Racism, Sexism, and Nationalism

Inb4 I'm sexist or a racist.

Two of the three is considered "morally offensive". Nationalism is seen as morally permissible.

Nationalism is basically the preference for supporting the members of the same territory as your state, to a higher support than other humans. Many people on DDO, including myself, will argue for certain policies based on a nationalism point of view. For example, people who favor welfare do not necessarily want the state, for example give money to the poorest nations (ex: Africa), but to the citizens of their own state. In a debate I had on immigration policy, I argued that the United States should not have open immigration policy because it would hurt US citizens. I still agree with this sentiment. However, it would overwhelmingly benefit society. I don't think anybody thinks otherwise. After all, people would only immigrate to the United States If they believed it would benefit their lives. Nobody called me out on this.

And in some extent, it makes sense that I would believe in policies that would benefit myself at the expense of others. I am in favor of policies that benefit my own interest. Immigration would likely hurt me because I don't think I could compete against asian and indian engineers. Even If I could, my real wage would likely go down (supply of engineers increase, the wages of engineers go down). I also believe that crime rates would increase with an open borders policy. But its also possible that I am against immigration policy because I favor individuals from America over individuals from other nations.

It would logically follow that one should support policies that benefit themselves. So If you belong to Class "X" (for example: religion "X", race "X", sex "X") then one should support ideas that benefit Class "X", whether or not you like others from Class "X" or not. However, nobody believes one should support policies that are "openly" sexist or racist, however people have no problems with policies that are openly nationalistic.

I think people will argue "will the state 'should' do policies that benefit their own citizens". Why though? The state is just an institution. It has no moral duties. It only acts on public choice theory. What matters is what your own subjective preference is. Why do you want to see the state help citizens just because they happen to be from a certain territory?

At 6/5/2012 12:35:44 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Inb4 I'm sexist or a racist.

Two of the three is considered "morally offensive". Nationalism is seen as morally permissible.

Nationalism is basically the preference for supporting the members of the same territory as your state, to a higher support than other humans. Many people on DDO, including myself, will argue for certain policies based on a nationalism point of view. For example, people who favor welfare do not necessarily want the state, for example give money to the poorest nations (ex: Africa), but to the citizens of their own state. In a debate I had on immigration policy, I argued that the United States should not have open immigration policy because it would hurt US citizens. I still agree with this sentiment. However, it would overwhelmingly benefit society. I don't think anybody thinks otherwise. After all, people would only immigrate to the United States If they believed it would benefit their lives. Nobody called me out on this.

And in some extent, it makes sense that I would believe in policies that would benefit myself at the expense of others. I am in favor of policies that benefit my own interest. Immigration would likely hurt me because I don't think I could compete against asian and indian engineers. Even If I could, my real wage would likely go down (supply of engineers increase, the wages of engineers go down). I also believe that crime rates would increase with an open borders policy. But its also possible that I am against immigration policy because I favor individuals from America over individuals from other nations.

It would logically follow that one should support policies that benefit themselves. So If you belong to Class "X" (for example: religion "X", race "X", sex "X") then one should support ideas that benefit Class "X", whether or not you like others from Class "X" or not. However, nobody believes one should support policies that are "openly" sexist or racist, however people have no problems with policies that are openly nationalistic.

I think people will argue "will the state 'should' do policies that benefit their own citizens". Why though? The state is just an institution. It has no moral duties. It only acts on public choice theory. What matters is what your own subjective preference is. Why do you want to see the state help citizens just because they happen to be from a certain territory?

You realise, of course, that by restricting the free movement of labour, the US is restricting free trade, and thereby she limits the ability of American corporations to compete on a level playing field with their Asian and Indian competitors.

That is to say that the US is not a free-market, capitalist country. I'm not saying that's wrong, but then I wouldn't, I'm a socialist.

At 6/5/2012 1:44:44 PM, brian_eggleston wrote:

At 6/5/2012 12:35:44 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Inb4 I'm sexist or a racist.

Two of the three is considered "morally offensive". Nationalism is seen as morally permissible.

Nationalism is basically the preference for supporting the members of the same territory as your state, to a higher support than other humans. Many people on DDO, including myself, will argue for certain policies based on a nationalism point of view. For example, people who favor welfare do not necessarily want the state, for example give money to the poorest nations (ex: Africa), but to the citizens of their own state. In a debate I had on immigration policy, I argued that the United States should not have open immigration policy because it would hurt US citizens. I still agree with this sentiment. However, it would overwhelmingly benefit society. I don't think anybody thinks otherwise. After all, people would only immigrate to the United States If they believed it would benefit their lives. Nobody called me out on this.

