my place

 

But if you never break you'll never know

(It's all you need to fight a blow)

How to put your self back together again

Burning bridges from the inside out

One day I'll be stronger than my own doubt

Live long and prosper.

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Lyrics (because THIS music video is NOT irrelevant)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

if a Paraguayan murderer can get a clean slate by simply moving past some totally open border (without so much as giving his name)

I don't see how this is important or relevant. It's begging the question even. The overall point of the thread seems to be about how it is possible to keep track of the person who is dangerous without violating the 4A, and to protect from rights violators. When anyone says open border, it doesn't really mean anything. 

6 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

The question of citizenship isn't relevant to the argument he's making.

I'm not sure which is worse: if immigrants receive increased scrutiny and would need to justify themselves to an even greater degree, or if the government trusts absolutely no one. We already get the second one (I can only imagine what the government already knows about me), I don't want both.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

4 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I don't see how this is important or relevant. It's begging the question even.

Harry Binswanger wrote an essay advocating totally open borders here:

http://www.hblist.com/immigr.htm

And when I say "totally open" I really mean it. He specifically says there should be no stops, no border patrol, nothing.

And I know that at least one participant in this thread has tried to advocate for the same, because until recently I was. Specifically because I couldn't find any holes in Binswanger's reasoning.

And for the record, the only hole in his reasoning is context-dropping. 

 

So it really might not be relevant to you or the case you're trying to make. You're saying our government should just share its criminal databases with our neighbors, right (which I actually named as another potentially-valid solution to the problem of jurisdictions)? If so then perhaps this shoe does not fit you, but it does fit Harry Binswanger and myself (and at least a few other participants I am certain of).

 

4 hours ago, Eiuol said:

The overall point of the thread seems to be about how it is possible to keep track of the person who is dangerous without violating the 4A, and to protect from rights violators.

Is that what it's been for you? I could name a few things this thread has been about for those who were not you.

4 hours ago, Eiuol said:

When anyone says open border, it doesn't really mean anything.

When I say it, it does. So too for Harry Binswanger.

 

4 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I'm not sure which is worse: if immigrants receive increased scrutiny and would need to justify themselves to an even greater degree, or if the government trusts absolutely no one. We already get the second one (I can only imagine what the government already knows about me), I don't want both.

1. Wouldn't those be 2 different degrees of essentially the same kind of thing?

 

2. I was wrong about there being a case to be made that our government shouldn't keep all the information it currently collects about every single one of us.

Don't get me wrong: it's a frigging scary thing - but only because of the number of unjust, nonobjective and just STOOPID laws we currently have on the books; not because of the data itself.

Neither you nor I would have to worry about a proper Objectivist government collecting any amount of information on either of us.

 

This music video actually is irrelevant. But it's just too good to keep to myself!

 

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Removed all swearing for the mods. :)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excerpt from Harrison's link to HB's essay:

 

(Note: I am defending freedom of entry and residency, not the granting of citizenship or voting rights, not even after decades of residency.)

An end to immigration barriers is required by the principle of individual rights. Every individual has rights as an individual, not as a member of this or that nation. The rights of Americans do not flow from their status as Americans, but from their status as human beings.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Instead of "their Creator" the reference should be to "their nature," but it is quite clear that rights are held to be universal, pertaining to all men as such.

No special geographical location is required in order to have the right to be free from governmental coercion. In fact, government is instituted "to secure these rights"—to protect them against their violation by force or fraud.

A foreigner has rights just as much as an American. To be a foreigner is not to be a criminal. Yet our government treats as criminals those foreigners...[...]

H. Binswanger

----

"The rights of Americans do not flow from their status as Americans, but from their status as human beings".

"Rights are held to be universal..."

Absolutely.

But insufficient. In completion: "...from their status as human beings" ... IN AMERICA. Or wherever.

"No special geographical location is required..." is NOT true. Can it be the American govt. is required to protect and preserve the rights of, say, an individual today in his home in Switzerland? In Moldova? Of a Mexican citizen just the other side of the Rio Grande in Mexico?

Upholding individual rights implies the presence of (physical) humans, a defined physical space - and physical action by physical people of the (man-made institution) government. Just as there is no mind-body dichotomy, no moral-practical dichotomy, one cannot separate the theory of rights from the physical manifestation of rights, or take the risk of flirting with rationalism and/or intrinsicism.

Then, what is it about "...defending freedom of entry and residency, not the granting of citizenship or voting rights, not even after decades of residency"??

