Temple of The Roguelike Forums
Websites => Off-topic (Locked) => Topic started by: Krice on August 18, 2011, 12:08:24 PM
-
What to think about them? This issue is hot now in Finland, because previously we have been quite closed country with only small amount of foreigners. But now things are changing and more people come from poor countries like Estonia and Somalia.
Foreigners aren't bad, they are people like anyone else. But I think foreign policy can create -more- problems than there was before. It's difficult for them trying to become familiar with Finnish culture and this country, and most of them don't even want to let go of their own culture. So you end up in a situation where two kinds of people try to live in one country. We know from experience that it's not the best way. So why it's so "important" to take lots of foreigners?
-
Well, in an ultimate sense it defeats inbreeding. Beyond that, raises the threshold for variety, new traditions, chance for trade---human society is about as social as nomadic in some respects.
The trick is "integrating" the nifty parts of your home culture with that of your new host country---even basic things like new cuisine can serve as fertile ground for understanding and progress economically and otherwise. Popping into somewhere new to just try to create a mini-version of the place you've left or fled from though, not trying to learn the language, etc----far less workable.
-
Unless the unspoken alternative to inclusive immigration policy is a concerted, tireless, worldwide effort to better the living conditions and opportunities for all human beings, then you could broaden out the question at issue to "why be altruistic?" Not that I know the answer to that one, of course.
-
I have considered applying for an erasmus grant for Finland.
Would I fall under the scope of this question?
-
Hey! Come to Finland! We would meet and drink beer! :D
-
I have considered applying for an erasmus grant for Finland.
Would I fall under the scope of this question?
I don't think so. Student exchange is cool I guess. I'm just wondering why anyone would want to come here. This is a cold polar country. People are not friendly here, not even to each other. Women are ugly and prices are high. Even social security is quite bad, because everything is expensive. It's of course better than die in hunger, but...
-
I have considered applying for an erasmus grant for Finland.
Would I fall under the scope of this question?
I don't think so. Student exchange is cool I guess. I'm just wondering why anyone would want to come here. This is a cold polar country. People are not friendly here, not even to each other. Women are ugly and prices are high. Even social security is quite bad, because everything is expensive. It's of course better than die in hunger, but...
Seriously or you're just doing anti-immigration propaganda?
Your country looks awesome from the outside. Lots of nature, fish, snow, strong economy (but joining the eurozone wasn't a good move IMO), tall beautiful women and cool knife-fighting men who hunt bears then go to sauna then get drunk then ready for another day (then get drunk again).
-
Seriously or you're just doing anti-immigration propaganda?
It's no propaganda. I think we have to think about preserving polar cultures which are vulnerable to outside influences.
tall beautiful women
That's Estonia. In Finland women are usually 150cm (1,5 metres in metric system) and hairy. Sometimes it's difficult to say if it's a woman or man.
-
So the knife-fighting brutes part is true, hahah I knew it!
-
I have considered applying for an erasmus grant for Finland.
Would I fall under the scope of this question?
I don't think so. Student exchange is cool I guess. I'm just wondering why anyone would want to come here. This is a cold polar country. People are not friendly here, not even to each other. Women are ugly and prices are high. Even social security is quite bad, because everything is expensive. It's of course better than die in hunger, but...
Why go there?
1st: You have an awesome moonspeak language. That's where most of my interest lies. And it has common sense vowels, for a change, unlike english, or french, or every other kid in the block.
2nd: I'm from the mediterranean. Your land, for me, is as exotic as they get, without having to go half around the world or into a melting hellhole.
3rd: The finnish girls I've met were blond-haired cute little things, actually :3
I don't have a rebuttal for the pricing issue X_D
-
What to think about them? This issue is hot now in Finland, because previously we have been quite closed country with only small amount of foreigners. But now things are changing and more people come from poor countries like Estonia and Somalia.
Foreigners aren't bad, they are people like anyone else. But I think foreign policy can create -more- problems than there was before. It's difficult for them trying to become familiar with Finnish culture and this country, and most of them don't even want to let go of their own culture. So you end up in a situation where two kinds of people try to live in one country. We know from experience that it's not the best way. So why it's so "important" to take lots of foreigners?
With the global population on the rise, populations are going to be mixing more and more, and people of all cultures need ever-more experience dealing with each other. Having people gradually integrate into other cultures is a long-term necessity, otherwise some nasty things are going to happen in the decades to come (even nastier than the inevitable small scale conflicts).
In the short term, because migrants almost always move to countries more prosperous than their own, they're usually perfectly willing to take on menial jobs that many locals shy away from. Here in Taiwan there's a rapidly-growing SE Asian immigrant labor force, mostly in construction and geriatric care, both low-paying but essential jobs.
I'm just wondering why anyone would want to come here. This is a cold polar country. People are not friendly here, not even to each other. Women are ugly and prices are high. Even social security is quite bad, because everything is expensive. It's of course better than die in hunger, but...
Everything's relative...
-
Inhospitable climate, drunken bear-fighting men, short and hairy women, and useless, annoying immigrants?
O my gods—
Finland is a dwarf fortress.
-
Hahahah!!
-
Inhospitable climate, drunken bear-fighting men, short and hairy women, and useless, annoying immigrants?
O my gods—
Finland is a dwarf fortress.
This. Quoted for epic win! ;D
-
OH MAN
ROFLCOPTER ;D ;D ;D
-
To quote some screenwriter for Paramount who will probably never get a proper attribution,
"I am pleased to see that we have differences. It means we can learn from one another."
Bear
-
So you end up in a situation where two kinds of people try to live in one country. We know from experience that it's not the best way. So why it's so "important" to take lots of foreigners?
Why is it not best to have multiple kinds of people in one country? Homogenity would be hell, surely.
-
All a matter of personal preferences—if I am correct is suspecting that Krice just does not like foreigners in his country and is reluctant to simply state so.
-
Why is it not best to have multiple kinds of people in one country?
It never really works well. I want to know where it does work so I can be wrong. But usually it creates problems between two or more groups of people with different culture, especially when religion is involved. Like muslims and jews in Israel. Can they ever reach peace?
-
That's a very specific political problem. And whilst there are certain examples of conflicts due to immigration, consider that the same thing happens without immigration (look at all the civil wars across the world). Immigration and race are just used as fronts for the natural human propensity for conflict.
-
consider that the same thing happens without immigration
No, the same thing doesn't happen. Civil wars are actually very rare these days. With shitload of foreigners who want to keep their culture it means problems. This is noticed in all countries who have a big number of foreigners. I don't want Finland to make the exact same mistake that Sweden made. Now there are areas (ghettos in other word) in some towns in Sweden where even police can't operate, because they are afraid. Foreigners just suck that way, they become criminals easily. Maybe that's the reason why their own countries also suck (like Somalia, one of the worst places on earth).
-
*fart noise*
-
consider that the same thing happens without immigration
No, the same thing doesn't happen. Civil wars are actually very rare these days. With shitload of foreigners who want to keep their culture it means problems. This is noticed in all countries who have a big number of foreigners. I don't want Finland to make the exact same mistake that Sweden made. Now there are areas (ghettos in other word) in some towns in Sweden where even police can't operate, because they are afraid. Foreigners just suck that way, they become criminals easily. Maybe that's the reason why their own countries also suck (like Somalia, one of the worst places on earth).
Well, you have a point.
Inmigration *does* lead to problems, but the problem isn't inmigration per se, or the inmigrants in themselves.
I'd say that the problems stem from three things:
1: Illegal inmigration
2: The lack of method when taking formal, lawful inmigrants.
3: Unwillingness of inmigrants to adapt to some aspects of culture
4: Probably the root of all problems, that most inmigrants were shit poor in their homeland and inmigration is a last resort action, actually to send money to their family.
Okay, here in Spain we had a relatively recent (in the seventies or something like that) wave of emigration. Mostly to Germany, but also to Switzerland. Most people that emigrated there were guys and girls in the prime of their youth who seized an opportunity to send money to their families back here because those weren't exactly golden times here.
Bear in mind that I'm talking about the archetypal example, which is quite common, but surely there were differing cases.
Those young people were separated from their families, working in a country about which they knew next to nothing, and used to live in barracks next to the factories they worked at. That is nothing to sneeze at.
A lot of them returned eventually, but some of them stayed there and could very well be around the third generation of spanish-descended germans. Others returned on the second generations - the emigrants came back with their german-speaking children.
The problems arise when people who move to another country in dire need of work are either gobbled up by inmigration mafias, or refuse / are unable to adapt to the uses and customs of their new environment. When in rome, you know, do as romans do.
I don't think that first-generation inmigrants settle the issue, it's their kinds and grankids with whom you check if the process is going well. If their kids speak both languages and aren't out of place in society or causing problems, I'd say it's okay.
-
Besides even in best case scenario, what is the point of taking foreigners? Why do we "need" them? And why can't they live in their own country? If their country sucks, why don't they ask the right question: hey, why does our country suck?
-
Besides even in best case scenario, what is the point of taking foreigners? Why do we "need" them? And why can't they live in their own country? If their country sucks, why don't they ask the right question: hey, why does our country suck?
So in Finland they don't take on jobs that locals prefer to avoid? That's the way it works in many other countries...
I guess it does become a problem if they go the other route and form close-knit societies and refuse to integrate, but in any country where immigrants have been around long enough, their children tend to be assimilated over time and things eventually change, albeit slowly.
Perhaps it also has to do with the attitude with which they're received. If immigrants aren't accepted into the greater society, they'll naturally form their own isolated society, and if they were poor and uneducated to begin with, then you have a natural breeding ground for crime. But when welcomed and given time to gradually become accustomed to a new culture and environment, they'll be much more able and willing to change.
-
So in Finland they don't take on jobs that locals prefer to avoid? That's the way it works in many other countries...
I guess that's the reason they take foreigners. They want to create low wage jobs and use those people practically as slaves that have no other option. It's this time of money and results.
The problem in Finland is that we don't have spare jobs. We also like to work in crappy jobs. But politicians try their best to create even worse situation with shady work conditions and lack of control in foreign imported workers. It's criminal, but corruption makes that possible. It's just annoying that we have to follow what other less developed countries also do.
But when welcomed and given time to gradually become accustomed to a new culture and environment, they'll be much more able and willing to change.
Well, I wouldn't be that sure. We actually have gypsies who never became a part of our culture. They just don't want to do it and nothing can change that. So yeah, good luck with integration that will possibly never happen.
-
I dunno why it is important to take them. I guess it is the 'right' thing to do to help the downtrodden.
So it's a good question. Does 'goodness' of helping the downtrodden of other countries outweigh the friction that will be created in society? I dunno man.
What I do know is that Finns will be integrating just as much as the immigrants will. You meld together, but never completely. You end up with a marbled mess.
And what you say about Finns is hilarious. As an American your country is beautiful, progressive, non corrupt, egalitarian and awesome in too many ways to list here. And I have NEVER met nicer people, though Australians and Kiwis are pretty goddamn friendly.
