Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Anti-Immigrationist Hypocrisy

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2010 2:01:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Here in the declining state of California we have a corporate CEO running for governor as a conservative Republican with a hard line on immigration, Meg Whitman, who's just been outed as a hypocrite on the very hot-button issue that she hoped to exploit to win the gubernatorial race. It turns out that rather than employing a documented au pair , and despite being wealthy enough to hire a high-end governess to care for her children while she was busy profiteering in the private sector she'd now like to represent as governor, Mrs. Whitman used the services of a sans papiers nanny. She either violated her own professed principles or her stance on immigration is a sham designed to pander to the public's xenophobia. In either case we're reminded that a candidate doesn't have to be a career politician to be untrustworthy.

But what I find especially interesting is the jaded "What the heck, everyone does it" attitude that so many folks who are anti-immigrant are using to dismiss her bad faith. The very same people who in one conversation can be heard venting their rancor against "aliens" in their next bull session around the watercooler might be heard rationalizing on Mrs. Whitman's behalf that everyone in California uses immigrant labor without inquiring about the legal status of the individuals they employ.

Aside from the question of whether such an "Every one does it" rationalization really holds up for the average citizen, it certainly doesn't cut the ethical mustard for candidates for political office, from whom we the electorate expect and demand more consistency and sincerity when it comes to the positions they espouse on public policy issues. If you're going to seek to represent the people in a high political office you don't get to casually contradict your beliefs with your behavior the way private citizens routinely do, you submit to being held to a stricter standard of integrity. Meg Whitman has fallen far short of such a standard and her defenders need to come to terms with this and stop feebly rationalizing on her behalf.

Ah, but are they really rationalizing on Mrs. Whitman's behalf, or to avoid facing their own two-facedness and unprincipledness when it comes to an issue they'd like to think they have a rational and righteous take on. Most of our latter-day know-nothings fancy their views to be quite sensible and upright, but when it comes to saving money by hiring an undocumented gardener, day laborer, maid, or nanny their pretended principles get promptly set aside. Well, conveniently setting aside your convictions to do the economically advantageous thing is one form of the H-word, hypocrisy.

Although it's pretty lame when critically analyzed, the "Everyone does it" defense for exploiting the services of unauthorized workers seems to help most hypocritical Hispanophobes save face with themselves and go on crabbing and crying about the inundation of their country by people from south of the border.
What this reveals about anti-immigrationists and their mentality is that they're really driven by dislike for people who are different, powered by prejudice against anyone who isn't "us". Their logical arguments, patriotic principles, and conservative law and order image are all window dressing on a negative, fear-informed, us-them mode of thinking and feeling.

Our times aren't enlightened enough that bigotry is a thing of the past, but most of us have been touched just enough by enlightenment that we no longer wish to see ourselves as bigots. So bigots take cover behind bogus grounds for bad-mouthing immigrants. They claim that they merely disapprove of them breaking our laws. Then they become accessories by employing these heinous "illegals". Apparently the desire of anti-immigrationists to stand up for the law doesn't run too deep in their character.

There are a few other give-aways as well that make it patently clear that immigration is an emotional not a legal issue. For example, there's the telling little factoid that Puerto Ricans, who are not merely legal residents but full-fledged citizens are often objects of the same Hispanophobia as undocumented Mexicans. If the griping and grousing of John Q. Conservative about immigration really was due to distress with people who are breaking the law to enter this country then it would be strictly confined to "illegals" and not spread around to lawful Latinos.

Let's be intellectually honest and morally courageous and begin calling anti-immigrationists on the fact that their law and order posture is a phony pose. That they suffer from a tribal mentality that feels anxiety and aversion for the outsider, the alien, the foreign devil. Yes, let's call xenophobes out of their ideological closet and confront them with the unbeautiful psychological truth about where their views come from.

Meg Whitman has done people with a more progressive point of view on immigration a great unintentional service, putting a spotlight on the humbuggery and duplicity, the political fraud and egregious lack of ethical integrity of anti-immigrationists. Let's not let people offhandedly and glibly dismiss the significance of the inconsistency of the talk and walk of immigrant bashers. It gives us a penetrating peek, an incisive insight into the real and unbenevolent nature of their mind-set.

If you're interested in exploring this and other topics in greater depth you're invited to visit my new website, The Total Revolution Project.com Just copy & paste the address below. And no, this isn't spam, it's a genuine invitation.

www.thetotalrevolutionproject.com
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2010 2:20:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Here in the declining state of California we have a corporate CEO running for governor as a conservative Republican with a hard line on immigration, Meg Whitman, who's just been outed as a hypocrite on the very hot-button issue that she hoped to exploit to win the gubernatorial race. It turns out that rather than employing a documented au pair, and despite being wealthy enough to hire a high-end governess to care for her children while she was busy profiteering in the private sector she'd now like to represent as governor, Mrs. Whitman used the services of a sans papiers nanny. She either violated her own professed principles or her stance on immigration is a sham designed to pander to the public's xenophobia. In either case we're reminded that a candidate doesn't have to be a career politician to be untrustworthy.

But what I find especially interesting is the jaded "What the heck, everyone does it" attitude that so many folks who are anti-immigrant are using to dismiss her bad faith. The very same people who in one conversation can be heard venting their rancor against "aliens" in their next bull session around the watercooler might be heard rationalizing on Mrs. Whitman's behalf that everyone in California uses immigrant labor without inquiring about the legal status of the individuals they employ.