The WHOLE purpose (to my mind) of an immigration application is the immigrant's self-determined conviction to become a citizen after a reasonable period. Who could properly deny him that right, "after decades of residency"? This block to a migrant's citizenship defeats the good will of others (existing citizens) which overcomes their suspicion, paranoia and fear of the foreigner.

If social design is the point, you cant and shouldn't try to make rational and benevolent all members in a society through a sort of shock treatment, by way of admitting in their midst huge numbers of migrant non-citizens. 

Harry's central premise sets the wrong direction (imo):

"An end to immigration barriers is required by the principle of individual rights".

I'd think rather the reverse. Rights of individuals within "a geographical location" require the "barriers".

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, whYNOT said:

But insufficient. In completion: "...from their status as human beings" ... IN AMERICA. Or wherever.

 

Oh my. You don't even know what universal means.

On 9/23/2019 at 2:54 AM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

And when I say "totally open" I really mean it. He specifically says there should be no stops, no border patrol, nothing.

 

I'll put it this way, and I read the essay by the way already before that post. HB does it really mean anything by it either. It's sloppy writing. Sure, he says nothing at all, but when you read the essay, he has no opposition whatsoever to typical law enforcement even if it occurred at the border. So then you end up focusing on the one sentence, but not the major content of his essay. That's what I did when I first looked at the essay, but then after digesting it, in my mind, he didn't actually mean nothing.

On 9/23/2019 at 2:54 AM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

If so then perhaps this shoe does not fit you, but it does fit Harry Binswanger and myself

I follow what you're saying, that you mean something in particular when you say open, but I still say that introducing the concept open to the border debate biases people and short-circuits reasoning.

On 9/23/2019 at 2:54 AM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Is that what it's been for you? I could name a few things this thread has been about for those who were not you.

Well, the 4A part is newer. I should have worded it better. The thread I think has been about immigration and what the government needs to know in order to succeed at protecting rights of all people within its borders. 

On 9/23/2019 at 2:54 AM, Harrison Danneskjold said:

not because of the data itself.

Does this mean you think that privacy isn't a right? Or that simply the government having data on you without a warrant isn't a violation of privacy? It can go either way, because I think a lot of people still don't find that privacy is a right (to many people, it's just procedural, or a nice thing to have but not necessary). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 

Oh my. You don't even know what universal means.

 

Fully aware. What's "universal" to man, does not necessarily mean - in reality, visibly is not - what is "universal" to every type of government (evidently none uphold full individual rights) in all countries. That's HB's error and dropped context. Otherwise, in his theory, rights in the USA by its government should apply equal protection to any other nations' individuals... 

It strikes me. Do perhaps any O'ists want to see a universalist, global govt. in future? Is that the proposed solution to the aim of expanding individual rights and laissez-faire - "universally"? And maybe why open borders and anti-nationalism matter to some intellectuals? 

Except a global state is one which will - certainly - not preserve individual rights, it would be collectivist-totalitarian I estimate. 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, whYNOT said:

What's "universal" to man, does not necessarily mean - in reality, visibly is not - what is "universal" to every type of government (evidently none uphold full individual rights) in all countries.

Yup, you definitely don't know what it means. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

Yup, you definitely don't know what it means. 

I await your reply to how one's individual rights can be preserved and protected, by another government, outside of one's "geographical location". 

"A government is an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area". [Appendix: The Nature of Government]

I would like to know how that exclusive power is transferable to other geographical areas. How, in fact, a government can be "universal" in its "power"? 

Man's rights, I have to repeat to preclude nitpicking, are indeed, absolutely universal - by man's nature, "pertaining to all men". As Binswanger rightly observes.

But no amount of hand -waving and wishful thinking is going to make this concept true and real for all locations and govts. on Earth. A specific type of (e.g. rights affirming) government is not "universal" -- it's "local". 

You see it different? Then you and HB may contest Rand's definition. 

Also, taking in unchecked migrant workers is not an emergency lifeboat scenario. 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The application of a principle involves a context. This is a difference between rationalism and objectivism. If you have a principle of “there should be open borders” then the existential context should be part of what that actually means in practice -- should there be any specific policies enforced by the government concerning border control.

I agree that “open borders” is a valid principle. If the predominant political principle of individual rights is respected world-wide, then borders would be largely irrelevant. 

But, there are some contextual details that should be considered relevant to US border policy.

  1. There are diseases that have been eradicated in the US that exist in other countries.

  2. There are gangs, criminals and terrorists that have reason to come into the US.

  3. The US provides programs including health-care, education and welfare that immigrants take advantage of -- paid for by taxpayers.