-
It should be noted that immigration reform in this country is hindered by the fact that the wealthy make a killing off of hiring illegal immigrants. And with our elections funded by large private donations, this is unlikely to change anytime soon.
-
I have no problems with minorities (racially, sexually, etc), but I hate it when governments help them with my taxes.
What the hell, what fault I have to be white and etherosexual?
-
Thus, to help counterbalance the advantages that people like us have been given, it makes sense that some of our money should go to make sure others can have the opportunities that they have been deprived of for so long
Funny thing is that people still refuse to understand that money doesn't solve everything. Also it's "racist" to say that cultures and countries are different. It's like everything that happens here should work everywhere, but in reality this has simply not happened. Quite a lot of money has been put into development of poor countries, but what are the results? How long we have to give them money?
-
I can't help but conclude that part of the reason for this enormous straw man has to do with a repressed sense of guilt. At least, I would hope so.
-
I have no problems with minorities (racially, sexually, etc), but I hate it when governments help them with my taxes.
What the hell, what fault I have to be white and etherosexual?
I am also a white male, but I accept that minority groups should receive some benefits from people like me. Why? Because people like me have had an unfair advantage over others in society for several centuries. White males have had the best jobs, the easiest access to social and economic advancement, and a monopoly on political power reserved for them for quite some time. This is unfair. We are still living with the consequences of this unfairness today.
Thus, to help counterbalance the advantages that people like us have been given, it makes sense that some of our money should go to make sure others can have the opportunities that they have been deprived of for so long, EVEN IF the legal and political barriers to their entry have been removed. Strong informal and institutional barriers remain which should be compensated for. As a result, I have no objections to a certain amount of transferring of resources from me to them.
Grah the inaccuracy! There have always been more poor whites than any other race in the US. It's about $ not about color.
-
I think we have to think about preserving polar cultures which are vulnerable to outside influences.
I have never seen any indication of immigration undermining culture. Tradition that deserves to be preserved is preserved. The people screaming the loudest, that culture is destroyed, are the ones knowing the least about what their culture actually is. If they really would like to preserve their culture they would create cultural values. Instead they just consume and even laugh about the people who dare try be creative.
Foreigners just suck that way, they become criminals easily. Maybe that's the reason why their own countries also suck (like Somalia, one of the worst places on earth).
I think you have some serious misunderstandings about how this stuff works.
Foreigners get criminal more easily because it's harder for them to come by with legal means. Just a side note: That's why you need to make sure they can live a life that's worth living - whether that is through jobs, social care or whatever is an entirely other question.
Somalia is one of the worst places of the world because it is the dumping ground of the world and because they were a fishing nation that was outfished by "us" and not because "those people" are predetermined for criminality by their biology or culture.
Besides even in best case scenario, what is the point of taking foreigners? Why do we "need" them? And why can't they live in their own country? If their country sucks, why don't they ask the right question: hey, why does our country suck?
We do need foreigners because we need the diversity. Cultural incest is only this much better than biological incest.
And I can very much understand why they leave their country, if it sucks. When it sucks to the point where I am likely to die when I try to change anything about my situation (or I die either way), then I go elsewhere. There's no point to try to fight a superior force when there is a way to outrun it. I thought you were playing roguelikes? Isn't this one of the first lessons of DCSS?
Quite a lot of money has been put into development of poor countries, but what are the results? How long we have to give them money?
Yeah, and a lot more is taken back. We lend them money and thus the debt grows higher and higher so they can't ever pay us back.
And to the whole "job" thing: I never quite understood why we need full employment. We have the means to produce enough for everyone without having anyone employed and the pressure of needing a job is (in my experience) very much detrimental to the amount of creative work one is able to do. Most people too lazy to do anything productive haven't been lazy always but just gave up and "had enough".
-
[Snipped since IIRC I already left my thoughts in this thread a while ago]
And to the whole "job" thing: I never quite understood why we need full employment. We have the means to produce enough for everyone without having anyone employed and the pressure of needing a job is (in my experience) very much detrimental to the amount of creative work one is able to do. Most people too lazy to do anything productive haven't been lazy always but just gave up and "had enough".
FUCK YEAH MAN. 8)
We should all be working like three or four hours a day and basking in the sun, fondling titties and making sculptures the remaining time!
-
I almost replied to the spambot when I saw “erotic massage london” in his signature. It is not even a link, so what does it want?
-
Foreigners get criminal more easily because it's harder for them to come by with legal means.
That is not a good excuse to be a criminal. There are poor people everywhere and they don't become criminals just like that.
Somalia is one of the worst places of the world because it is the dumping ground of the world
What "the world" did to them anyway? Somalians just suck. Their ancient tribal issue sucks. Someone needs to bring them to modern age.
-
Hmm,
I think every country has it's right to preserve it's culture. Thos immigrants preserve their own culture when they come to the hosting country, no?
Also, I think people who immigrate to a country that don't want them, or force themselves upon a country that don't want them is a crime against humanity.
I mean, why a country that have a good economy, have no need for new immigrants is forced to accept anyone who want to immigrate to them? New uneducated immigrants is a burden for the hosting country, why are they forced to accept them?
I am all for making this planet a good place for everyone, but countries have a right to say no. I think these illegal immigrants are selfish, because they only care about improving their on life on account of the hosting country that has to take care of them and accept them.
I know it's not popular to be against illegal immigrants, but seriously, why is it always assumed that countries must accept illegal immigrants if it's not in the country's interest?
Maybe I am very ignorant and don't see what's is wrong with what I am saying, so please enlighten me.
-
I am all for making this planet a good place for everyone, but countries have a right to say no. I think these illegal immigrants are selfish, because they only care about improving their on life on account of the hosting country that has to take care of them and accept them.
LOL- In America, Companies truck Mexican slaves into our country to work (and die) in factories (below minimum wage) producing Spam (and other forms of depressing meat). When the company needs to reduce employment they just tip off the immigration police and problem solved!
Who wouldn't want illegal immigration?! It's such a perfect system... The only system superior to this is China.
-
Do you have data to support it?
If they die, why do you need to deport them?
It's not like the whole world(including mexicans) use products produced by China's (real) slave labour. I am certain workers at the US, even the illegal ones, have much better conditions than Chinese workers.
But anyway, what is the point? One wrong justifies another wrong?
-
Do you have data to support it?
If they die, why do you need to deport them?
It's not like the whole world(including mexicans) use products produced by China's (real) slave labour. I am certain workers at the US, even the illegal ones, have much better conditions than Chinese workers.
But anyway, what is the point? One wrong justifies another wrong?
Check out the documentary "Food Inc."
They aren't ALL dying, it's a figure of speech. They work and die an existential death. Anyhow, if they're dead, that's an especially good reason to deport them!
How does illegal immigration benefit YOU?
It depends upon your socioeconomic class, but in 99% of all cases, illegal immigrants are paid significantly less, don't take advantage of social welfare, and don't pay taxes.
This means that, products produced in factories by illegal immigrants have a lower cost of production. Labor costs are reduced, so overall production costs are lower. This makes the product cheaper for the end consumer. Illegal Immigrants are also a boon to construction and landscaping companies, where most of the local population is either over-qualified or expects a higher quality of living. Since illegals don't pay income taxes (but they do pay sales taxes), they don't need as much money to thrive- since they can't take advantage of welfare, they don't cost tax-payers money (even though they are paying some taxes). This means that the quality of life for most people in a country will increase or stay the same. Increased productivity also improves the numbers for companies/countries/governments.
The problem with this is that the children of illegals are typically naturalized citizens- but they don't have a proper education (most of it comes from your parents) so they end up turning to a life of crime. Immigrant communities tend to have higher crime rates.
The last thing to consider- If the country has non-discriminating welfare programs, then illegal immigrants will take advantage of those, costing the government money. Large waves of immigration did a LOT of damage to the European economy because they were legally obligated to provide services and junk that they weren't paying for.
-
Well, I think this is regardless to the OP's point.
OP's point was that, THEY DON'T WANT illegal iimigrants, and supposingly Finland's govrnment don't want them too. So the solution is not to accept them legally, it's to not accept them at all.
I agree that it's problematic to exploit illegal immigrants. And then throw them back. But if a country don't want illegal immigrants at all, and also not to exploit them, but they are still coming anyway, then that's a crime against humanity.
-
In America, Companies truck Mexican slaves into our country to work (and die) in factories (below minimum wage) producing Spam (and other forms of depressing meat). When the company needs to reduce employment they just tip off the immigration police and problem solved!
I actually laughed at this.
First off, by saying slaves, you imply that they are "trucked in" against their will and forced to work until dead, with no pay. By definition, 'immigrate' means "to enter and usually become established," whereas 'kidnap', by definition, is "to seize and detain or carry away by unlawful force or fraud." This means that our problem is not illegal immigration, but kidnapping. So, you're basically saying companies all over the country are breaking the law on a daily, widespread basis, and you only "proof" is a documentary, which brings us to point two.
Point Two: No matter how compelling this documentary is, it's still a movie, funded by Participant Media, a company whose only goal is to make money. It is not an unbiased study, it's a movie. Act of Valor, The Lorax, Happy Feet 2, all movies with a "message." However, to make that message, they only tell the facts/stories that promote their message. Act of Valor told all those "acts of valor", but didn't show the training, and boot camp, and all those other things that aren't so valorous. Am I saying that the military is horrible? No, they're great, I'm just saying that the movie is not a good reference for the stuff that goes on in the military. 'The Lorax' shows us what we would look like after we cut down every last tree in the world. However, don't you think we would have wised up long before that? They paint the picture to promote their thoughts, but the picture is does not show both sides. 'Happy Feet 2' looks so sad with the hundreds of penguins slowly starving to death, until we realize that millions of animals die every day. Also that penguins can't actually talk. I'm not saying that we shouldn't care about our environment, I'm just saying that movies aren't a good reference.
//Shortened for readability
How does illegal immigration benefit YOU?
...since [illegal immigrants] can't take advantage of welfare, they don't cost tax-payers money...
Except they do cost tax-payers money. Illegal immigrants that end up criminals (not all of them do, but it does happen) cost the police time and money, and, since the police are funded by us, the taxpayers, illegal immigrants cost the tax-payers money.
Illegal immigrants who work for less than others will cost us money, since they take money for jobs we would have done.
Illegal immigrants who go to public hospitals will receive free care, since they can't pay for it anyway, and since public hospitals are funded by the government, they cost tax-payers money.
-
In America, Companies truck Mexican slaves into our country to work (and die) in factories (below minimum wage) producing Spam (and other forms of depressing meat). When the company needs to reduce employment they just tip off the immigration police and problem solved!
I actually laughed at this.
Then you got it!
First off, by saying slaves, you imply that they are "trucked in" against their will and forced to work until dead, with no pay. By definition, 'immigrate' means "to enter and usually become established," whereas 'kidnap', by definition, is "to seize and detain or carry away by unlawful force or fraud." This means that our problem is not illegal immigration, but kidnapping. So, you're basically saying companies all over the country are breaking the law on a daily, widespread basis, and you only "proof" is a documentary, which brings us to point two.