Aside from the question of whether such an "Everyone does it" rationalization really holds up for the average citizen, it certainly doesn't cut the ethical mustard for candidates for political office, from whom we the electorate expect and demand more consistency and sincerity when it comes to the positions they espouse on public policy issues. If you're going to seek to represent the people in a high political office you don't get to casually contradict your beliefs with your behavior the way private citizens routinely do, you submit to being held to a stricter standard of integrity. Meg Whitman has fallen far short of such a standard and her defenders need to come to terms with this and stop feebly rationalizing on her behalf.

Ah, but are they really rationalizing on Mrs. Whitman's behalf, or to avoid facing their own two-facedness and unprincipledness when it comes to an issue they'd like to think they have a rational and righteous take on. Most of our latter-day know-nothings fancy their views to be quite sensible and upright, but when it comes to saving money by hiring an undocumented gardener, day laborer, maid, or nanny their pretended principles get promptly set aside. Well, conveniently setting aside your convictions to do the economically advantageous thing is one form of the H-word, hypocrisy.

Although it's pretty lame when critically analyzed, the "Everyone does it" defense for exploiting the services of unauthorized workers seems to help most hypocritical Hispanophobes save face with themselves and go on crabbing and crying about the inundation of their country by people from south of the border.

What this reveals about anti-immigrationists and their mentality is that they're really driven by dislike for people who are different, powered by prejudice against anyone who isn't "us". Their logical arguments, patriotic principles, and conservative law and order image are all window dressing on a negative, fear-informed, us-them mode of thinking and feeling.

Our times aren't enlightened enough that bigotry is a thing of the past, but most of us have been touched just enough by enlightenment that we no longer wish to see ourselves as bigots. So bigots take cover behind bogus grounds for bad-mouthing immigrants. They claim that they merely disapprove of them breaking our laws. Then they become accessories by employing these heinous "illegals". Apparently the desire of anti-immigrationists to stand up for the law doesn't run too deep in their character.

There are a few other give-aways as well that make it patently clear that immigration is an emotional not a legal issue. For example, there's the telling little factoid that Puerto Ricans, who are not merely legal residents but full-fledged citizens are often objects of the same Hispanophobia as undocumented Mexicans. If the griping and grousing of John Q. Conservative about immigration really was due to distress with people who are breaking the law to enter this country then it would be strictly confined to "illegals" and not spread around to lawful Latinos.

Let's be intellectually honest and morally courageous and begin calling anti-immigrationists on the fact that their law and order posture is a phony pose. That they suffer from a tribal mentality that feels anxiety and aversion for the outsider, the alien, the foreign devil. Yes, let's call xenophobes out of their ideological closet and confront them with the unbeautiful psychological truth about where their views come from.

Meg Whitman has done people with a more progressive point of view on immigration a great unintentional service, putting a spotlight on the humbuggery and duplicity, the political fraud and egregious lack of ethical integrity of anti-immigrationists. Let's not let people offhandedly and glibly dismiss the significance of the inconsistency of the talk and walk of immigrant bashers. It gives us a penetrating peek, an incisive insight into the real and unbenevolent nature of their mind-set.

If you're interested in exploring this and other topics in greater depth you're invited to visit my new website, The Total Revolution Project.com Just copy & paste the address below. And no, this isn't spam, it's a genuine invitation.

www.thetotalrevolutionproject.com
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2010 3:26:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
This is way too long! Try to summarize . . .
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2010 4:21:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Some politicians are hypocritical. We have more sophisticated political philosophy than the mainstream. Here is my website and the grammar is not very good.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2010 6:50:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/9/2010 4:21:18 PM, Sieben wrote:
Some politicians are hypocritical. We have more sophisticated political philosophy than the mainstream. Here is my website and the grammar is not very good.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH! Thanks for summarizing it into 3 sentences Sieben I owe you one.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/9/2010 8:01:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The greed-governed global community, and a geometrically growing number of its ill-treated individual citizens today are in a bleakly and tragically bad way, whether the postmodern planetary "state of the union" is given a hard look from an economic-political, an ecological, an ethical, or a spiritual perspective matters are pathetically and pathologically out of kilter and out of hope. At what might be our last gleaming as a species and despite all the enlightenment won in the course of our ten thousand year journey of civilization human beings have ineptly evolved a world system that systematically makes life an undignified, unhealthy, painful, and poignant short haul for a significant percentage of the third rock from the sun's population.

They have more alliteration than sanity.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2010 8:25:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/9/2010 4:21:18 PM, Sieben wrote:
Some politicians are hypocritical. We have more sophisticated political philosophy than the mainstream. Here is my website and the grammar is not very good.

Firstly, the thesis of the thread is not merely that politicians are hypocritical. The main point that I try to make is that Meg Whitman's hypocrisy is shared by most anti-immigrant Joe Sixpacks out there. And that their hypocrisy betrays where their anti-immigration stance really comes from.

That anti-immigrationism really manifests xenophobia and that demagogue politicians cater to it is perhaps no bombshell revelation, but it is one that should be put in the face of anti-immigrationists more often. (BTW, Meg Whitman is still just a wannabe politician, when she hypocritically employed an undocumented nanny she was a corporate CEO. Which is apropos of the fact that it's the ruling corporate Establishment that's actually responsible for the immigration situation.)

With a more careful reading you should have grasped all of the above. As for my grammar, it's self-styled and offbeat, not defective. I subscribe to the descriptive theory of grammar and take my liberties. Perhaps you adhere to the prescriptive theory, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt but from your sarcastic tone it's more likely that you were just taking a cheap shot.