And in some extent, it makes sense that I would believe in policies that would benefit myself at the expense of others. I am in favor of policies that benefit my own interest. Immigration would likely hurt me because I don't think I could compete against asian and indian engineers. Even If I could, my real wage would likely go down (supply of engineers increase, the wages of engineers go down). I also believe that crime rates would increase with an open borders policy. But its also possible that I am against immigration policy because I favor individuals from America over individuals from other nations.

It would logically follow that one should support policies that benefit themselves. So If you belong to Class "X" (for example: religion "X", race "X", sex "X") then one should support ideas that benefit Class "X", whether or not you like others from Class "X" or not. However, nobody believes one should support policies that are "openly" sexist or racist, however people have no problems with policies that are openly nationalistic.

I think people will argue "will the state 'should' do policies that benefit their own citizens". Why though? The state is just an institution. It has no moral duties. It only acts on public choice theory. What matters is what your own subjective preference is. Why do you want to see the state help citizens just because they happen to be from a certain territory?

You realise, of course, that by restricting the free movement of labour, the US is restricting free trade, and thereby she limits the ability of American corporations to compete on a level playing field with their Asian and Indian competitors.

That is to say that the US is not a free-market, capitalist country. I'm not saying that's wrong, but then I wouldn't, I'm a socialist.

"competitiveness" does not matter. Trade isn't a zero sum game.

I think it comes down to the same moral intuition that would have people culpable for drowning a child but not walking by and letting them drown. People don't get as upset when we close our borders and let people starve to death as when we actively inflict suffering on another people; and that holds regardless of whether we're talking about race or nationality.

At 6/5/2012 1:58:38 PM, Kinesis wrote:
I think it comes down to the same moral intuition that would have people culpable for drowning a child but not walking by and letting them drown. People don't get as upset when we close our borders and let people starve to death as when we actively inflict suffering on another people; and that holds regardless of whether we're talking about race or nationality.

Well one can invoke the "Non-aggression principle", but I don't really believe in that at all or the differences between "positive" vs. "negative" rights.

We have moral intuitions that are due to evolution telling us that someone who drowned a child isn't a person you want to be around, since he/she might kill you and/or the people you value. But in reality, what's the difference?

At 6/5/2012 12:35:44 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Inb4 I'm sexist or a racist.

Two of the three is considered "morally offensive". Nationalism is seen as morally permissible.

Nationalism is basically the preference for supporting the members of the same territory as your state, to a higher support than other humans. Many people on DDO, including myself, will argue for certain policies based on a nationalism point of view. For example, people who favor welfare do not necessarily want the state, for example give money to the poorest nations (ex: Africa), but to the citizens of their own state. In a debate I had on immigration policy, I argued that the United States should not have open immigration policy because it would hurt US citizens. I still agree with this sentiment. However, it would overwhelmingly benefit society. I don't think anybody thinks otherwise. After all, people would only immigrate to the United States If they believed it would benefit their lives. Nobody called me out on this.

And in some extent, it makes sense that I would believe in policies that would benefit myself at the expense of others. I am in favor of policies that benefit my own interest. Immigration would likely hurt me because I don't think I could compete against asian and indian engineers. Even If I could, my real wage would likely go down (supply of engineers increase, the wages of engineers go down). I also believe that crime rates would increase with an open borders policy. But its also possible that I am against immigration policy because I favor individuals from America over individuals from other nations.

It would logically follow that one should support policies that benefit themselves. So If you belong to Class "X" (for example: religion "X", race "X", sex "X") then one should support ideas that benefit Class "X", whether or not you like others from Class "X" or not. However, nobody believes one should support policies that are "openly" sexist or racist, however people have no problems with policies that are openly nationalistic.

I think people will argue "will the state 'should' do policies that benefit their own citizens". Why though? The state is just an institution. It has no moral duties. It only acts on public choice theory. What matters is what your own subjective preference is. Why do you want to see the state help citizens just because they happen to be from a certain territory?

Can't say I'm familiar with this definition of "Nationalism."