Point Two: No matter how compelling this documentary is, it's still a movie, funded by Participant Media, a company whose only goal is to make money. It is not an unbiased study, it's a movie. Act of Valor, The Lorax, Happy Feet 2, all movies with a "message." However, to make that message, they only tell the facts/stories that promote their message. Act of Valor told all those "acts of valor", but didn't show the training, and boot camp, and all those other things that aren't so valorous. Am I saying that the military is horrible? No, they're great, I'm just saying that the movie is not a good reference for the stuff that goes on in the military. 'The Lorax' shows us what we would look like after we cut down every last tree in the world. However, don't you think we would have wised up long before that? They paint the picture to promote their thoughts, but the picture is does not show both sides. 'Happy Feet 2' looks so sad with the hundreds of penguins slowly starving to death, until we realize that millions of animals die every day. Also that penguins can't actually talk. I'm not saying that we shouldn't care about our environment, I'm just saying that movies aren't a good reference.
Nevermind, I guess you didn't.
//Shortened for readability
How does illegal immigration benefit YOU?
...since [illegal immigrants] can't take advantage of welfare, they don't cost tax-payers money...
Except they do cost tax-payers money. Illegal immigrants that end up criminals (not all of them do, but it does happen) cost the police time and money, and, since the police are funded by us, the taxpayers, illegal immigrants cost the tax-payers money.
Illegal immigrants who work for less than others will cost us money, since they take money for jobs we would have done.
Illegal immigrants who go to public hospitals will receive free care, since they can't pay for it anyway, and since public hospitals are funded by the government, they cost tax-payers money.
I addressed those points in my last two paragraphs of my previous post...
The problem with this is that the children of illegals are typically naturalized citizens- but they don't have a proper education (most of it comes from your parents) so they end up turning to a life of crime. Immigrant communities tend to have higher crime rates.
The last thing to consider- If the country has non-discriminating welfare programs, then illegal immigrants will take advantage of those, costing the government money. Large waves of immigration did a LOT of damage to the European economy because they were legally obligated to provide services and junk that they weren't paying for.
-
I addressed those points in my last two paragraphs of my previous post...
The problem with this is that the children of illegals are typically naturalized citizens- but they don't have a proper education (most of it comes from your parents) so they end up turning to a life of crime. Immigrant communities tend to have higher crime rates.
The last thing to consider- If the country has non-discriminating welfare programs, then illegal immigrants will take advantage of those, costing the government money. Large waves of immigration did a LOT of damage to the European economy because they were legally obligated to provide services and junk that they weren't paying for.
Actually, we (USA) do have discriminating welfare programs, which means illegals cannot apply for it. I was talking about services the government already does, such as crime fighting and health services for the poor, being overloaded because of illegal immigrants.
Also, if this was sarcasm:
In America, Companies truck Mexican slaves into our country to work (and die) in factories (below minimum wage) producing Spam (and other forms of depressing meat). When the company needs to reduce employment they just tip off the immigration police and problem solved!
Then you really ruined it by supporting your claim in your following posts.
-
I addressed those points in my last two paragraphs of my previous post...
The problem with this is that the children of illegals are typically naturalized citizens- but they don't have a proper education (most of it comes from your parents) so they end up turning to a life of crime. Immigrant communities tend to have higher crime rates.
The last thing to consider- If the country has non-discriminating welfare programs, then illegal immigrants will take advantage of those, costing the government money. Large waves of immigration did a LOT of damage to the European economy because they were legally obligated to provide services and junk that they weren't paying for.
Actually, we (USA) do have discriminating welfare programs, which means illegals cannot apply for it. I was talking about services the government already does, such as crime fighting and health services for the poor, being overloaded because of illegal immigrants.
I live in Texas and my Wife is from the Rio Grande Valley. I have plenty of experience with illegal immigrants and their impact upon the society (Oddly enough, Texas is one of the only states that gives more to the Fed than we get back- a symptom of being one of the most financially secure states in the union). The added strain on social services (in America) follows the wave of immigration with the subsequent generation of naturalized citizens (as was previously said). That's the product of poor socialization, not illegal immigration. All of our poor communities suffer from these symptoms, they are not unique to areas with illegal immigration. It's the inherited social disease of poverty.
There is an exception- Illegal immigrants add to the crime rate when the local economy that they move into does not have demand for chattle-esque labor. Barring a total failure of financial management (IE New Mexico), there's always a demand for petty labor.
A healthy society can handle large waves of immigration. Although I am opposed to illegal immigration, I am more opposed to government/social structure that isn't capable of fathoming the potential value of a bunch of cheap labor. The problem of illegal immigration is equally the ability of our society to react- this half of it probably lies with keynesian economic policies and other bits of terrible legislation.
Also, if this was sarcasm:
In America, Companies truck Mexican slaves into our country to work (and die) in factories (below minimum wage) producing Spam (and other forms of depressing meat). When the company needs to reduce employment they just tip off the immigration police and problem solved!
Then you really ruined it by supporting your claim in your following posts.
No. It is clearly a hyperbole.
-
requerent, thank you for the post. I felt my IQ inching up a few points as I read it. This has been a depressing thread on the whole (I did nothing to elevate it), and you stepped in gracefully with some nuanced observations. I am curious, however, as to how Keynesian economics specifically enter into the picture. Are you talking about government intrusion into the private sector's ability to capitalize effectively on the unwashed masses, immigrant reliance on the extremely stressed social safety nets, or a suboptimal economic structure in general...? What would you like to see instead?
-
Why can't foreigners be like the rest of us? They are always getting into trouble. Then they try to avoid it by moving to some other place, just to repeat all the mistakes they made in the first place. Why can't they be smarter?
-
As an American I find the basis of these questions a bit hard to understand. Our country is an amalgam of tons of different waves of immigration. Each group with it's own story. It causes great conflict and strife at times but we do our best to live and let live. We are sometimes not successful.
Crime is usually a poverty/equality issue. Not at the individual level, but at the macro level. So in there, somewhere, is the answer to your questions.
By the way the question "Why can't foreigners be like the rest of us?" answers itself. It's in the definition of 'foreign'. But I understood what you meant. You meant 'why can' they adapt and integrate?'
I think it's mostly because people see value in their culture. You obviously do. So do they.
Holy shit Krice. I just looked up the demographics of Finland. I think you're Finnish, right?
Finn 93.4%
Swede 5.6%
Russian 0.5%
Estonian 0.3%
Romani 0.1%
Sami 0.1%
I fail to see a big enough group here for there to be any problem at all. Perhaps some sort of local diversity has shocked you? Perhaps there are politicians playing on fear and intolerance?
Your country has no problem when compared to others. Look at the UK dealing with Muslims, or the US dealing with Blacks (12%), Latinos (15%), etc...Many of those populations form local majorities. I live in a town that is 60% latino and 30-40% Spanish speaking.
So I guess I'm saying you got it easy.
-
I fail to see a big enough group here for there to be any problem at all.
Not yet. There is a growing pressure to get more foreigners which is always a bad thing. Well, except estonians. Have you seen estonian women? Jesus.. we need more of them!
Anyway, trying to stuff people with different cultural background in one country has always been a really bad idea. Why can't people just stay in their own country and be what they want to be?
-
Well...the cynical answer is that immigrants are easy to exploit. The money men love that. But philosophically I dunno. I guess it is the moral thing to do to offer shelter. Power players will play off the general goodness of mankind in order to exploit the weak.
As for the Estonian women comment. Holy bajeezus! Too right friend. I've heard it said that Estonians have the greatest differential between female and male size. Meaning small women...goddamn. You really hit on something there. The majority of women in the US, especially here, are overweight. Fat and awful.
-Jo
-
requerent, thank you for the post. I felt my IQ inching up a few points as I read it. This has been a depressing thread on the whole (I did nothing to elevate it), and you stepped in gracefully with some nuanced observations. I am curious, however, as to how Keynesian economics specifically enter into the picture. Are you talking about government intrusion into the private sector's ability to capitalize effectively on the unwashed masses, immigrant reliance on the extremely stressed social safety nets, or a suboptimal economic structure in general...? What would you like to see instead?
I used 'Keynsian Economics' a bit too freely. I'm really referring to the mindset that finds Keynsian Economics attractive. Since Keynsian Economics is strictly political misdirection, it follows that a 'Keynsian Mindset' is either stupid or deceitful. This is just my humble opinion, but if I could direct you to www.mises.org - a search on the site for 'Keynes' or 'Keynesian' should yield a plethora of articles that more directly address why the concept is brilliantly idiotic. The broken window fallacy is also another thing to look at, as it can very easily be applied to anything Keynesian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broken_window_fallacy.
A good metaphor or example is the cozy triangle and its many manifestations. Say... McDonalds begins to use a new preservative that is approved by the FDA. 20 years later, a causal link between this preservative and some terrible deformity in newborns is discovered. Who is financial responsible for the damages? The FDA creates this sort of obligatory social contract that reads, "We represent you, we approve of this preservative, so you also have approved of this." As a result, McDonalds can't be successfully sued. What if there was no FDA? What would happen? McDonalds would get sued and have to pay a lot of a money (sometimes people do win, but that's not the point). The cost of damages has to be factored into their business model- the fewer the regulations there are, the more organically courts can function, the more liable MD is for producing a wonderfully delicious product. We clamour for the government to protect us, but it already does! The entire judicial branch is meant to serve that purpose. To be fair, there are probably even more problems with the Judicial branch than with the bureaucracy- but this sort of general example of corruption is incredibly counter-productive. It's no surprise that the FDA does more to protect big Pharma and the Fast Food industry than it does to protect people-- just enough so that nobody knows to complain... at least that much.
So now we get to illegal immigration-- from a strictly economic point of view, what's wrong with it? If we had a totally free market system (it's simpler as far as ceteris paribus is concerned), immigrants represent labor that is willing to work for less and, as a result, more likely to spend money. This potentially results in unemployment for members of the local citizenry. However, it's common for immigration to occur in waves, allowing one generation of immigrants to be more educated than the next, allowing them to occupy more specialized roles. The citizens that actually do become unemployed only do so because they're unwilling to compromise their own wages (in a free market, they don't have to worry about this because there is no minimum wage, they elect to become unemployed)- they now have the opportunity to become more specialized or to engage in entrepreneurial activity or whatever. This is generally a good thing- you don't want to waste the potential of your citizenry on menial tasks. What happens when the government provides job security (by supporting Unions, for example)? Or minimum wage? Everyone is less flexible- the market no longer represents how much a society values certain activities. Compounded with other forms of exploitation, it can be very difficult for subsequent generations to appropriately carve out their own financial niches-- immigrants are an easy scapegoat. The problems, however, aren't caused by them.