Judging from the few replies that my little essay has provoked so far I'd say that the folks at this site are a snide and snippy lot. The kind of rude wits who get off on sniping at one's style and lack the intellectual equipment to deal with the substance of a post they philosophically disagree with. For example, another witling chose to knock my love of alliteration. More than petty, this reveals his lack of seriousness and the critical thinking skills necessary to take on and demolish my argument. And this site bills itself as one for debaters! It's more of a site for picayune critics and worshipers of Momus.

PS, I do sincerely apologize if this was too long for those of you with a short attention span. You could always try reading it in installments, maybe a paragraph a night.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2010 8:37:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/11/2010 8:25:44 PM, charleslb wrote:
no one cares about my ingenious website or appreciates my spam (they must be too dumb and closedminded!) so i am gonna wah wah wah all the way home.

good idea! i see your psychological immune system is working quite well :D
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2010 8:54:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/11/2010 8:25:44 PM, charleslb wrote:
Judging from the few replies that my little essay has provoked so far I'd say that the folks at this site are a snide and snippy lot. The kind of rude wits who get off on sniping at one's style and lack the intellectual equipment to deal with the substance of a post they philosophically disagree with. For example, another witling chose to knock my love of alliteration. More than petty, this reveals his lack of seriousness and the critical thinking skills necessary to take on and demolish my argument. And this site bills itself as one for debaters! It's more of a site for picayune critics and worshipers of Momus.

Actually, you're not getting much attention because, by and large, most people here agree with you. Your views are neither extreme nor unusual by DDO standards.

PS, I do sincerely apologize if this was too long for those of you with a short attention span. You could always try reading it in installments, maybe a paragraph a night.

Oh, pul-eeeeaaaze. Get over yourself.

Video related:

White Americans, what?
Nothing better to do?
Why don't you kick yourself out,
You're an immigrant too!
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2010 9:49:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/11/2010 8:54:57 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/11/2010 8:25:44 PM, charleslb wrote:
Judging from the few replies that my little essay has provoked so far I'd say that the folks at this site are a snide and snippy lot. The kind of rude wits who get off on sniping at one's style and lack the intellectual equipment to deal with the substance of a post they philosophically disagree with. For example, another witling chose to knock my love of alliteration. More than petty, this reveals his lack of seriousness and the critical thinking skills necessary to take on and demolish my argument. And this site bills itself as one for debaters! It's more of a site for picayune critics and worshipers of Momus.

Actually, you're not getting much attention because, by and large, most people here agree with you. Your views are neither extreme nor unusual by DDO standards.

PS, I do sincerely apologize if this was too long for those of you with a short attention span. You could always try reading it in installments, maybe a paragraph a night.

Oh, pul-eeeeaaaze. Get over yourself.

Video related:

White Americans, what?
Nothing better to do?
Why don't you kick yourself out,
You're an immigrant too!


Well, you can't be a pimp and a prostitute!
Best line....
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2010 9:53:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/11/2010 9:49:31 PM, annhasle wrote:
Well, you can't be a pimp and a prostitute!
Best line....

Yeah, that's my favorite White Stripes song and one of my favorite political songs.
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2010 10:00:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Just because, let's take you seriously for a moment. Ok?

At 10/9/2010 2:01:15 PM, charleslb wrote:
Here in the declining state of California we have a corporate CEO running for governor as a conservative Republican with a hard line on immigration, Meg Whitman,

Ok, with you so far,

who's just been outed as a hypocrite on the very hot-button issue that she hoped to exploit to win the gubernatorial race. It turns out that rather than employing a documented au pair , and despite being wealthy enough to hire a high-end governess to care for her children while she was busy profiteering in the private sector she'd now like to represent as governor, Mrs. Whitman used the services of a sans papiers nanny. She either violated her own professed principles or her stance on immigration is a sham designed to pander to the public's xenophobia. In either case we're reminded that a candidate doesn't have to be a career politician to be untrustworthy.


Whoah. I mean, really BIG revelation here, folks. Politicians are hypocrites!

...they're evulz...


Ok, back to you.

But what I find especially interesting is the jaded "What the heck, everyone does it" attitude that so many folks who are anti-immigrant are using to dismiss her bad faith. The very same people who in one conversation can be heard venting their rancor against "aliens" in their next bull session around the watercooler might be heard rationalizing on Mrs. Whitman's behalf that everyone in California uses immigrant labor without inquiring about the legal status of the individuals they employ.

Sources? Didn't think so. Go ahead.

Aside from the question of whether such an "Every one does it" rationalization really holds up for the average citizen,

It does, usually. Mostly because the average citizen chooses a path that allows them to live an average life; deviation from those paths can be fatal for average people. So, to be fair, I can rationalize getting a job, raising a family, and eating food on the grounds that "everyone does it." Nothing wrong with that. That has nothing to do with what you are talking about here, though.

it certainly doesn't cut the ethical mustard for candidates for political office, from whom we the electorate expect and demand more consistency and sincerity when it comes to the positions they espouse on public policy issues. If you're going to seek to represent the people in a high political office you don't get to casually contradict your beliefs with your behavior the way private citizens routinely do, you submit to being held to a stricter standard of integrity. Meg Whitman has fallen far short of such a standard and her defenders need to come to terms with this and stop feebly rationalizing on her behalf.

My English teacher would call this gobbledy-gook. You have a valid point: do what you say, practice what you preach, etc. Put in simpler terms, though; not because we can't understand your vocabulary, but because it looks like you are trying to impress us by the length of your words. "Look everyone, I own a thesaurus too!"

then you said stuff about employing illegal immigrants, and how all conservatives are hypocritical Hispanophobes.