Nationalism does not imply considering one people to be "superior" to another or deserving of superior treatment. It implies identification with members of the same nationality. You can identify with being Jewish without saying Jews should get preferential treatment/are superior to non-Jews.

Take your example of giving money to Africa. A black American could view this through either national or race-based identification. From the race perspective, the cost-benefit would structured around one race (the man's) versus another. From a nationalist-based lens the cost-benefit would be one nation (the man's) versus another.

Both options can technically be in his self-interest depending on whether he identifies himself as black or American. Because this identification influences his cost-benefit analysis (whether using black or American lens), the man's policy preferences will lean towards the in-group.

However, the man does not need to assume blacks deserve preferential treatments to whites anymore than he needs to assume Americans deserve preferential treatment to African countries. He is only assuming that he wants to maximize his self-interest relative to the group he identifies with.

That's no more prejudiced than a Democrat wanting Democrats to win Congress because it is in their self-interest.

At 6/5/2012 5:18:48 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 6/5/2012 12:35:44 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Inb4 I'm sexist or a racist.

Two of the three is considered "morally offensive". Nationalism is seen as morally permissible.

Nationalism is basically the preference for supporting the members of the same territory as your state, to a higher support than other humans. Many people on DDO, including myself, will argue for certain policies based on a nationalism point of view. For example, people who favor welfare do not necessarily want the state, for example give money to the poorest nations (ex: Africa), but to the citizens of their own state. In a debate I had on immigration policy, I argued that the United States should not have open immigration policy because it would hurt US citizens. I still agree with this sentiment. However, it would overwhelmingly benefit society. I don't think anybody thinks otherwise. After all, people would only immigrate to the United States If they believed it would benefit their lives. Nobody called me out on this.

And in some extent, it makes sense that I would believe in policies that would benefit myself at the expense of others. I am in favor of policies that benefit my own interest. Immigration would likely hurt me because I don't think I could compete against asian and indian engineers. Even If I could, my real wage would likely go down (supply of engineers increase, the wages of engineers go down). I also believe that crime rates would increase with an open borders policy. But its also possible that I am against immigration policy because I favor individuals from America over individuals from other nations.

It would logically follow that one should support policies that benefit themselves. So If you belong to Class "X" (for example: religion "X", race "X", sex "X") then one should support ideas that benefit Class "X", whether or not you like others from Class "X" or not. However, nobody believes one should support policies that are "openly" sexist or racist, however people have no problems with policies that are openly nationalistic.

I think people will argue "will the state 'should' do policies that benefit their own citizens". Why though? The state is just an institution. It has no moral duties. It only acts on public choice theory. What matters is what your own subjective preference is. Why do you want to see the state help citizens just because they happen to be from a certain territory?

Can't say I'm familiar with this definition of "Nationalism."

Nationalism does not imply considering one people to be "superior" to another or deserving of superior treatment. It implies identification with members of the same nationality. You can identify with being Jewish without saying Jews should get preferential treatment/are superior to non-Jews.

Take your example of giving money to Africa. A black American could view this through either national or race-based identification. From the race perspective, the cost-benefit would structured around one race (the man's) versus another. From a nationalist-based lens the cost-benefit would be one nation (the man's) versus another.

Both options can technically be in his self-interest depending on whether he identifies himself as black or American. Because this identification influences his cost-benefit analysis (whether using black or American lens), the man's policy preferences will lean towards the in-group.

However, the man does not need to assume blacks deserve preferential treatments to whites anymore than he needs to assume Americans deserve preferential treatment to African countries. He is only assuming that he wants to maximize his self-interest relative to the group he identifies with.

That's no more prejudiced than a Democrat wanting Democrats to win Congress because it is in their self-interest.

^^^ Truth.

And, to add to that, "racism," "sexism," and "nationalism" are equally harmful based on the degree to which they're expressed.

For example, someone who is proud of their ethnicity as defined by their appearance, is acknowledging "race" to some degree. In other words, "proud whites, blacks, Asians, Jews," or whatever.

However, this is a purely harmless sentiment, by itself. An arbitrary one, but so what? They like the culture that accompanies people that have similar physical characteristics. Their prerogative.

Nationalism, on the other hand, that extends to a feelings of superiority or hatred, is socially poisonous and deleterious. I'm proud to be American. Americans are cool as Hell. But, that doesn't mean I don't respect the French, the Argentinian, the Icelandic, or the Japanese, for example.