This is significant because we've created problems where they don't normally exist. There shouldn't be anything wrong with cheap labor, but somehow there is- and it's the result of arbitrary legislative ideology that I like to regard as being very 'Keynesian.' For any complaint that a person may have of illegal immigration, there is some shitty legislation that creates the problem. A strain on social services? If there was a legal way to employ these people then they would pay taxes (but that would mean minimum wage-- problem, yes)! Of course, poorly utilized tax revenue will not solve the problem of incapable first generation citizens, but we have 10th generation citizenry that is inept... so it isn't genuinely the fault of the immigrants. It just exposes our own internal failures and symptoms more explicitly. It's easy to create a correlation, but it wouldn't be valid.
This point of view is VERY libertarian. "If marijuana wasn't illegal, then there'd be no marijuana associated crime- no black market, less arbitrary DEA activity, more taxes, etc." Same idea, apply it to illegal immigration. In many ways, the two ideas are related because our own legislation creates the black market for them. Eliminate minimum wage and and legalize marijuana-- suddenly we would have less problems. Are these solutions? No, but they're fun to think about. Socialization (not socialism) is the real blanket solution- properly indoctrinating (still not socialism...) the citizenry so that they are maximally productive (again, not socialism...) deters inefficient behavior. Control demand by controllng minds, not money.
This libertarian approach, to me, is more sensible given the current state of things, but it isn't necessarily what I would do. I prefer nationalized medicine, energy, and education- I'd just prefer that they are run in a way that works with the market, instead of using it. I'm really just anti-corruption. Any system is likely to work and work for me so long as it is not corrupt. If all are corrupt, then I will go with the one that has the least poverty.
I jumped around quite a bit-- the topic is of infinite interest to me, but I don't have much free time (at the moment) to spruce up my thoughts in coherent manner.
edit: Mises.org link had a hypen in there.
-
That sort of thinking tends to ignore several things.
1. It is the tendency of wages to fall so low as to become exploitative. This is at major cost to humanity, and the economy should be molded to serve humans. Not the other way around.
2. While it is true that the government screws things up for the market, they are supposed to. The market is an unthinking and unfeeling tyranny that is entirely apathetic toward human suffering. Just as it should be. It is the job of government to smooth it's edges and protect the population from it's unthinking malice. ["The market is Cthulhu" --Me, 2006]
3. The notion that unions are an artificial construct standing in the way of progress has many problems, and is likely false. They are a result of the failure of government, and they are organic. They stand in the way of the market, but they do not stand in the way of human progress.
4. Equating prohibition on marijuana (or other drugs, porn and prostitution) is a metaphor that can only go so far. As I'm sure you are aware.
Finally: The essential issue is that humans are not treated well by the market. Humans, and their labor, are best not to be bought and sold like chattel on the alter of the free market. The market is not the best mitigator of human suffering. When our government gets into to bed with the captains of industry, when the democracy is bought off and subverted by the big financiers, that is where the major problems come.
It is market pressure itself twisting the purpose of government that keeps a second class illegal immigrant population around to be exploited. It is not government meddling in the market that is the issue here, it is the market meddling in government.
-
That sort of thinking tends to ignore several things.
1. It is the tendency of wages to fall so low as to become exploitative. This is at major cost to humanity, and the economy should be molded to serve humans. Not the other way around.
If government wer to exist as an agent whose express purpose is to curtail corruption, then there shouldn't be exploitation. Minimum wage does not stop corruption, it just stops poverty. I would argue that corruption causes poverty. Addressing poverty is a way to try and preserve corruption and make the 'slave'-class whine less or not know to whine. If socialization methods actually resulted in capable citizenry, then exploitation would be impossible and minimum wage would not be necessary. I'm obviously talking about an 'ideal' state. Suddenly eliminating minimum wage would cause lots of problems. However- with legitimate education reform and maybe some civil standards (liberty violation, but it is worth it), we could get rid of minimum wage in 5-10 years and be the better for it. In my humble opinion, the ideal government relies on its own citizenry to be self-governed. That's more or less how the US government was conceived, but now inividuals have greater financial independence (IE land-owners historically represented the voting majority- they were responsible for the local economies), making them more liable. With an increased quantity of 'governers' and a very limited formal standard, the local economy of the individual is too unpredictable, resulting in the apparent necessity for more intervention. Addressing the symptoms is stupid, but it's easier and produces more voters.
2. While it is true that the government screws things up for the market, they are supposed to. The market is an unthinking and unfeeling tyranny that is entirely apathetic toward human suffering. Just as it should be. It is the job of government to smooth it's edges and protect the population from it's unthinking malice. ["The market is Cthulhu" --Me, 2006]
The market is an expression of the society. Healthy society has a healthy economy. Ours is on a wide range of medications (but not as bad as other places)... As far as American history is concerned- Government is the agreement of land-owners to adopt principles of financial activity. Government is a fantastic and wonderful thing, when it does what it is supposed to do. Ours isn't doing too poorly...
3. The notion that unions are an artificial construct standing in the way of progress has many problems, and is likely false. They are a result of the failure of government, and they are organic. They stand in the way of the market, but they do not stand in the way of human progress.
I love unions. Government, however, should not back them- that's where my problems lie. They destroy commerce when they become lobbying entities. The Teacher's Union, for example, is the greatest and perhaps ONLY barrier to education reform.
4. Equating prohibition on marijuana (or other drugs, porn and prostitution) is a metaphor that can only go so far. As I'm sure you are aware.
What's your point? I don't think I went so far as to 'equate' or create an umbrella precedence for analyzing failures of human cooperative activity....
Finally: The essential issue is that humans are not treated well by the market. Humans, and their labor, are best not to be bought and sold like chattel on the alter of the free market. The market is not the best mitigator of human suffering. When our government gets into to bed with the captains of industry, when the democracy is bought off and subverted by the big financiers, that is where the major problems come.
Corruption is bad, poverty is worse, the market is just an expression of how humans have been nurtured into a society. Healthy humans => healthy market => less need for government.
It is market pressure itself twisting the purpose of government that keeps a second class illegal immigrant population around to be exploited. It is not government meddling in the market that is the issue here, it is the market meddling in government.
Market pressure twists the purpose of government? Vacuous. Corruption is an arrangement between two parties to cooperatively exploit others. Money doesn't spontaneously cause corruption-- people do it against others. It is, quite simply, a moral issue. A thing that courts are, as a branch of the government, supposed to take care of.
I wouldn't call illegal immigrants 'exploited.' They are in the case of businesses trucking them in for industrial purposes, but for petty labor (the majority) they are treated fairly well. Companies tend to hire them NOT because they are cheaper labor, but because they actually do work. My father, at one point, regularly employed 200 people-- his own personal observation was that black americans and naturalized mexicans (second generation and beyond) are the worst workers to have around-- they're entitled, lazy, and regularly steal equipment. This is as true as a generalization or stereotype can be (he did have several hard working black/naturalized mexican employees).
-
That sort of thinking tends to ignore several things.
1. It is the tendency of wages to fall so low as to become exploitative. This is at major cost to humanity, and the economy should be molded to serve humans. Not the other way around.
If government wer to exist as an agent whose express purpose is to curtail corruption, then there shouldn't be exploitation. Minimum wage does not stop corruption, it just stops poverty. I would argue that corruption causes poverty. Addressing poverty is a way to try and preserve corruption and make the 'slave'-class whine less or not know to whine. If socialization methods actually resulted in capable citizenry, then exploitation would be impossible and minimum wage would not be necessary. I'm obviously talking about an 'ideal' state. Suddenly eliminating minimum wage would cause lots of problems. However- with legitimate education reform and maybe some civil standards (liberty violation, but it is worth it), we could get rid of minimum wage in 5-10 years and be the better for it. In my humble opinion, the ideal government relies on its own citizenry to be self-governed. That's more or less how the US government was conceived, but now inividuals have greater financial independence (IE land-owners historically represented the voting majority- they were responsible for the local economies), making them more liable. With an increased quantity of 'governers' and a very limited formal standard, the local economy of the individual is too unpredictable, resulting in the apparent necessity for more intervention. Addressing the symptoms is stupid, but it's easier and produces more voters.
"Getting rid of the minimum wage" . One has to assume you're nowhere near minimum wage, and as such isn't your problem.
2. While it is true that the government screws things up for the market, they are supposed to. The market is an unthinking and unfeeling tyranny that is entirely apathetic toward human suffering. Just as it should be. It is the job of government to smooth it's edges and protect the population from it's unthinking malice. ["The market is Cthulhu" --Me, 2006]
The market is an expression of the society. Healthy society has a healthy economy. Ours is on a wide range of medications (but not as bad as other places)... As far as American history is concerned- Government is the agreement of land-owners to adopt principles of financial activity. Government is a fantastic and wonderful thing, when it does what it is supposed to do. Ours isn't doing too poorly...
An expression of society whose defendants are pressing hard to make the only expression of society.
3. The notion that unions are an artificial construct standing in the way of progress has many problems, and is likely false. They are a result of the failure of government, and they are organic. They stand in the way of the market, but they do not stand in the way of human progress.
I love unions. Government, however, should not back them- that's where my problems lie. They destroy commerce when they become lobbying entities. The Teacher's Union, for example, is the greatest and perhaps ONLY barrier to education reform.
There are way, way worse lobbysts that represent the powerful and privileged, which by this reasoning should be much more of a concern.
4. Equating prohibition on marijuana (or other drugs, porn and prostitution) is a metaphor that can only go so far. As I'm sure you are aware.
What's your point? I don't think I went so far as to 'equate' or create an umbrella precedence for analyzing failures of human cooperative activity....
granted
Finally: The essential issue is that humans are not treated well by the market. Humans, and their labor, are best not to be bought and sold like chattel on the alter of the free market. The market is not the best mitigator of human suffering. When our government gets into to bed with the captains of industry, when the democracy is bought off and subverted by the big financiers, that is where the major problems come.
Corruption is bad, poverty is worse, the market is just an expression of how humans have been nurtured into a society. Healthy humans => healthy market => less need for government.
Free, regulated market is a solution for several needs of society and human beings, but not (by far) for them all, and not necessarily the best for them all.
It is market pressure itself twisting the purpose of government that keeps a second class illegal immigrant population around to be exploited. It is not government meddling in the market that is the issue here, it is the market meddling in government.
Market pressure twists the purpose of government? Vacuous. Corruption is an arrangement between two parties to cooperatively exploit others. Money doesn't spontaneously cause corruption-- people do it against others. It is, quite simply, a moral issue. A thing that courts are, as a branch of the government, supposed to take care of.
I wouldn't call illegal immigrants 'exploited.' They are in the case of businesses trucking them in for industrial purposes, but for petty labor (the majority) they are treated fairly well. Companies tend to hire them NOT because they are cheaper labor, but because they actually do work. My father, at one point, regularly employed 200 people-- his own personal observation was that black americans and naturalized mexicans (second generation and beyond) are the worst workers to have around-- they're entitled, lazy, and regularly steal equipment. This is as true as a generalization or stereotype can be (he did have several hard working black/naturalized mexican employees).
What about lazy, stealing locals? Weren't there any?
EDIT: Oh sorry, those *are* locals. What are you supposed to be? a "wasp" ?