You know, this wouldn't be so bad, if it weren't an obvious c/p rant. You have valid points, but you are not doing them any service by throwing them into a rantvertisement. If you actually feel strongly about this, you could try any or all of the following:

1. Post logical, well thought out articles somewhere they might get exposure to people who haven't thought these things out before (e.g, not DDO)

2. Back up your post with sources for the claims you are making.

3. Back off on the rhetoric. Conservatives are not all hispanio-hating, money-grubbing hypocrites, and you conceal your more valid points by implying so.


Let's be intellectually honest and morally courageous

I have. Your turn.

and begin calling anti-immigrationists on the fact that their law and order posture is a phony pose. That they suffer from a tribal mentality that feels anxiety and aversion for the outsider, the alien, the foreign devil. Yes, let's call xenophobes out of their ideological closet and confront them with the unbeautiful psychological truth about where their views come from.

And with this handwave, you dismiss all of the debate over immigration as xenophobia. You also use a strawman, labeling those against employing illegal immigrants as being anti-immigration. When you are ready to debate things rationally and unemotionally, come back and we'll talk.

If you're interested in exploring this and other topics in greater depth you're invited to visit my new website, The Total Revolution Project.com Just copy & paste the address below. And no, this isn't spam, it's a genuine invitation.

www.thetotalrevolutionproject.com

Yeah, it is spam. Genuine, 100% all-American home-grown spam. "You're invited," "genuine invitation," gag me with a spoon. What do you take us for, kindergartners? Obvious advertisement is obvious.

So. You ask why people didn't take you seriously? You're not worthy of serious consideration while you think that logical argument = pointless insults. Come back when you are ready to be rational.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2010 10:00:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/11/2010 9:53:09 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/11/2010 9:49:31 PM, annhasle wrote:
Well, you can't be a pimp and a prostitute!
Best line....

Yeah, that's my favorite White Stripes song and one of my favorite political songs.

Definitely.

White Americans, what?
Nothing better to do?
Why don't you kick yourself out?
You're an immigrant too?

Who's usin' who?
What should we do?
Well you can't be a pimp
And a prostitute too


^This was my sig for awhile and then I changed it...
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 1:38:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/11/2010 8:37:58 PM, belle wrote:
At 10/11/2010 8:25:44 PM, charleslb wrote:
no one cares about my ingenious website or appreciates my spam (they must be too dumb and closedminded!) so i am gonna wah wah wah all the way home.

good idea! i see your psychological immune system is working quite well :D

I notice that you are not numbered among the original group of malicious wits to whom I was responding. But if you took my comments personal and felt the need to add your vitriolic voice to their catty choir I suppose they apply aptly enough to your mentality and I need say no more. I simply refer you back to the observations you tellingly felt moved to reply to.

Adieu
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
nonentity
Posts: 5,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 1:42:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/12/2010 1:38:22 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/11/2010 8:37:58 PM, belle wrote:
At 10/11/2010 8:25:44 PM, charleslb wrote:
no one cares about my ingenious website or appreciates my spam (they must be too dumb and closedminded!) so i am gonna wah wah wah all the way home.

good idea! i see your psychological immune system is working quite well :D

I notice that you are not numbered among the original group of malicious wits to whom I was responding. But if you took my comments personal and felt the need to add your vitriolic voice to their catty choir I suppose they apply aptly enough to your mentality and I need say no more. I simply refer you back to the observations you tellingly felt moved to reply to.

Adieu

Wow. Harsh. You must have many friends.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 3:30:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Thank you for at least dissecting my thread and not merely writing an unconstructive and spiteful blurb like certain others. I'll do you the same courtesy and take your points one by one.

1. You agree with my characterization of California as a state in decline. Apparently you live in or have visited the state and know that sadly I'm not guilty of hyperbole here.

2. Next you distill my central point, but go to a reductionistic extreme. No, my thesis is not merely that politicians are hypocrites. Meg Whitman at this point is only an aspiring politician, and a member and representative of the corporate elite. If your mind was in astute mode rather than in tear-him-down-to-size mode you would have grasped that I was focusing on the hypocrisy of anti-immigrationists in general, and implying the responsibility of the corporatocracy for the immigration problem in particular.

3. Then you point out that I provide no sources for my observation that many people are inconsistent in their attitudes on immigration and take a "What the heck, everyone's doing it" attitude about employing undocumented workers. Do you want a list of names from a man-on-the-street public opinion poll? Who's being silly now? If you want sources for my claim that people are rationalizing on Whitman's behalf just listen to some talk radio.

4. Your attempt to refute my criticism of the everyone-does-it defense of hypocrisy doesn't really apply. Sure humans are conformists, we normally follow the herd and do what everyone else does. But this ceases to be an excuse for our choices when it comes to choices that don't tally with our professed principles. How does the human tendency to conformism justify hypocrisy?

5. Then you speculate that I'm trying to impress with my vocabulary. Is society so dumbed-down and our culture so anti-intellectual that long sentences and big words invite personal comments about one's intellectual pretentiousness? As for my words being too multisyllabic, I think the longest word in the paragraph that you insert this criticism after is the word "rationalizing". Hardly an impressive big word that one would need a thesaurus to come up with. And surely you realize that charging your opponent in a debate with trying to sound too intellectually highfalutin can make you sound either petty, insecure, or both.

