Hacker News Reader

Comment by reaperducer | Hacker News Reader

I hadn't really thought before about how left-wing folks

Can't HN be the one place on the internet that isn't sullied by tribalism?

I don't see that as tribalistic/negative language at all. However, I do see it in the unqualified assertion that left-wing people want "more mass immigration", which seems misleading and tangential to their actual desires (which seem to be more about treating immigrants better and allowing more cases of legitimate asylum seeking, rather than actively seeking "more" and "massive" immigration in the general case). Even just the more innocuous version of that statement - "make immigration easier" - is not even a popular opinion of leftwingers, as far as I can tell.

Edit: Where "popular" means a strong majority. However, I'm speaking totally intuitively. I'm not sure what the reality of the numbers are, and there are so many subtly different opinions one can poll for just be tweaking the wording.

I don't see that as tribalistic/negative language at all.

Left wing is a tribe. Right wing is a tribe. Just like all the sportsball teams are tribes.

Politics would work better if politicians, and their followers, worked for people, rather than their tribes.

Eh, labels are useful. I don't believe that saying "left/right wingers tend to X" means "the world is black and white" or "everybody is left/right wing and that's all you need to know about them". It's how you use labels that matters. And yeah, a label can get misused so bad that it loses its usefulness in honest discussion, but I think "left/right-wing" is far from that death. It carries too much useful meaning when thoughtfully applied.

Even accepting that "left wing is a tribe", summarizing the views of a tribe (especially in relatively objective terms) isn't the same as engaging in tribalism.

Far too late for that unfortunately, but we can try to be better.

I'm not taking these boxing gloves off.

I don't have a political tribe, I'm not a partisan, etc. I was hoping HN would be the one place on the Internet where we could discuss things maturely. Notably, I'm not attacking left-wing people or viewpoints here, but observing that there are two goals that are in apparent conflict (which isn't to say they contradict each other or that they're ignoble or anything else).

>I'm not attacking left-wing people

You said "left-wing folks typically want ... more mass immigration", which I disagree with, though not with any real authority or conviction (I wrote a separate comment about it). The rub is - coming from most people on the internet at large, I would assume that statement was purposefully uncharitable, but I think on HN, the chances that a person (you, in this case) is being honest are higher (i.e. that your opinion that left-wing people want more mass immigration is derived honestly and holistically to the best of your ability, regardless of whether there is a reasonable argument against it out there somewhere).

Yes, my honest impression is that left-wing people generally (i.e., it's a very popular position on the left) wanted to lower the barrier for "asylum seekers" which implies admitting lots of people without respect to their educational background or skill (hence "mass immigration"). I didn't realize this was controversial (I thought everyone agreed that this is a popular position on the left). This also isn't a value judgment--a conservative might look at that and see unintended consequences (a burden on social services, wage suppression, etc) but a progressive might look at that and see nobility ("Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" etc).

Ah, yeah, I agree. But I don't agree that that position is tantamount to "supporting mass immigration", by the normal colloquial meaning of that phrase. I think that wording, unqualified as in your original usage, implies antagonism toward the position you're describing (though, as I mentioned in another reply, "mass immigration" might have a domain-specific definition I'm not aware of? Sort of like how "obese" technically refers to a much lower weight than the way we use the word colloquially, and how "mass shooting" can technically mean a victim count as low as three, depending on other circumstances, again contrary to what the typical colloquial threshold probably is in most cases).

Fair enough. I didn't know that phrase was loaded. I just meant it in opposition to highly-selective admissions processes.

"Asylum seeker" is a specific term, for example see this UN glossary: https://www.unhcr.org/449267670.pdf. In particular it's not about huddled masses, it's about people escaping violent situations and active persecution. Putting "asylum seeker" in scare quotes and conflating it with general immigration is a right-wing thing to do. If you don't want people to mistake you for a right-wing partisan then consider just saying "immigration" of whatever type you mean.

I'm sure I'm somewhat imprecise with my terms (I didn't realize I was speaking to a group of immigration lawyers). I've been as clear as I can be, and I can't force anyone to understand against their will. Good day.

> I don't have a political tribe

So you're either a liar or you are ignorant. Which is it?

Nonpartisanship offends you, eh?

reaperducer says >"Can't HN be the one place on the internet that isn't sullied by triablism(sic)?"<

Can't HN be the one place on the internet that isn't sullied by obvious misspellings?

Can't HN be the one place on the internet that isn't sullied by obvious misspellings?

Fixed it. Just for you. -kiss-

Reply on news.ycombinator.com