Market will twist everything because of the following, simple reasoning
1 - Market players want to make money
2 - Market players want to make ever more money
3 - Making money is the top goal of a successful market player
>3b -Therefore, all other goals are secondary
5 - Changing the rules of the game can help you make money
3b throws ethics out of the window, 5 means that players instead of sticking to playing will try to cheat, 2 turns it into an ever degenerating downward spiral.
QUIT BEING SO DAMN GREEDY
-
This is getting fun ;D. Please please please don't take anything I have to say without lots of salt (or however the saying goes). I'm mainly engaging in this dialog for fun (though there is also potential for it to be enlightening).
That sort of thinking tends to ignore several things.
1. It is the tendency of wages to fall so low as to become exploitative. This is at major cost to humanity, and the economy should be molded to serve humans. Not the other way around.
If government wer to exist as an agent whose express purpose is to curtail corruption, then there shouldn't be exploitation. Minimum wage does not stop corruption, it just stops poverty. I would argue that corruption causes poverty. Addressing poverty is a way to try and preserve corruption and make the 'slave'-class whine less or not know to whine. If socialization methods actually resulted in capable citizenry, then exploitation would be impossible and minimum wage would not be necessary. I'm obviously talking about an 'ideal' state. Suddenly eliminating minimum wage would cause lots of problems. However- with legitimate education reform and maybe some civil standards (liberty violation, but it is worth it), we could get rid of minimum wage in 5-10 years and be the better for it. In my humble opinion, the ideal government relies on its own citizenry to be self-governed. That's more or less how the US government was conceived, but now inividuals have greater financial independence (IE land-owners historically represented the voting majority- they were responsible for the local economies), making them more liable. With an increased quantity of 'governers' and a very limited formal standard, the local economy of the individual is too unpredictable, resulting in the apparent necessity for more intervention. Addressing the symptoms is stupid, but it's easier and produces more voters.
"Getting rid of the minimum wage" . One has to assume you're nowhere near minimum wage, and as such isn't your problem.
Pfft- I'm poor as dirt. My highest aspirations for financial success, at the moment, is getting a job as a teacher. But the sentiment is flattering ^__^. I've lived off of minimum wage a few times-- there's a lot of time to think about why minimum wage exists and what it actually means. As I'm a fairly industrious individual, my persistent requests for COLs (Cost of Living adjustments) almost never get denied. In three separate cases in three very distinct living arrangements (NYC, Dallas, Portland), I've gone from minimum wage to $12.50+ an hour in 3 months with overtime whenever I wanted it. It's funny when you hit the 44+ hour mark and your boss comes to you and says, "Well, I can send two people home or I can send you home- what do you want?" All of this is, of course, delusions of mediocrity, but my own little testimonials indicate to me that companies are more than willing to pay you what you're worth.
Anyways, minimum wage- It looks real good on paper, but the effect isn't so clear.
Say.... we're in retail. Shelf-time of a product is a cost factored into the upkeep of the property. Having employees service customers is a component of the per product upkeep. That is, the cost of keeping any item on a shelf increases with the cost of property and labor. Cost of property increases with the cost of maintenance. Then there's also the cost of the actual product and shipping it to the storefront.
Labor costs get factored in at multiple stages of a product life-cycle. We've got manufacturing, shipping, retail (which includes property maintenance, the production of construction materials, etc) etc etc etc. The cost of a product is a reflection of the cost of production, which includes the cost of labor (from the labor that builds the manufacturing plant to the labor that stocks the shelves).
Arbitrary flooring of wages has a compounding effect on the cost of production. This results in an increased cost of living for EVERYBODY! Including the minimum wage earners! Minimum wage is also a disincentive to hire...
The hope is that minimum wage keeps more people out of the dregs than it puts in the dregs, but there's no way to prove whether it does or not. Minimum wage looks very good on a political platform, but it's just a multitude of patches to avoid some basic central problems. It's a Keynesian-esque non-solution that gets votes.
2. While it is true that the government screws things up for the market, they are supposed to. The market is an unthinking and unfeeling tyranny that is entirely apathetic toward human suffering. Just as it should be. It is the job of government to smooth it's edges and protect the population from it's unthinking malice. ["The market is Cthulhu" --Me, 2006]
The market is an expression of the society. Healthy society has a healthy economy. Ours is on a wide range of medications (but not as bad as other places)... As far as American history is concerned- Government is the agreement of land-owners to adopt principles of financial activity. Government is a fantastic and wonderful thing, when it does what it is supposed to do. Ours isn't doing too poorly...
An expression of society whose defendants are pressing hard to make the only expression of society.
Vacuous, but I'm not sure there's anything particularly wrong with that. In application maybe, but not in principle. An enlightened society, imo, is morally obligated to improve the quality of life of others by introducing ideology that does as such....... It's just a shame that an enlightened society would never engage in such behavior (implying that the inverse is true, of course). Regardless, I don't really know how to properly address your non-sequiter... I agree? I mean, pressing hard? I guess, I kind of like that.
Finally: The essential issue is that humans are not treated well by the market. Humans, and their labor, are best not to be bought and sold like chattel on the alter of the free market. The market is not the best mitigator of human suffering. When our government gets into to bed with the captains of industry, when the democracy is bought off and subverted by the big financiers, that is where the major problems come.
Corruption is bad, poverty is worse, the market is just an expression of how humans have been nurtured into a society. Healthy humans => healthy market => less need for government.
Free, regulated market is a solution for several needs of society and human beings, but not (by far) for them all, and not necessarily the best for them all.
I'm not directly opposed to intervention or regulation.
Deregulation and privatization of certain markets typically results in a lot of sudden and unmanagable problems. Ever notice how we have some kind of economic crisis directly after a president deregulates an industry before leaving office? I include pharmaceutical ads on TV as one of these crisis. Energy in the 90s, housing/banking in 00's, and lots of other stuff throughout history.
I'd just rather judges be responsible. I think it'd be more resistant to corruption than appointed positions (regulatory commisions and cabinet positions). A judge can drive immoral commerce into the ground with threat of total liquidation of a company's assets-- but a case with such consequences cannot reach a court because regulations more often than not protect those companies from paying appropriate damages. McDonalds should be afraid of being completely obliterated every time they invent a new form of chicken...
It is market pressure itself twisting the purpose of government that keeps a second class illegal immigrant population around to be exploited. It is not government meddling in the market that is the issue here, it is the market meddling in government.
Market pressure twists the purpose of government? Vacuous. Corruption is an arrangement between two parties to cooperatively exploit others. Money doesn't spontaneously cause corruption-- people do it against others. It is, quite simply, a moral issue. A thing that courts are, as a branch of the government, supposed to take care of.
I wouldn't call illegal immigrants 'exploited.' They are in the case of businesses trucking them in for industrial purposes, but for petty labor (the majority) they are treated fairly well. Companies tend to hire them NOT because they are cheaper labor, but because they actually do work. My father, at one point, regularly employed 200 people-- his own personal observation was that black americans and naturalized mexicans (second generation and beyond) are the worst workers to have around-- they're entitled, lazy, and regularly steal equipment. This is as true as a generalization or stereotype can be (he did have several hard working black/naturalized mexican employees).
What about lazy, stealing locals? Weren't there any?
EDIT: Oh sorry, those *are* locals. What are you supposed to be? a "wasp" ?
In many southern communities, the "lazy stealing locals" that are available to hire at low-wages is mainly comprised of black or mexican citizens. White people don't really do much suburban chattle labor in the south. They don't do it because they elect not to, not because people won't hire them.
LOL- Wasp? Try Wop. I'm first generation Italian-American. There was additionally no inheritance for me after my father's death. I am as unpriveleged as they come (except for the fact that I'm Italian, there's always an advantage in that).
Market will twist everything because of the following, simple reasoning
1 - Market players want to make money
2 - Market players want to make ever more money
3 - Making money is the top goal of a successful market player
>3b -Therefore, all other goals are secondary
5 - Changing the rules of the game can help you make money
3b throws ethics out of the window, 5 means that players instead of sticking to playing will try to cheat, 2 turns it into an ever degenerating downward spiral.
Unfortunately, what you have presented is not "reasoning."
QUIT BEING SO DAMN GREEDY
I'm greedy? Something about you saying that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
-
QUIT BEING SO DAMN GREEDY
I'm greedy? Something about you saying that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
I think that comment was more directed at society in general, not at you personally. Of course, I could be wrong :)
I see a problem with your arguments in that you return quite often to a notion of "enlightened society", which is a pretty fuzzy concept. To me, it would mean something like Godwinian anarchism or what Marx deemed a communist society (which would also not need any government, so quite a way away from totalitarian socialist states we have seen in modern times). I'd wager your vision is different, but no less unobtainable.
Implementations of extremely "free" markets in the last few decades have yielded some pretty grim results. Premium chaps like Suharto and Pinochet (who took advise from Milton Friedman's cronies) spring to mind. Some people (including international big corps, of course) made shit loads of money, but the consequences were catastrophic for the national economies, not to mention all those people whose bodies had to be lodged in the torture chambers so as to grease the wheels of commerce. History shows that fascism and capitalism is a very effective combination, a truth formalized in the foreign policies of Reagan/Thatcher. We're slightly more civilized today, I guess. I remember Condoleezza Rice's refreshingly candid comment on the 2004 tusnami as a "great opportunity" to go in and reshape the economies of Southern Asia, so that more money could be made off of them. IMHO, a very serious problem with the world today is that international commerce is almost completely free, resulting in such atrocities as Apple's outsourcing to Foxconn, etc. That's just one example that's seen a lot of exposure, of course, but it pretty much goes to show what kind of working conditions tend to arise in "free" markets.
Also note that being poor/dispriviliged is relative. When I'm "as broke as I get" I may go a few days without food, decline social events that entail paying for entry/refreshments, get my phone shut down, etc. That's still a long way from, say, lying around in ditches and dying of elephantiasis. (Comment directed at the thread in general, not so much at you, requerent.)
So … I dunno. What is an "enlightened society"? I guess it's one without sweat shops. But I'm pretty sure that a completely deregularized society becomes a plutocracy, since the rich can always afford more guns than the poor.
Ack, ack. I should be working right now, actually, not jumping into this mess :)
As always,
Minotauros
-
Man. I'm gone for a day and then see all of this. I'll not feed into it. Wall of text is baffling. I just find it interesting the fantasy scenarios that are created to justify the people being used by the economy instead of the other way around.
-
Man. I'm gone for a day and then see all of this. I'll not feed into it. Wall of text is baffling. I just find it interesting the fantasy scenarios that are created to justify the people being used by the economy instead of the other way around.
It's an arbitrary distinction-- and justification? I don't think there is any justification going on.
I see a problem with your arguments in that you return quite often to a notion of "enlightened society", which is a pretty fuzzy concept. To me, it would mean something like Godwinian anarchism or what Marx deemed a communist society (which would also not need any government, so quite a way away from totalitarian socialist states we have seen in modern times). I'd wager your vision is different, but no less unobtainable.