And, of course, you can apply either distinction to all three.

At 6/5/2012 5:26:54 PM, Ren wrote:

At 6/5/2012 5:18:48 PM, Wnope wrote:

At 6/5/2012 12:35:44 PM, darkkermit wrote:
Inb4 I'm sexist or a racist.

Two of the three is considered "morally offensive". Nationalism is seen as morally permissible.

Nationalism is basically the preference for supporting the members of the same territory as your state, to a higher support than other humans. Many people on DDO, including myself, will argue for certain policies based on a nationalism point of view. For example, people who favor welfare do not necessarily want the state, for example give money to the poorest nations (ex: Africa), but to the citizens of their own state. In a debate I had on immigration policy, I argued that the United States should not have open immigration policy because it would hurt US citizens. I still agree with this sentiment. However, it would overwhelmingly benefit society. I don't think anybody thinks otherwise. After all, people would only immigrate to the United States If they believed it would benefit their lives. Nobody called me out on this.

And in some extent, it makes sense that I would believe in policies that would benefit myself at the expense of others. I am in favor of policies that benefit my own interest. Immigration would likely hurt me because I don't think I could compete against asian and indian engineers. Even If I could, my real wage would likely go down (supply of engineers increase, the wages of engineers go down). I also believe that crime rates would increase with an open borders policy. But its also possible that I am against immigration policy because I favor individuals from America over individuals from other nations.

It would logically follow that one should support policies that benefit themselves. So If you belong to Class "X" (for example: religion "X", race "X", sex "X") then one should support ideas that benefit Class "X", whether or not you like others from Class "X" or not. However, nobody believes one should support policies that are "openly" sexist or racist, however people have no problems with policies that are openly nationalistic.

I think people will argue "will the state 'should' do policies that benefit their own citizens". Why though? The state is just an institution. It has no moral duties. It only acts on public choice theory. What matters is what your own subjective preference is. Why do you want to see the state help citizens just because they happen to be from a certain territory?

Can't say I'm familiar with this definition of "Nationalism."

Nationalism does not imply considering one people to be "superior" to another or deserving of superior treatment. It implies identification with members of the same nationality. You can identify with being Jewish without saying Jews should get preferential treatment/are superior to non-Jews.

Take your example of giving money to Africa. A black American could view this through either national or race-based identification. From the race perspective, the cost-benefit would structured around one race (the man's) versus another. From a nationalist-based lens the cost-benefit would be one nation (the man's) versus another.

Both options can technically be in his self-interest depending on whether he identifies himself as black or American. Because this identification influences his cost-benefit analysis (whether using black or American lens), the man's policy preferences will lean towards the in-group.

However, the man does not need to assume blacks deserve preferential treatments to whites anymore than he needs to assume Americans deserve preferential treatment to African countries. He is only assuming that he wants to maximize his self-interest relative to the group he identifies with.

That's no more prejudiced than a Democrat wanting Democrats to win Congress because it is in their self-interest.

^^^ Truth.

And, to add to that, "racism," "sexism," and "nationalism" are equally harmful based on the degree to which they're expressed.

For example, someone who is proud of their ethnicity as defined by their appearance, is acknowledging "race" to some degree. In other words, "proud whites, blacks, Asians, Jews," or whatever.

However, this is a purely harmless sentiment, by itself. An arbitrary one, but so what? They like the culture that accompanies people that have similar physical characteristics. Their prerogative.

Nationalism, on the other hand, that extends to a feelings of superiority or hatred, is socially poisonous and deleterious. I'm proud to be American. Americans are cool as Hell. But, that doesn't mean I don't respect the French, the Argentinian, the Icelandic, or the Japanese, for example.

And, of course, you can apply either distinction to all three.

Yeah, there is no way in hell I'd be anything but American, but that doesn't mean I'm an exceptionalist.

I prefer individualism to nationalism, sexism, and racism.

At 6/5/2012 5:50:56 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I prefer individualism to nationalism, sexism, and racism.

I wish I had the luxury of only representing myself :p

At 6/5/2012 9:57:40 PM, tulle wrote:

At 6/5/2012 5:50:56 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
I prefer individualism to nationalism, sexism, and racism.

I wish I had the luxury of only representing myself :p

XD

Nationalism's just as bad as racism and sexism. :P They're all exclusionary, oppositional categories. Who's in, who's out? Some are just more convenient for us than others.