4. Then you characterize my generalization about anti-immigrationists being hypocritical Hispanophobes as a rant. Well, one man's rant is another's jeremiad. Oops, there I go with those pompous words. But in point of accuracy I think it's probably my first.

5. Then you suggest that I post elsewhere, where my posts might be read by folks who haven't already thought through topics such as immigration. Judging from the majority of replies I've received this isn't exactly a site for deep thinkers. I would think that its habitues (oh my, another fancy word; but I assure you that I didn't resort to a thesaurus) could use a little food for thought. I think that the problem here is not that you-all are too sophisticated for little ole me; rather, I think that you're just the sort of boys and girls who enjoy being cutting and spiteful. Using big words isn't the only way of enjoying the illusion of intellectual superiority.

6. Then you advise that I tone down my rhetoric. This assumes that the mentality of anti-immigration types and conservatives doesn't have a little rhetorical lambasting coming. At least I'm not as hatefully incendiary as right-wing commentators such as Ann Coulter, who gets off opining that a lefty traitor should be put to death now and then to instill fear in liberals and keep them in line! Now that's provocative rhetoric that takes the public debate down to a dumb and mean-spirited level.

7. As for your criticism that I joust at straw men, well, these xenophobic straw men exist, and in no small number. If you live in California or anywhere in the South West you should know that.

8. Then you say that it's my turn to be intellectually honest. Where's the sophistry? What you consider to be unfairly broad generalizations and straw men are arguably real categories of people chock full of members. I personally know plenty of people who fit the bill of my straw men. So where do I employ intellectually dishonest, deceptive reasoning?

9. You call my arguments illogical and insulting and suggest that I return to this forum when I'm ready to be rational. Well, I chastise xenophobes for being xenophobes, and hypocrites for being hypocrites. These are groups who deserve rebuke. I'm not putting down short people for being of diminutive height, or fat folks for having a weight issue. I'm calling people whose opinions are dictated by xenophobia and other forms of bigotry on their inner Klansman. Is this irrational? Perhaps cold rationalism is overrated anyway. Feelings such as compassion for the victims of xenophobia can key one's mind into an ethically enlightened perspective that mere Mr. Spock-like rationality can never attain.

10. Lastly, you pronounce the judgment that my post is mere spam. I've seen spam advertising at other forum sites, and it's devoid of relevant or interesting content. Some of the spam I've seen had no substance at all, it was advertising with no content to redeem it. A post that some consider to be too long and full of bad arguments has too much content to be vapid spam. Well, which is it, is my post a pretentious piece of writing riddled with shoddy reasoning, or empty spam? Or are you so keen on being critical that your answer is that it's both?

Again, thank you for taking the time and trouble to critique my thread. I hope that my critique of your critique hasn't offended. Unlike others at this forum I take no pleasure in being scathing.

Adieu
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 6:32:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/11/2010 8:54:57 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 10/11/2010 8:25:44 PM, charleslb wrote:
Judging from the few replies that my little essay has provoked so far I'd say that the folks at this site are a snide and snippy lot. The kind of rude wits who get off on sniping at one's style and lack the intellectual equipment to deal with the substance of a post they philosophically disagree with. For example, another witling chose to knock my love of alliteration. More than petty, this reveals his lack of seriousness and the critical thinking skills necessary to take on and demolish my argument. And this site bills itself as one for debaters! It's more of a site for picayune critics and worshipers of Momus.

Actually, you're not getting much attention because, by and large, most people here agree with you. Your views are neither extreme nor unusual by DDO standards.

PS, I do sincerely apologize if this was too long for those of you with a short attention span. You could always try reading it in installments, maybe a paragraph a night.

Oh, pul-eeeeaaaze. Get over yourself.

Thank you for your reply. The reason for my jeering apology about the length of my posts has nothing to do with bigheadedness or my need to get over myself. It has to do with and was in reply to acerbic and overcritical feedback from others about the alleged excessive wordiness of my writing. You would think that I had given them War and Peace to read! If I've made some supercilious-sounding comments, well, I was just returning the serves I've received from some of this forum's "nattering nabobs of negativism". Thank you for not being one of them. It's refreshing to know that not everyone here is an insipid belittler.

Adieu
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 7:08:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Wow, you stuck around and answered. That puts you ahead of 99% of the spammers who join merely to post advertisements for their websites. You've earned a little more respect, just on that account.

At 10/12/2010 3:30:07 PM, charleslb wrote:
Thank you for at least dissecting my thread and not merely writing an unconstructive and spiteful blurb like certain others. I'll do you the same courtesy and take your points one by one.


You're welcome. Forgive me if I paraphrase or touch on selected portions of your response; it's long, and I think the basic point of disagreement is pretty short.

1. Current corrupt state of politics in California. No dispute there; I apply that to the whole US. Read Lincoln Steffens "Shame of the Cities" sometime; things haven't changed all that much from 1910.

2. ...my thesis is not merely that politicians are hypocrites...corporate elite. If your mind was in astute mode rather than in tear-him-down-to-size mode you would have grasped that I was focusing on the hypocrisy of anti-immigrationists in general, and implying the responsibility of the corporatocracy for the immigration problem in particular.

Your first paragraph focuses on the claimed hypocrisy of a particular politician.
I did notice you later focused on all anti-illegal immigrationites. I also noticed that you gave no proof of your accusations. See point 3.

3. Then you point out that I provide no sources for my observation ...Do you want a list of names from a man-on-the-street public opinion poll?