Capitalism is very much a pagan religion. Every god has his own way of doing things and is inconsistent in doing them- they're very dynamic and changing. One of the reasons why monotheistic religions become so very popular so very fast is that they propose ideals that are much more logical and consistent. G-D, for example, is very consistent in his striking down with wrath. If you violate one of his rules, you get punished (in life or after death)- that's that. Living in accordance with static laws is always preferable to living in accordance with dynamic rules. With the second coming- we have both a static and explicit behavioral code of law to get to heaven. As a Catholic, I'm certainly not very Christ-like, but that doesn't make it hypocritical of me to try and determine what that truly means (or perturb it into something that feels less strenuous to pursue ::)).
I tossed around the word "ideal" and "enlightened" in a relatively incoherent way. Let me explain--
There are three points of reference when looking at an ideal state--
1. The relative ideal-- Given a system, what would be the most ideal state of that system?
2. The absolute ideal-- What is the best state of the best possible system?
3. The pragmatic ideal-- Given a system, which series of states are most likely to lead to a relative or absolute ideal?
In practice, the only one that matters is obviously the pragmatic ideal, but we have to know and dicuss what the relative goal and absolute goals are to make progress. This is more or less a distinction between immediate social objectives and long-term ones. The simple fact of the matter is that people tend to have agreements on principles, but not their execution. For example, everybody wants education to be better, but we don't know what the ideal next step is. The ideals only become more tangible as steps are made toward them, so it isn't necessary to try and create a concrete description of what an ideal state would be, but rather determine what the qualities of an ideal state are and make decisions with those qualities in mind. If a society believes that its education sucks and wants to change it, but there is some obstacle in the way- it makes sense to remove the obstacle. We don't do that, therefore we're not following a pragmatic ideal.
When I talk about eliminating minimum wage, I'm talking about a relative ideal. Minimum Wage is a ratcheting patch whose effect is difficult to gauge but most certainly results in arbitrary inflation- there's more intelligent literature against than there is for it. However, society has gotten used to how it works, removing it would cause problems. A relative ideal worth pursuing, then, would be one where minimum wage is not necessary. The pragmatic ideal is the path toward that relative ideal. Selling a series of steps to end minimum wage is NOT a popular idea and not likely to get voted on-- this is one of the many reasons why Plato says that Democracy is the worst form of government-- we need people with a strong sense of "Justice" to be making decisions.
An enlightened government or society is really one that cares about the pragmatic ideal. If we recognize that education reform is important, we shouldn't let anything get in the way of that-- but we do, and that isn't good. Each administration does something: "No Child Left Behind," but, like Minimum Wage, these are handwavian activities designed to get votes. After time, they're either discarded as frivolous or they become a social crutch. Most of the New Deal legislation, for example, was a complete and utter failure, but it was an incredibly effective way to attract voters. They're all now acknowledged gold sinks that make our entire government much less flexible, but getting rid of them would cause even more problems.
mplementations of extremely "free" markets in the last few decades have yielded some pretty grim results. Premium chaps like Suharto and Pinochet (who took advise from Milton Friedman's cronies) spring to mind. Some people (including international big corps, of course) made shit loads of money, but the consequences were catastrophic for the national economies, not to mention all those people whose bodies had to be lodged in the torture chambers so as to grease the wheels of commerce. History shows that fascism and capitalism is a very effective combination, a truth formalized in the foreign policies of Reagan/Thatcher. We're slightly more civilized today, I guess. I remember Condoleezza Rice's refreshingly candid comment on the 2004 tusnami as a "great opportunity" to go in and reshape the economies of Southern Asia, so that more money could be made off of them. IMHO, a very serious problem with the world today is that international commerce is almost completely free, resulting in such atrocities as Apple's outsourcing to Foxconn, etc. That's just one example that's seen a lot of exposure, of course, but it pretty much goes to show what kind of working conditions tend to arise in "free" markets.
Agreed- however, I think these failures revolve more around the lack of the judicial branch. Companies that exploit people should get torn to shreds- but even "Free" Markets have way too many protections on shady commercial activities. If those protections are lifted and the true purpose of the courts were to be realized, then the fear of getting cut to shreds greatly improves the behavior of these companies. If, for every case of bad beef an entire company was more or less destroyed, there'd be some people who finally do it right (that would be especially possible if we didn't subsidize anything). It's very much a throwback to the British system- their constitution and many of their laws come from a body of court cases-- precedences. It is true that all levels of government are subject to corruption, but judges are typically elected (as opposed to regulatory positions)- a judge that doesn't punish "commerce without conscience" isn't going to keep his office (unless there is some pretty extreme oppression going on).
Also note that being poor/dispriviliged is relative. When I'm "as broke as I get" I may go a few dayss without food, decline social events that entail paying for entry/refreshments, get my phone shut down, etc. That's still a long way from, say, lying around in ditches and dying of elephantiasis. (Comment directed at the thread in general, not so much at you, requerent.)
This is an interesting video to watch - http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_zak_trust_morality_and_oxytocin.html. What can be deduced from it is that poverty is an epigenetically inherited behavior. Unless there is some great impulse or jolt, generation after generation will continue to suffer from a lack of morality (interest in the well-being of others). It's not far-fetched to say that Africa is the way it is because of mechanisms like these. There are similarly a number of stories about ex-greenpeacers who go back to Africa to see how the Well they fondly remember building is doing, only to find that it had become a lavatory and everyone has dysentery.
-
When I first became an attorney I used to engage in arguments, trying to get people to think for themselves. I thought of it as furthering the education of the populace. Which is good for society. Then I realized that very few people are actually interested in the truth. Few are interested in the process of critical analysis of any topic. They are more interested in a point of view. Humans very much seem to want to be seen as 'right' more than actually being right. So arguments become debates. Petty, unproductive and self serving for both parties.
So I quit engaging except in very rare circumstances when I have skin in the game. It must be a substantial reason, something more than general intellectual discourse. I can sometimes be goaded into it over drinks, in person. These instances are rare though, and they never take place over internet forum. This format is not conducive to the courteous back and forth required for discourse.
Rather what we get in forums is merely an effort to be, or be considered as being, right. Or correct. There is no process involved. Just noise. Now the above group of passages where written by people of obvious intellect. People who can follow the critical process of questioning and coming to something that approximates truth or wisdom. But in this format it just seems like noise. That sucks.
As an aside: The religious analogy above is full of errors. So many the analogy falls apart. Not that I care, but if you were trying to be persuasive there'd be a huge hole there. I giggled a bit when you said that monotheism became popular very quickly, I thought you were joking. I'm sure that's not the response you were going for. When speaking with intellectuals it is best to stay away from analogy and metaphor when possible. We are all very wary of it. It is overused by demagogues trying to distract and obfuscate instead of illuminate.
EDIT: Linking a TED talk is always awesome!
EDIT2: Here are some raps about economics that I really like, you here may be nerd enough to appreciated. They are epic rap battles between Keynes and Hayek (the economists)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTQnarzmTOc
-
When I first became an attorney I used to engage in arguments, trying to get people to think for themselves. I thought of it as furthering the education of the populace. Which is good for society. Then I realized that very few people are actually interested in the truth. Few are interested in the process of critical analysis of any topic. They are more interested in a point of view. Humans very much seem to want to be seen as 'right' more than actually being right. So arguments become debates. Petty, unproductive and self serving for both parties.
That's a petty and unproductive generalization.
So I quit engaging except in very rare circumstances when I have skin in the game. It must be a substantial reason, something more than general intellectual discourse. I can sometimes be goaded into it over drinks, in person. These instances are rare though, and they never take place over internet forum. This format is not conducive to the courteous back and forth required for discourse.
Why is it not conducive? I think your distaste for it probably lies in the fact that Forums are an uncomfortable combination of dialog and written text. In an essay (or a court), for example, it's important not to leave any backward pawns in the presentation of your ideas. In dialog, backward pawns make up 99% of what you say. Whether or not it is pertinent to back that pawn up depends upon whether its important to the conversation (as your partner or rival can temporarily concede any contention to let the conversation continue). In an argument or debate (where 'winning' actually matters), it is advantageous to nitpick every possible misstep to gain some kind of advantage-- in a forum, every potential misstep is highly exposed. It's up to the parties involved what they take away from it and whether or not they are courteous.
Ideas are the only thing that is important- it doesn't matter what they come from or how they come to be. Rustling up the dust is a fun and stimulating way to expose yourself to a variety of new ideas. Every perspective from every individual is unique and thus there is something in them that you are ignorant of. Devaluing that because "Humans very much seem to want to be seen as 'right'" is a lost chance. If your true intention is to get people to think, you shouldn't care whether they yield or not!
Rather what we get in forums is merely an effort to be, or be considered as being, right. Or correct. There is no process involved. Just noise. Now the above group of passages where written by people of obvious intellect. People who can follow the critical process of questioning and coming to something that approximates truth or wisdom. But in this format it just seems like noise. That sucks.
Forums are the most relaxed environments to have discussions! I'm always happy to 'lose,' so long as the battle was thrilling. Don't be so picky, I personally find forums to be a place where ideas can very quickly spin out of control in a direction that may or may not be fruitful. Whether it is or not never reflects on how much fun it can be.
As an aside: The religious analogy above is full of errors. So many the analogy falls apart. Not that I care, but if you were trying to be persuasive there'd be a huge hole there. I giggled a bit when you said that monotheism became popular very quickly, I thought you were joking. I'm sure that's not the response you were going for.
I don't see anything wrong with my analogy. Monotheism is expressly more logical-- the distinction between dynamic bodies and static ones is as old as Socrates. The role of this distinction in the course of motivating and inspiring humans is, as far as history is concerned, very profound. I'm not making a point with this conjecture, I am establishing a framework with which to consider the text that followed. As such, the value of the analogy doesn't depend upon its truthfulness.
That said- the way I've presented the idea is absolutely awful. Just terrible- but that doesn't mean it isn't... a little useful...
If we start with the Evangelists, the point in which monotheism becomes most interesting, we see a lot of conversions or acknowledgements take place-- particularly amongst intellectuals and the poor. The fact that it would explode into the cultural standard of interaction for the western world is, I would say, a credit to its fast-spreading popularity. This doesn't mean that everybody loved it all hunky-dory, but that its persistence was very powerful and successful. Such a powerful ideology would be a great thing to base a military or society on... oh look, that's what happens. Twice: in Europe and the Middle East.
Is this all because of the static property of the major monotheistic religions? Yea, actually, it probably is. It's what gives them so much fanatical appeal and power.
When speaking with intellectuals it is best to stay away from analogy and metaphor when possible.
Woah- I use sophistry for fun, not to generate arbitrary standards of BS~ing. I don't consider myself an intellectual nor do I care whether I'm talking to an intellectual or not.
We are all very wary of it. It is overused by demagogues trying to distract and obfuscate instead of illuminate.