  4. Political philosophy shifts.

Number 4 -- there are historical (to get some empirical context), instances of cultures being overrun by other cultures -- by war or other demographic movement. The change in culture could include a change in political philosophy.

America’s political system is still greatly influenced by its founding principles of individual rights. But this is eroding because of its philosophic base being abandoned by the elites -- educators, politicians, etc. But the other factor is the immigration of many people who do not know or care about what America’s founding principles are. Of course, most of them want to work and that is good. But they will vote for people who promise entitlements. It takes education, particularly in principles, to know that entitlement programs are not right and will ultimately do harm. Yes, it is true that many immigrants embrace American’s political principles; but more do not. 

An Objectivist might counter that new immigrants should not be allowed to vote or receive entitlements. But, this is the whole issue. Currently, they WILL get entitlements and it is easy enough for them to eventually vote. Again, this is rationalism and not objectivism. 

Look at California as an example. It used to be reliably Republican; Republicans could get elected as governors and federal offices. Now, things are completely changed. It is probably now impossible to have a Republican governor or senator.  It is because of changes in political views of the people. And the fact is that most immigrants will vote Democrat.

Many American people are legitimately concerned about these issues. They understand, at least implicitly, that we are in danger of losing the America that we have known. It is not racism. 

Does immigration really affect demographics significantly? If there are 330 million people and 1 million immigrants per year, does it really affect America politics significantly? Well, we need to think long term. If the border was open, what would happen? Immigration and border policy needs to consider such questions.

Limiting immigration to preserve culture (meaning the dominant political philosophy) is anathema to the principle of individual rights.  Or is it? We need to think in terms of principles. A citizen expects to live in a free country. A large contingent of voters voting away his rights is infringing on his rights.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But like nobody is saying we should apply principles without a context. So, thanks for repeating standard Objectivist claptrap, but I mean no one is saying otherwise. Nobody is saying hey we should be rationalists. 

As far as 1-4, those have been refuted, and I mean decisively refuted, by a bunch of political philosophers and economists working on this issue. Some of those arguments have been repeated here in this thread and in other threads. None of 1-4 or the counter arguments you listed are new, bold font notwithstanding.

Yes, we need to think long term. Yes we need to think about what would happen. Right now, economists estimate world GDP (GWP) would likely double, long term. Millions of people could be lifted out of poverty. That is a good thing. The welfare argument, the culture argument, the voting argument, all of these have been addressed numerous times.

Edited by 2046
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, 2046 said:

None of 1-4 or the counter arguments you listed are new, bold font notwithstanding.

I'm starting to think it's that sort of phenomenon where when you keep repeating something over and over, some people take it as fact. I've seen the same arguments repeated, then questioned, then repeated exactly the same way. "Democrats bad, immigrants stupid." It's like a mantra. And the argument is just vague enough that we don't get any concrete examples. Truthiness in action.

5 hours ago, Wayne said:

It is because of changes in political views of the people. And the fact is that most immigrants will vote Democrat.

See, we get a line like this. It might sound like he is making a point to disagree with or agree with, and therefore we can argue with that. Is trivially true that changes in political views causes a change in who people vote for. That's the point of voting. Then we get most immigrants will vote Democrat, which is true, but the only reasoning involving it is that immigrants want entitlements, or don't know much about America. It's yet another psychological phenomena where most people who see someone is wrong also attribute to them immoral motivations (because apparently it is not enough to just say someone is wrong).

5 hours ago, Wayne said:

They understand, at least implicitly, that we are in danger of losing the America that we have known. It is not racism. 

And then of course we also get this.  Psychologically, it activates a sense of America that is basically pretty set in its ways since the beginning, even though an America like that never existed. 

Really the whole thing is a series of psychological manipulations. Not necessarily on purpose, just easy to regurgitate phrases that do your thinking for you.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Eiuol said:

I'm starting to think it's that sort of phenomenon where when you keep repeating something over and over, some people take it as fact. I've seen the same arguments repeated, then questioned, then repeated exactly the same way. "Democrats bad, immigrants stupid." It's like a mantra. And the argument is just vague enough that we don't get any concrete examples. Truthiness in action.

Yeah, we already discussed the role that bias against immigrants plays, but also just cognitive biases in general play a role as well. Most people don't know the opposing arguments. And I don't mean they haven't seen them, like even if they've read this thread, I mean they read them and yet still don't know them because they aren't thinking. Most people that don't study the arguments specifically aren't thinking at all, they just engage in a random word association game in their minds.