Actually, a link to, say, a Gallup poll would be about what I'm looking for, yes. No, it's not silly. You make a claim, and expect us to accept it on your say-so alone. Contrary to your initial opinion of this site (based mostly on a negative reaction to your advertisement and perceived holier-than-thou attitude, whether that was what you intended to portray or not), we do have a standard for evidence around here. The people around here are sharp, and they think for themselves; you aren't bringing anything up that hasn't been threshed out a dozen times already. You'll find (if you stick around) that the regular members of this site have had all of their beliefs challenged, and they have beaten out good reasons for holding those beliefs. It's an odd little website, filled with people who deviate from the statistical norms; and assuming that you are somehow intellectually superior to anyone who disagrees with you is just sad.

Basically, listen, look, and ask around before you assume that we are just a bunch of mindless trolls.

Oh, and if you want to last any time at all around here, never make any claim you can't prove.

4. Your attempt to refute ...How does the human tendency to conformism justify hypocrisy?

I never said it does. I was on a rabbit trail, friend. Normal people are quite justified in going by the "everyone does it" rule; no one expects the average man to rule his life by scholarly philosophy. I'd be happier if I didn't try to justify my actions logically... but that's a different topic.

5. Then you speculate that I'm trying to impress with my vocabulary.

Look, the point is your tone, not the words you use. You sound like you are talking down at us; and the posts you made later basically confirmed this, calling those who disagreed with you "malicious wits", "rude wits who get off on sniping at one's style and lack the intellectual equipment", implied we all have short attention spans, etc ad nauseam. You didn't post anything we couldn't understand, but your tone made it very distasteful to read. If you want people to listen to what you have to say, don't treat them like preschoolers.

"Intellectual equipment"? That's kinda funny. I've an IQ of 129, I read at 400+ wpm, I was reading the KJV of the Bible at age ten, and read Machiavelli and Adam Smith for fun at thirteen; and I'm hardly the sharpest debater here. You might want to rethink that kind of remark.


4. Then you characterize my generalization about anti-immigrationists being hypocritical Hispanophobes as a rant.

No sources, long post, can be boiled down into three sentences and not lose have a point; make it concise, and people might read it.

5. Everything here I've already covered. Ok, some (not all, as you erroneously presume) anti-immigrationists are money-grubbing hypocrites. We know that. You might try preaching to someone other than the choir, that's all.

6. Then you advise that I tone down my rhetoric.

I don't care about Ann Coulter; I'm talking to you. Loaded emotional language has no business in any serious discussion; save that for stirring up the crowds.

7. As for your criticism that I joust at straw men, well, these xenophobic straw men exist, and in no small number.

You misunderstand, I think. My point was you were blurring the difference between those against employing illegal immigrants, and those against immigration. Two very different issues.

8. Then you say that it's my turn to be intellectually honest. Where's the sophistry? What you consider to be unfairly broad generalizations and straw men are arguably real categories of people chock full of members. I personally know plenty of people who fit the bill of my straw men. So where do I employ intellectually dishonest, deceptive reasoning?

You paint with broad generalizations, labeling anyone who holds a particular view on this topic a hypocrite. No proof given. You use loaded language to dismiss your opponents. They become "bigots", "Hispanophobes", "xenophobes", "humbugs" and "immigrant-bashers". These are all character judgments, and highly subjective; and what's worse, because their actions supposedly flow from these hidden attitudes, there is no way they can be cleared of the charges! Brilliant, Charles!

You know what? Some of them are exactly what you say, I've no doubt. I have no idea which ones, because I'm not omniscient (or Batman); but I'm sure you are right about some of them. But, I'd wager, most of them are just scared. They see a huge threat to their already uncertain jobs, and illegal immigrants are a lot easier targets than huge multi-national companies who are moving jobs to India.

9. You call my arguments illogical and insulting and suggest that I return to this forum when I'm ready to be rational.

They are, and I do.

Well, I chastise xenophobes for being xenophobes, and hypocrites for being hypocrites. These are groups who deserve rebuke.

I agree. If you can prove that they are what you say, then I will join you in crying shame.

Perhaps cold rationalism is overrated anyway. Feelings such as compassion for the victims of xenophobia can key one's mind into an ethically enlightened perspective that mere Mr. Spock-like rationality can never attain.

Never. Compassion for the victims should never goad one into a Salem witch hunt. Your emotions will not stand up in court; why should we consider them outside?

10. Lastly, you pronounce the judgment that my post is mere spam.

I did consider, briefly, that you might be in earnest; I really think you are, now that you've taken the time to stick around and defend your statement. Like I said, most spammers won't do that.

I now retract the accusation of being mere spam.


Again, thank you for taking the time and trouble to critique my thread. I hope that my critique of your critique hasn't offended. Unlike others at this forum I take no pleasure in being scathing.

I love being criticized; I never grow when everyone agrees with me. You'd be pretty hard pressed to offend me.

Stick around; this is the site for opinionated people. Chill a little, learn who these people are before you judge. Do a couple debates on topics you really care about, and a couple on things just for fun. You may find that there are people here quite your intellectual match.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2010 7:10:18 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Oh, and don't mind the trolls. Highschoolers have to work of caffeine and hormones sometimes. This is the internet, after all.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Nubway
Posts: 45
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2010 9:04:35 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Disagree. She didn't know that she was illegal. This has already been proven.
http://hotair.com...
Doesn't make sense for someone to accuse her then not go forward with their accusation in court. I know a lot of conservatives and on this issue they're not hypocrites. This thesis has no basis and is based on pure speculation.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2010 10:42:10 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/9/2010 7:04:01 PM, Puck wrote:
That link provided much laughs. So thanks.