I don't care about the intentions of parties, I just like conversations to be interesting. If I personally think something is interesting, I'll include it vacuously as a potential tangent for further discourse (backward pawns...). It is NOT about right and wrong, it is just about bringing in new elements to think about (if the partner chooses to expand upon it...). The style of prose I'm using and have used is for the express purpose of inviting discussion. It has nothing to do with claims to truthfulness.
-
Yeah. But what did you think of the rap battles?
-
Yeah. But what did you think of the rap battles?
Nerdgasm.
I always felt like the Marketing industry was a waste of human potential... this video just reminded me of that. In an educated society, consumers don't buy hamburger helper. If we had an educated society, the industry of misdirection (marketing) would be a waste of resources (because it wouldn't influence consumer habits). We could focus on capital investment and see real growth.
-
I'm tired of several things:
1: Petty capitalists and conservatives
(what the fuck are you/they doing supporting an ideology that's made for someone else?)
2: Crash course in rhetoric+internet connection double deals.
3: Monopolar thought where market is the way and the truth and the life.
4: American Way of Life(tm) being shoved down everyone's throats.
-
When I first became an attorney I used to engage in arguments, trying to get people to think for themselves. I thought of it as furthering the education of the populace. Which is good for society. Then I realized that very few people are actually interested in the truth. Few are interested in the process of critical analysis of any topic. They are more interested in a point of view. Humans very much seem to want to be seen as 'right' more than actually being right. So arguments become debates. Petty, unproductive and self serving for both parties.
That's a petty and unproductive generalization.
It is a generalization, but it is a surprisingly accurate depiction of Western culture at the moment. If people had an interest in truth, they would be more willing to abandon ideas or conclusions that are false regardless of how much they like the idea. This is not the way Western society currently functions. There is a greater emphasis on people feeling happy or good about themselves, about their ideas, and thus more of an emphasis on "being right" rather than actually determining whether their point is correct or not. This is also promoted in politics, where the point isn't to do good things but to say things that will get you elected. (Of course I'm generalizing here, based on how prevalent this seems to be at the national level.)
It is also a symptom of the relativity of truth and rejection of the idea that there might be an objective truth to some problem. For example, the statement "well that's your opinion" can be an acknowledgement that my initial intention was for you to agree with me and not for us to reach the truth of the matter. If I was concerned about truth, I would agree or disagree with you based on rational or empirical grounds, not based on how much I like my conclusion or argument. (The "you" in this statement is for the purpose of illustration, it's not directed at anyone in this forum.)
Such a concept is more obvious in fields where there is little argument about objective truth existing (such as the physical sciences). Although we could certainly say there is an objective truth to social problems, it's not easy to see that might be the case or how we could investigate it. Academics have this issue, and they are supposedly trained for this as well as it being their apparent job to investigate such things. Therefore, how can we expect the average person to investigate the truth of social problems, especially when they may be more concerned about having an income than about truth?
Anyway, getting back to the initial issue, I think it comes down to the following. The state of the world is such that the people in it, and the systems we have created, are moving to a global and interconnected state. We were living in a society of independent nations that just focused on their own problems and deal with other nations as separate groups. As of a century and a half ago or so, the "independent" and "separate" aspects started to become more dependent and combined. Some people don't like this, and thus move against it (either actively fighting it or by refusing to participate). Other people take advantage of it, because global systems have not been properly developed. (The United Nations is not a world government, and if we were to create a world government based on any currently existing government of some country I really don't think it will work.) Other people are not aware of this. Lack of education is a good reason, either a lack because the country or its people are too poor for proper education or the country's government purposely restricts what its people learn.
What do we have as a result? We have some people operating at a global or macro level. NGOs and Multi-national companies are not thinking about operating within a country but above all countries. A multi-national can move its operations wherever because it is not limited to functioning just within one country. There is thus a major economic force acting upon the people in a country. How do people respond? One way is to go where there are jobs, or where one thinks there are jobs. Immigration has of course happened before, but my point is that economic pressures for immigration are now at a global level and not within one country anymore. People don't move from city to city looking for work, now people may have to move from country to country. That is a lot more difficult and more problematic, given the lack of a world infrastructure for such movement and lack of consistent laws or responses from different countries.
I think this is a reason why countries will have to deal with immigration, regardless of whether they want it or not. A country may want to close its borders, but in all practicality this is now impossible. There is external pressure to keep a country open to "foreigners", whether that be people, companies, ideas, etc. The concept of foreigner also only exists if our thinking is at a country level rather than a global level. Such problems may not make sense unless we think in sufficiently macro terms, and then look at the levels below. (And, of course, I can say "think globally" but such a statement on its own is completely unhelpful without providing any supporting frameworks and processes to actually engage in thinking at a global level.)
Just my two cents to this discussion.
-
I think we need common rules for basic behaviour towards the people of other countries. For example romanians come in our country as professional beggars who then support organized crime. What's all that? Romanians don't behave well and they don't see anything wrong in criminal act. It's just how some cultures are, they think crime is ok. That's one of the problems with foreigners.
-
You are talking about Gypsies right?
-
You are talking about Gypsies right?
No, romanians. You know, people who live in Romania. It's a country in Europe.
Gypsies are something else. They have always been foreigners in various countries. Strange people who never learned how to live in a country state. They just live and exist outside the state.
-
I think we need common rules for basic behaviour towards the people of other countries. For example romanians come in our country as professional beggars who then support organized crime. What's all that? Romanians don't behave well and they don't see anything wrong in criminal act. It's just how some cultures are, they think crime is ok. That's one of the problems with foreigners.
Sure, maybe we should have them wear yellow stars, or, you know, put those guys in camps if they remain incorrigibly annoying to you.
-
Concentration camps. Good idea if you can get over the guilt...wtf... :-\
@Krice - I asked if you were talking about Gypsies because I know there are a lot in Romania. I know several. They are an odd bunch. Able to maintain a separate identity for generation after generation.
They are a good example of the non-assimilation issue you brought up.
-
Sure, maybe we should have them wear yellow stars, or, you know, put those guys in camps if they remain incorrigibly annoying to you.
It's amazing how people always start talking about Hitler when they run out of arguments.
-
Sure, maybe we should have them wear yellow stars, or, you know, put those guys in camps if they remain incorrigibly annoying to you.
Or just close the borders like australians and kiwis do. They don't allow wrong people to come in their country and it's cool. It's the proper way to act. I think the problem with EU democracy is that it allows too much from these people who just take advantage of it.
-
It's amazing how people always start talking about Hitler when they run out of arguments.
It's a difficult topic to discuss without people crying racism or NAZI...but by any account immigration is a big issue. Creating a minority group in your country is not something to take lightly. It presents all manner of challenges and friction. It can sometimes be a strength but hard to deal with in any case.
-
It presents all manner of challenges and friction. It can sometimes be a strength but hard to deal with in any case.
True. Our swedish minority refuses to learn finnish language, but we should learn swedish. Their presence in Finland has roots in history when Finland was invaded by kingdom of Sweden. It constantly reminds us that we were slaves and they were better people (they still think they are).
-
I live in an area that is majority Latino. The language barrier is an issue. If you cannot speak to each other how can there be communication? It's rough.
I've learned to get by in Spanish. It's annoying.
EDIT: Note the learning isn't annoying. Trying to get by in a foreign language in my home town is just tough, that's all. The last 15 years have altered the language of this county quite a bit. So I didn't grow up bilingual, but now I need to be. This has caused MAJOR friction in my area.
-
Trying to get by in a foreign language in my home town is just tough
That's the problem with foreigners who don't want to integrate into main culture, but they want to keep their culture and language. With gypsies and swedish in our country it has always been a problem. I think it should be important to have one culture in one country and forget about this multi-culture bullshit. It has caused nothing but trouble.
-
I think a much better idea would be to take all kinds of riff-raff and just expell their sorry asses, regardless of ethnicity. A good place to start would be people who display their total ignorance by mixing up ethnic groups with similar sounding names when posting blatantly racist remarks to the internet, and who, when politely corrected, gleefully reiterate the mistake. Zing. We could probably set up a deal with Nokia to have these good-for-nothings mine for coltan in the Great Lakes Region, with a possibility to return for those who memorise the entire Kalevala. Win-win, seeing as how we then get cheap phones AS WELL AS more Kalevala scholars!
As always (having a bad day),
Minotauros
-
similar sounding names when posting blatantly racist remarks to the internet
Calling someone "racist" is a typical internet argument that leads to nowhere. Racism was proven wrong a long ago and foreigners could be people of any race. Problems related to immigration would be exactly the same even there was only one race on this planet.
-
Calling someone "racist" is a typical internet argument that leads to nowhere. Racism was proven wrong a long ago and foreigners could be people of any race. Problems related to immigration would be exactly the same even there was only one race on this planet.
Sure, we all know that. Racists are very picky about being called racists. I guess bigot would be a more acceptable term. However, even taken into account that there are very few old-school racists left, it's difficult not to label the following REMARK as racist in and of itself:
Romanians don't behave well and they don't see anything wrong in criminal act.
assuming we take "Romanians" to mean something akin to:
people who live in Romania
ie. strictly speaking an ethnic group.
As always,
Minotauros
PS. Hope you don't take this the wrong way. You're my favourite troll in teh whooole wiiide Internets.
-
ie. strictly speaking an ethnic group.
What really is an "ethnic" group? Aren't we all ethnic? To me romanians are just romanians, like french are french. And they both suck.
Actually, claiming that there are ethnic groups is actually making a difference to us "normal" people, which is racist itself!
-
ie. strictly speaking an ethnic group.
What really is an "ethnic" group? Aren't we all ethnic?
Well, duh. The whole point being that racism can be defined as the percepion that certain ethnic groups (eg. Romanians) are in some ways inherintly better or worse than others (eg. Finnish people).
I do, however, agree that the French suck.
As always,
Minotauros
-
are in some ways inherintly better or worse than others (eg. Finnish people).
What if they really are? Should we just deny the facts? I don't know if gypsies are an ethnic group, but really, what they ever achieved? Romania and Poland are poorest countries in the world. They should really do something about it.
-
are in some ways inherintly better or worse than others (eg. Finnish people).
What if they really are? Should we just deny the facts? I don't know if gypsies are an ethnic group, but really, what they ever achieved? Romania and Poland are poorest countries in the world. They should really do something about it.
Facts ? Coming from the guy who thinks Poland is one of the poorest countries in the world ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita )... You should read more before posting stuff like this.
T.
-
A smart guy has written this earlier in this thread:
Racism was proven wrong a long ago […] Should we just deny the facts?
'Nuff said.
As always,
Minotauros
-
Facts ? Coming from the guy who thinks Poland is one of the poorest countries in the world ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita )... You should read more before posting stuff like this.
Wikipedia doesn't note the fact how education deteriorated in the past 20 years in Poland or that they haven't built new railroad tracks since 80's, or that one official is able to ruin a prospering company just for fun, or that their government only cares about looking good in tables like the one you have linked against. So the racists may be actually right.