Like if you're a Red Sox fan, if you see a close pitch, you say of course it was a strike (if the pitcher was a Red Sox.) If you're a Yankee fan, you say of course it was a ball. You have no incentive to judge the pitch correctly, you just boo or cheer as depending on whether it helps your team. In the same way, they see a bunch of words on the screen. There's some words that get them the result they're already committed to (keeping foreigners they don't like out) and some that get to the result they don't want (scary brown people near me.) They don't see arguments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Wayne said:

It is not racism. 

 


 

You can say that again. A significant part of the ploy for power (yes, mostly Leftist-Socialist again) is to convince everyone we are and we live in racist and --phobic societies. Which is demonstrably and observably false, for all but an obvious and increasingly isolated minority. By natural mixing of 'types', most folk learn better and adjust well to fellow citizens. However, naturally, *all* individuals will have entertained the illogic of 'racial' and stereotypical thoughts and feelings at some time or other "Ha, just like a woman! or - Why do (xyz) always act and dress like that?" etc.etc. From the mild to the more severe biases; irrational, anti-individualist and unjust- but not against anyone's rights, if as normal, they are kept to one's private thoughts or only verbally expressed.

That subconscious recall of their unintegrated and unexamined premises makes many or most pretty moral and quite rational individuals prone to feeling guilt when yet another supposedly 'racist' incident is gleefully highlighted on the BBC and CNN. See! Another case of racial supremacy/injustice! They tell us. These low-life social/political manipulators are "racialists", as much influenced by race and aware of their own racist/phobic prejudices, and which they project onto others to further their victim-oppressor narrative.

Undeserved guilt is a potent weapon. "It is your minds they want".  Long understood and cynically exploited, the No.1 method into control of minds is through people's unintegrated emotions. Ultimate aim, to get you to subordinate yourself by your "group" to "the other" by means of your own emotions.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have come to the conclusion that Objectivists are nutty. I have been following Objectivists for a long time. I have tried to make sense of some of their positions and have concluded that there IS no sense to them. 

To wit:

Open borders even if that would destroy America.

Elect Democrats. They would destroy America and out of the ashes Capitalism would be reborn like in Atlas Shrugged. It would not happen that way.

Donald Trump is a racist because of Charlottesville and everything else. Wrong.

Trump is an evil dictatorial Nationalist. This is partly true (only partly) in my opinion.

Everyone should be selfish. The dictionary is wrong and people’s conception of what selfishness means is wrong. If someone selfishly takes action that harms other people then it is their problem because they, themselves, are not selfish or rational.

There is much to agree with in Objectivism itself. But Objectivists are another story.

Edited by Wayne
Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Wayne said:

 

Everyone should be selfish. The dictionary is wrong and people’s conception of what selfishness means is wrong. If someone selfishlessly takes action that harms other people then it is their problem because they, themselves, are not selfish or rational.

 

Wayne, You have portrayed not a (rationally) selfish person, but a self-less one. Harm of others, obviously when predictable and avoidable, is contrary to rational egoism and anathema to the egoist.

I'm in some agreement on the political front. Prime target - right now - to be intellectually refuted (again) is socialism. 

Simplified, this is an extremely individualist/independent-minded philosophy. Everyone I think is on solid agreement on the principles and the methods of arriving at them; it's the application of them to real events and situations -and WHICH principles - that makes for opposing positions in Objectivism. When all is said and done, I wouldn't have it any other way. Anything but blind conformism. One gets 'there' by one's own steam, and for one's sake, eventually. But jesus, the conflicts are often unnecessary and will appear outwardly "nutty". ;)

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Wayne said:

I have come to the conclusion that Objectivists are nutty. I have been following Objectivists for a long time. I have tried to make sense of some of their positions and have concluded that there IS no sense to them. 

To wit:

Open borders even if that would destroy America.

Elect Democrats. They would destroy America and out of the ashes Capitalism would be reborn like in Atlas Shrugged. It would not happen that way.

Donald Trump is a racist because of Charlottesville and everything else. Wrong.

Trump is an evil dictatorial Nationalist. This is partly true (only partly) in my opinion.

Everyone should be selfish. The dictionary is wrong and people’s conception of what selfishness means is wrong. If someone selfishly takes action that harms other people then it is their problem because they, themselves, are not selfish or rational.

There is much to agree with in Objectivism itself. But Objectivists are another story.