Materialism is bad!! Feel free to send me money!!

If you were chatting with a taxi driver on the way to the airport and he was opinionatedly down on our culture's runaway materialism when it came time to pay his fee would you deny him a tip and point out that it was hypocritical of him to expect one given his philosophical opposition to materialism? Probably not, since you realize that cab drivers, waitresses, etc. need their tips to support themselves and their families at a decent standard of living and there's nothing hypocritical about being against materialism and needing a livelihood. People have a legitimate need for funds, even those who have a website that takes a strong axiological stance against materialism. Seeking to meet that legitimate need for financial support doesn't in and of itself make one a charlatan. Seeking to get flush and fat hyping the evils of materialism, like some sort of smarmy TV preacher, of course would. Apparently your simplistic, knee-jerk tendency is to not make this fair-minded distinction and to pigeonhole anyone requesting monetary help for his cause as a greedy poseur. Have we all become so jaded that we would view Mother Teresa passing the collection plate as no better than a money-grubbing televangelist? This just sadly confirms my views on what the materialistic-consumerist-capitalist ethos is doing to our minds and hearts and society.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2010 1:01:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 10/9/2010 4:21:18 PM, Sieben wrote:
Some politicians are hypocritical. We have more sophisticated political philosophy than the mainstream. Here is my website and the grammar is not very good.

That is most politicians, they tell people what they want to hear to get elected, and the polulace falls for this stuff every election cycle. People have short memories, and have no choice but to believe what they are constantly blugeoned with on TV.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2010 1:51:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
A reply to Chrysippus

Thanks for another reply that addresses specifics in an analytical fashion. I'll just respond to a few select points and try to keep it brief this time. I acknowledge that I base my generalizations about the anti-immigrant mentality on anecdotal evidence. I don't live in an ivory tower in which I'm blissfully surrounded by people who always agree with me. Rather, I'm constantly finding myself in conversations with those who harbor negative sentiments about immigrants, and they frequently express thoughts that suggest that their views come from a tribal, us-them way of thinking. Such anecdotal "data" is admittedly not going to stand up in a scientific journal but when people in general keep voicing certain opinions it does give some grounds for generalizing about their mind-set.

Polls? Well, I know that there are plenty of polls that indicate that anti-immigration emotionalism is on the rise, but unfortunately I don't really know of any polls that were devised to determine if people's anti-immigrationism comes from a psychological place of xenophobia and bigotry. Nor am I aware of a poll designed to gauge the consistency of people's attitude about using immigrant labor. So yes, I'm going by unscientific, unsubstantiated anecdotal experience. Although there is a nationwide Bendixen and Associates poll that shows that 64% of Hispanics feel racism coming their way from those in the anti-immigration camp. And some people who share my point of view think that polls showing widespread support for Arizona's anti-immigration policy convict anti-immigrationists of racism.

Secondly, yes, most of the time copying the behavior of those around you is a normal and successful behavioral strategy. However it doesn't always ethically stand up as the best rule of thumb. For example, if a crowd of onlookers is witnessing a crime and no one takes action to stop it should you just go with that apathetic and fearful flow and do nothing like everyone else? And if John Q. Public, despite being in favor of cracking down on illegal immigration, is exploiting cheap undocumented day laborers to build an addition to his house does the fact that all of his anti-immigration neighbors have undocumented gardeners and nannies make it any less hypocritical?

Thirdly, as for my tone being haughty, mia culpa. I'll simply say again in my defense that I was reacting to the gibes I was receiving. As for your "intellectual equipment", I wasn't directing my disparagement of the intelligence of this forum's participants at you. I'm sorry if you took comments meant for the site's less thoughtful and more malicious posters personally. I'm happy for you that you're a speed reader with a high IQ, the world could use more of you. But notice how you felt goaded to inform me of your intellectual prowess because you felt that I was being intellectually snide. I simply succumbed to the same tit-for-tat impulse. I beg everyone's pardon.

Next you say that "emotional language has no business in any serious discussion". Would you tell Martin Luther King after his impassioned I have a Dream speech that his rhapsodic rhetoric was injecting emotionalism into the public debate on civil rights and making it less rational and intelligent? At any rate, the truth is not just a stone-cold objective quantity that we arrive at by banishing emotion from our thinking, it's a values-laden concept, a preferential option that we make for the highest and best values of life, for justice, freedom, compassion, and life. Making this preferential option doesn't lead us down the path to passion-driven Salem-style persecution, making the option to flow with our lower instincts does.

Speaking of lower instincts, you next point out that many anti-immigrationists are merely average Joes and Janes who are understandably scared. Well, fear is of the essence of xenophobia. That people are scared about being flooded by "foreigners" doesn't exactly absolve them of the suspicion of being xenophobes. Nor does it often put people on the side of the angels. It's been a while since I've seen the movie Star Wars, but doesn't fear lead to anger, and then to the dark side? Throughout history fear is one of the arch enemies of human decency. One of the chief factors that turns people into persecutors and Klansmen. Let's not forget that in the civil rights era many Southern whites were profoundly afraid of what might happen to their communities if blacks were given equality. Being scared is what put them on the same side of the fence as hatemongers and church bombers. Being afraid of people who are different may be common, but it's also often the gateway emotion for racism and evil.