-
Hahaha, this thread is soaked in political uncorrectness.. I lllove this! ;D
-
Actual racism is much smaller problem than let's say immigration. But we humans never seem to detect and understand real problems. Like americans think terrorists are the problem, but the real problem is their own need to dominate world and resources.
-
Hahaha, this thread is soaked in political uncorrectness.. I lllove this! ;D
I concur.
(http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lxjm4n4umw1rn1xxfo1_400.gif)
-
Actual racism is much smaller problem than let's say immigration. But we humans never seem to detect and understand real problems. Like americans think terrorists are the problem, but the real problem is their own need to dominate world and resources.
Please note that as an American I judge intellect by one's take on the 'terrorist' issue. Most Americans think we are a terrorist target because terrorists hate our freedom. Seriously. The government backs this shit up. The 'news' networks back it up as well. Most of our 'news' sources are just fronts for a political party and/or the official line. So it's hard to get to the bottom of things, to see things as they are. Sad really.
Racism is a major problem in the US and has been for a long time. It's become tied with immigration in the last couple decades. If you are black in the US you are many times more likely to go to prison for the same crimes as a white person. The same is true for other races of Americans but not as bad as for blacks. Something like 1/3 black men will be in prison in their lives. We currently have 1/100 men in prison in the US. 3% of the total population is incarcerated or on restriction (probation/parole). It's just crazy.
But we aren't a police state. Nope. By far the highest incarceration rate in the world. But not a police state.
*Note that none of the above excuses criminal behavior in the individual, statistics only comment on society. Not the individual.
-
Racism is a major problem in the US and has been for a long time. It's become tied with immigration in the last couple decades. If you are black in the US you are many times more likely to go to prison for the same crimes as a white person. The same is true for other races of Americans but not as bad as for blacks. Something like 1/3 black men will be in prison in their lives. We currently have 1/100 men in prison in the US. 3% of the total population is incarcerated or on restriction (probation/parole). It's just crazy.
Jo is a racist- Categorizing actions taken against individuals BASED UPON RACE is without respect to each individual case in which crimes are committed and sentences made. If it turns out that black people just happen to commit more crimes, THEN IT'S OKAY. THE SYSTEM IS FINE. It may also be that white people just happen to be innocent more often than blacks.
The hilarious thing is that MOST of the crimes black people commit are against OTHER BLACK people. The FBI publishes (on their website) yearly statistics of crimes that result in murders- the last time I was doing research on it (2003), 80% of ALL crimes involving murder (since the 70's) were black people killing black people (in most cases involving theft of some kind). The statistics DO NOT FAVOR black people!
That said- If you submit two job applications where the only thing different is the name and one person is named "James" and the other is named "Shiquandaniqua," it's shamefully racist who is going to get the job. Statistics show that "James" will find a job significantly faster- unless the hiring agency needs to satisfy race/gender hiring requirements for tax breaks.
Companies look at statistics and see that black people, historically, commit more crimes. The fact that the former is true results in the latter. I was working in retail on Manhattan right in Union Square. Our store raked in 100k of sales each Saturday. Probably 80% of the shoplifting that took place- split evenly between Blacks and Latinos. We can call this racism, but the reality of it is that these conceptions developed organically.
The days of senseless lynching racism has been over (at least in places where it matters) for a long time. Now it seems to be predicated on the body of behavior that they have provided.
-
If you are black in the US you are many times more likely to go to prison for the same crimes as a white person.
So blacks should commit no crimes at all and everyone would be happy. The problem is that they do commit crimes and just shouting around that blacks and whites are equal won't solve the problem.
-
Krice, way back in the thread, I halfway asked you whether you felt that human beings have a basic duty to attend to the welfare of their fellow human, regardless of race or nationality. What are your thoughts there?
-
I halfway asked you whether you felt that human beings have a basic duty to attend to the welfare of their fellow human, regardless of race or nationality. What are your thoughts there?
It's not that simple. Yes, it's a good rule. But our resources are not without limits. Why should we take care of people from other countries, just because their own country sucks? We also have unemployment and poor people, that should be first in priority. Then some creep foreigners if it's possible.
-
Troll and Req you were way off. I was saying the US has an issue with racism and it can be shown statistically. Blacks commit more crimes statistically, so what? That's not racist. The systematic racism comes when blacks get put in prison at a higher rate for the same exact crime.
No need to call names and freak out.
-
Troll and Req you were way off. I was saying the US has an issue with racism and it can be shown statistically. Blacks commit more crimes statistically, so what? That's not racist. The systematic racism comes when blacks get put in prison at a higher rate for the same exact crime.
No need to call names and freak out.
I was being sarcastic- but then ended up taking the post in a non-humorous direction. Didn't mean to offend-
My point of contention implicitly dpends upon the fact that people have to be convicted to go to prison. If black people do in fact commit more crimes, then it is logical for the rate of convictions to be higher. It might also be possible that convictions against white people tend to fail because they are in fact innocent.
-
Again I think you may have missed it. I'll restate.
For the SAME EXACT CRIMINAL CONVICTION non-whites get higher sentences. Whites are far more likely to get no time in prison at all FOR THE SAME EXACT CRIME, the SAME EXACT CONVICTION.
If you look at any individual case it looks like the judge is being very fair and consistent, but when you look at the system as a whole it's obvious there is a problem. This includes capitol cases as well. The chance of being executed if convicted of a capitol crime are much lower if you are white.
The Supreme Court actually stopped all execution in the US for some years because of the discrepancy. After studying it and not finding any overt racism the executions continued.
It's a well known problem but no one knows how to fix it. They thought getting more nonwhite and women judges would help smooth things out, but it hasn't. The types of people that run for judge tend to be similar enough to not normalize the stats much, regardless of their demographic profile.
-
Racism is a major problem in the US and has been for a long time. It's become tied with immigration in the last couple decades. If you are black in the US you are many times more likely to go to prison for the same crimes as a white person.
You make note ONLY of the binary relationship between going to prison or not. This implies rate of conviction, not sentence severity.
Conviction and sentencing depends on a number of factors including current wealth, criminal history, education, and crime rate in current residence. If a white person commits a crime in an area with a low crime rate, the DA probably isn't trying to make a point of 'cleaning up the streets.' If a person commits a crime in a high-crime area, the need to inflict harsher sentences is important to a number of parties- The local political platforms probably focus more heavily on creating a safer environment. In this way, there are a number of other factors that are important explicit and implicit confounders to your claim.
Statistically, black people are more boned in these regards- but these aren't racial factors. It's just coincidence that they are black. I'm willing to bet that if we look at data socioeconomically or as a proportion to local crime rates or through other more significant perspectives, we'll find that racism isn't nearly as pronounced as you may think.
-
but these aren't racial factors. It's just coincidence that they are black.
It may have more to do with culture, which in many cases will affect how people act. US is a special case, because it's a country with long history of immigration based on greed. Europeans who went to US wanted to become rich and many of them were criminals. The culture of US is based on that freedom to fight for wealth and that can be seen in every aspect of the culture: neoconservatism that hides true problems, corrupted laws, power of capitalism and in freedom to die on the street.
I think black people play their role as former slaves. They were taken from Africa, their own culture and even names were lost in history. Racism was reality for a long time and certainly is still something they can remember even "official" racism no longer exists. In a way they still are lesser people.
-
I halfway asked you whether you felt that human beings have a basic duty to attend to the welfare of their fellow human, regardless of race or nationality. What are your thoughts there?
It's not that simple. Yes, it's a good rule. But our resources are not without limits. Why should we take care of people from other countries, just because their own country sucks? We also have unemployment and poor people, that should be first in priority. Then some creep foreigners if it's possible.
Why does the home clan take priority?
-
Why does the home clan take priority?
Why anything. Why your family members are more important than complete strangers.
-
Why does the home clan take priority?
Why anything. Why your family members are more important than complete strangers.
Yes, that is pretty much the question. Is the answer a foregone conclusion to you?
-
Is the answer a foregone conclusion to you?
If it was then I guess we would not even have to think about it. Foreigners are not better than us, in fact they are worse. Do you think romanians would help us if we ever needed help?
-
I live in an area of London with a large immigrant population - in fact I think where I live there is technically no such thing as an ethnic majority, since no one ethnic group has over 50% of the population. If one hundredth of the bullshit scare tactics that the media and people like Krice came out with about immigration were true I would probably be lying in the gutter with a stab wound right now outside the burned-out remains of my house while fighting off plague rats with a stick.
(Spoiler warning:) I'm not.
In fact it's fine. If anything I have less problems here than in the area with 99% native white population where I grew up. The so-called 'problems' of immigration exist solely in the minds of people so deluded that they think being born one side of an imaginary line makes you somehow 'better' and more 'deserving' than those born on the other side.
-
If anything I have less problems here than in the area with 99% native white population where I grew up.
Sometimes there is no difference between natives and foreigners, if both of them are creeps.
-
Sometimes there is no difference between natives and foreigners, if both of them are creeps.
Oh fuck! Zing!
@Req - Normalize the numbers however you want, the effect is still racism. The stats take into account criminal history. The intent of the system is not racist, the racism comes from the human factor. A manifestation of the human fear of 'the other'. Note that criminal history is the only thing properly taken into account in sentencing out of the things you listed. The others are likely considered at a more subconscious level, but amount to no more than racism by proxy. Or more accurately, classism.
-
Sometimes there is no difference between natives and foreigners, if both of them are creeps.
Oh fuck! Zing!
@Req - Normalize the numbers however you want, the effect is still racism. The stats take into account criminal history. The intent of the system is not racist, the racism comes from the human factor. A manifestation of the human fear of 'the other'. Note that criminal history is the only thing properly taken into account in sentencing out of the things you listed. The others are likely considered at a more subconscious level, but amount to no more than racism by proxy. Or more accurately, classism.
Well- I wouldn't say at a subconscious level, but rather at a functional or pragmatic one. I think the reason why it isn't racism is because the system is not targeting members of that race. They just happen to be in the statistical majority of crimes committed warranting more severe punishment. The statistics will make it look like racism no matter how you wind it. Judges most definitely take into account your station in life-- if you get caught for possession as a student in a 4-year university, you're less likely to see significant punishment as you would from, say, an unemployed 40-year old single man living in section-8 -- even if in both cases there were no criminal records.
I may be completely off-basis, but my experience with judges suggests that they take personal character, location, and position in life into account when sentencing people. This is most definitely classist, but if we look at the stats irrespective of race and focus solely on class, then the trends show that poor folk commit crimes more often. Even if that bias isn't held against someone in court, the fact that they live in an area where there is a zero-tolerance policy toward crime will bone them.
I will certainly concede that blatant racism exists in a number of places in this country- but I don't think that the statistical racism that your talking about is as substantial as the statistics may imply.
-
stop talking about racism - go and create a roguelike with a handful races.
-
Lol. Thanks for the push Slash!
-
hurtlings - spics
dark elfs - gyppos
high elfs - honkies
grey elves - abcds
orcs - jiggaboos
goblins - gooks
trolls - injuns
gnomes - kikes
dwarfs - guidos
drakelings - towelheads