Exactly no one argued any of those things in here. You're right that you should not" agree with Objectivism or Objectivists" whatever that is supposed to mean.You shouldn't agree with anything. You should seek to understand the arguments. You don't even know what they are.

Theres something called an ideological Turing test. This is a device designed to see if you actually understand your interlocutor's argument if you can actually reproduce their argument in your own words to such an extent that a third party couldn't tell the difference between your reproduction and their own way. Do you think "open borders even if that would destroy America" honestly would pass that test?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

naturally, *all* individuals will have entertained the illogic of 'racial' and stereotypical thoughts and feelings at some time or other :

 

2 hours ago, whYNOT said:

project onto others

 

I think it's worth pointing out some reasoning about this. I don't think projection is something that happens very much, it's basically an idea made up by Freud that doesn't have very much validity. But I do think it happens with people who believe in it. In this example, the occasional racist thought is portrayed as something very normal that we all do (it's actually something that has to be learned, it doesn't develop naturally). Here we get a narrative of unexamined premises, but also saying unexamined premises causes guilt and whatnot. Not that he believes in a victim- oppressor thinking himself, but invariably, it is something negative and not good in his own thinking. Projection works here specifically because he is explaining his own psychological patterns and generalizing to all other people only from his own patterns of thinking. It ends up being an argument from intuition (which really isn't any argument at all). 

We aren't dealing with arguments, so all you can do is understand it psychologically. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Eiuol said:

 

 

I think it's worth pointing out some reasoning about this. I don't think projection is something that happens very much, it's basically an idea made up by Freud that doesn't have very much validity. But I do think it happens with people who believe in it. In this example, the occasional racist thought is portrayed as something very normal that we all do (it's actually something that has to be learned, it doesn't develop naturally). Here we get a narrative of unexamined premises, but also saying unexamined premises causes guilt and whatnot. Not that he believes in a victim- oppressor thinking himself, but invariably, it is something negative and not good in his own thinking. Projection works here specifically because he is explaining his own psychological patterns and generalizing to all other people only from his own patterns of thinking. It ends up being an argument from intuition (which really isn't any argument at all). 

We aren't dealing with arguments, so all you can do is understand it psychologically. 

Hmm. What little I read of Freud is long forgotten, including projection. If that's his theory I think it is born out by many instances one sees of humans projecting their lacks and fears onto others. Even, despising similarities. But especially, lacks. In effect, what you don't have, or dislike about yourself, is what you blame others - and maybe can't abide and envy them - for. "The hatred/envy of the good for being the good"... is psychological and epistemological and ethical, and I believe can be identified and understood in those frames.

Racism ~may~ be learned. But take a child raised from kindergarten to school and community and later, his work environment, and getting constant exposure to several other races and finding they are essentially no different to him - it's extremely unlikely he would "learn" to be racist. Take another who hasn't had any of that. All he knows is his close family, and when eventually confronted with other individuals, differing in appearance and other ways, alien to his senses, they become "the other" in his perception. Both, from experience and inexperience, have "naturally" come to true and untrue conclusions. And if the latter child is also informed by authority figures how bad 'the others' are, this only confirms and solidifies his conclusion, and so he "learns" racism, (etc.)

In cognition, all collectivism - grouping of "others" and oneself - can be basically put down to mental laziness, I think: drawing false generalizations from few observations, then one's concretism and anti-conceptualism. Clearly and conversely, individualism, applied by one to others, requires harder effort and specific consideration.

The leftist method is to "over-compensate" in favor of a specific (race, sex, etc.) in-group, which in itself contains racial (etc.) stereotyping. These people depend heavily on the "victim narrative" for purpose, power and self-image, so much so that I suspect that if showed how victims could all be 'saved', they'd reject it. No, not my intuition, I have observed this too often. 

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Eiuol said:

We aren't dealing with arguments, so all you can do is understand it psychologically. 

I wonder if the only way to proceed is by speaking in tribal terms like:

"In my culture, people just agree to own things in common so that we can restrict access to people for not respecting our ideas"

"In my culture, we have private property rights so that we tell busybodies like you to mind their own fucking business"

"In my culture, you have nothing to hide it you're not guilty"

"In my culture, we tell the cops to come back with a warrant"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On 9/25/2019 at 4:58 PM, whYNOT said:

All he knows is his close family, and when eventually confronted with other individuals, differing in appearance and other ways, alien to his senses, they become "the other" in his perception.

I'm responding to this because I realize people reading that might have also misunderstood what natural meant. By natural, I mean learn about something without an adult assisting at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...