Lastly, you stand by your evaluation of my arguments as illogical and insulting. In what way are my arguments bad reasoning? Are they unsound because they're not based on facts? Well, again, until the right polls come along the only facts available to go on are anecdotal. Are my arguments invalid because my conclusions don't follow from my premises? Well, I think that it's quite valid to conclude from the fact that anti-immigrationists have the same negative feelings for legal Hispanic residents that they have for undocumented migrants that something else is going on in their psyches.

Yes, I think it's quite arguable that if anti-immigrationists were merely staunch supporters of law and order who disapproved of lawbreaking immigrants they'd confine their angst about "aliens" in our midst to so-called "illegals". Of course some do, I'm not saying categorically that none do. But many anti-immigrationists, going back to the Ellis Island era when most newcomers to this country were "legal", gripe about all immigrants, about the neighborhood and the country being overrun by "them". Enough are guilty of this for some qualified generalizations to be acceptable and for me to reason that xenophobia may be more rampant than anti-immigrationists would like to admit. But perhaps I failed to qualify my generalizations sufficiently. Again, mia culpa.

And okay, if my statements about anti-immigrationists being xenophobes and hypocrites were insulting, well, the insulting statements were only meant for those for whom the sordid shoe fits. If I offended any non-bigoted anti-immigrationists I sincerely apologize for that too.

To conclude, thank you for your words of advice and for another thoughtful reply. (And yeah, I failed to keep it brief. One more mia culpa)
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 10:34:15 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
Didn't even bother reading it. Try summarizing... You're not getting graded on a dissertation.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/15/2010 10:40:25 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
"I didn't have time to write a short letter, so I wrote a long one instead."

- Mark Twain

Protip: this is DDO, where the content of your idea is more valued than overly loquacious elocution :P
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2010 4:28:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Just a few more contrarian thoughts on the immigration issue.

I find it kind of psychologically interesting that so many anti-immigrationists express the concern and conspiracist thinking that Mexican migrants are not merely individuals and families seeking higher paying employment in the US, but that they are in fact infiltrating this country with a long-range agenda of one day reclaiming the South West. According to this theory there's a grand plan to build up their numbers until they're able to pull off a takeover of territory stolen from Mexico in the Mexican-American war.

What's so interesting about such thinking is not just that it's xenophobia taken to a paranoid extreme at which there's no reasonable doubt that anti-immigrationism is fear-based, what's even more interesting to me is that it may also be projection. It's a little factoid of American history that it was a gradual, non-military invasion of Texas by gringos looking for greener pastures that ultimately led to the US annexing that enormous parcel of real estate. In other words, once upon a time Americans did precisely what some today fear Mexicans may be doing. Over a span of time Americans entered the Mexican territory of Texas illegally and when their numbers were sufficient they claimed independence and joined the Union. Americans perpetrated the exact scenario that anti-immigrationists fear is currently underway in reverse.

Perhaps it's our own historical ruthlessness, greed, and guilt that we see and fear in the immigrants that some love to loathe. Perhaps we're projecting our own sense of "manifest destiny" onto people who certainly have no covert nationalistic strategy to steal back geography that once belonged to their country. Mexican immigrants are just what they appear to be, people whose country of birth has been kept in poverty by the "structural adjustment" policies of the World Bank and IMF, i.e., the money-power of the rich First World, and who are therefore seeking better circumstances in the labor market of the US. An especially poetic case of our squalid chickens coming home to roost and poop on us. If we really mean to get serious about immigration we need to put an end to the policies of the corporate and financial elite who impose poverty on the Third World, and then exploit undocumented workers who are driven by said poverty to come here in quest of a decent quality of life.

The real villains are in the business and banking Establishment that's creating the conditions in developing countries that motivate millions to emigrate to Europe and North America every year. Most human beings are inclined and content to live out their lives in their own country of origin, they only pull up stakes and leave their culture and families when they're compelled to by economic necessity. If we the wealthy countries stop inflicting poverty and privation on the peoples of Latin America and elsewhere we'll find the teeming masses flooding us dwindling down to a mere trickle.

But because immigration is more of an emotional issue for many we instead keep our focus on the invading "aliens" whose growing numbers strike fear into our hearts. No doubt corporate America would be perfectly happy for us to continue to approach the immigration problem in our accustomed ineffectual, emotional fashion. But if we really want to get rational and pragmatic about immigration we should shift our focus away from the lowly immigrants we see all around us and onto the ferociously greedy folks at the top of our business and political food chain who currently are not in the public's sights.

And no, this doesn't just mean bashing and giving the boot to venal politicians whose souls are easily purchased by the money of the economic elite, it means extensively restructuring the world's power structure so that the global village is no longer a place in which the flushest10% of its population owns an obscene 85% of its wealth! We can't just fixate on the political shills of the superrich and on immigrants who are just fellow victims of power, we have to begin looking critically at the whole gestalt of the world's socio-economic ills and injustices if we genuinely hope to solve problems such as immigration, human trafficking, terrorism, narco-terrorism, and a host of others. The real if radical remedy for the modern world's multitude of evils is a global social and economic justice movement that targets and fixes the underlying conditions giving rise to humanity's woes. No justice, no peace, or secure borders, or end to the "war on terror", or to world hunger, etc.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
annhasle
Posts: 6,657
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2010 4:31:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Are you even listening to what they are saying?

SHORTER POSTS GOOD. VERY LONG BAD. SUMMARIZE PLZ.
I'm not back. This idiot just upset me which made me stop lurking.
Sieben
Posts: 2,736
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/16/2010 4:34:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Rich people make me so angry. Marx's anti-capitalist arguments against mercantilist guilds apply with equal force against all forms of capitalism, because they have the same words.
Things that are so interesting:

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...