Comment by yummyfajitas | Hacker News Reader

Comment by yummyfajitas | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Choosing "first world" rather than "white America" is a completely arbitrary division of humanity. I'm asking why a nationalistic division is legitimate but a racial one is not.

Let me again point out - you've brought up a bunch of empirical criteria. Suppose the situation changes and black Americans suddenly satisfy those empirical criteria. Do you favor imposing the same restrictions on them that we impose on Indians? For example, if the educational funding situation changes, and most black people are educated via black people-funded community organizations, would requiring visas before we allow them to work be acceptable?

If not, why is it acceptable to do this to Indians and Haitians?

Are you merely taking the legitimacy of the nation state as some moral first principle?

I think regarding racism you should probably be a bit more introspective.

Ah yes - dislike what someone has to say, so hint that they are racist.

I'm currently interpreting your comment as being intended in a somewhat hostile manner. Am I correct in doing so?

>Choosing "first world" rather than "white America" is a completely arbitrary division of humanity. I'm asking why a nationalistic division is legitimate but a racial one is not.

Government. A nation is served by an institution that delivers (more or less) consistent policy that can be shaped to benefit (or harm) those under it.

It makes sense to have opinions about how institutions should operate. It does not make sense to have opinions about how the government of the non-existent nation of American white (or black) people should operate because it does not exist.

>Are you merely taking the legitimacy of the nation state as some moral first principle?

I'm not trying to wish it away like you are. Given that it does exist, it should operate for the benefit of its citizens.

>Ah yes - dislike what someone has to say, so hint that they are racist.

...is exactly what you were doing by bringing race into this discussion.

>I'm currently interpreting your comment as being intended in a somewhat hostile manner. Am I correct in doing so?

Amusing :)

Given that it does exist, it should operate for the benefit of its citizens.

We aren't discussing giving welfare or medicaid to Americans but not Nigerians. We are discussing threatening the Nigerian with violence if he works for an American in America.

...is exactly what you were doing by bringing race into this discussion.

I did nothing of the sort. I said directly that nationalism is just as bad (morally) as racism. I didn't say it was racism.

I'll note that you've yet again ducked the question of whether it's morally correct to treat black Americans as badly as we treat Kenyans under any particular circumstance.

>We aren't discussing giving welfare or medicaid to Americans but not Nigerians. We are discussing threatening the Nigerian with violence if he works for an American in America.

Nah, threaten the profit-seeking employer with imprisonment, not the Nigerian.

>I did nothing of the sort.

Bringing race into a discussion where it was clearly not warranted and using it to imply racism is something of the sort, actually.

>I said directly that nationalism is just as bad (morally) as racism.

And I said that I am not nationalistic. I'm not even American. Again I fail to see why you needed to raise the issue of race at all.

>I'll note that you've yet again ducked the question

I haven't ducked any questions at all.

>whether it's morally correct to treat black Americans as badly as we treat Kenyans under any particular circumstance.

I'm happy to answer but your question lacks precision. In what sense are we using the term 'treat as badly'? Who do you mean by 'we'?

Nah, threaten the profit-seeking employer with imprisonment, not the Nigerian.

How do you distinguish this from threatening those who might choose to employ black Americans in order to make a buck?

Again I fail to see why you needed to raise the issue of race at all.

Because in the case of racial bias, people are shocked and horrified. Yet in the case of national bias, people aren't. I'm attempting to point out that there are few good distinguishing principles between the two cases, so the dichotomy is unjustified.

In what sense are we using the term 'treat as badly'? Who do you mean by 'we'

I've repeatedly said that "treat badly" means "threaten with violence for engaging in mutually agreeable trade" and "we" means "organizations that purport to act on our behalf" (US Govt, white supremicist groups, etc).

>How do you distinguish this from threatening those who might choose to employ black Americans in order to make a buck?

Quite easily. Nobody needs a visa to employ black Americans.

I'm sure black Americans would feel somewhat relieved that they were not forced to compete with Nigerians.

>Because in the case of racial bias, people are shocked and horrified. Yet in the case of national bias, people aren't.

I fail to see why this horrifies you so much. White skin didn't pay for my education. The nation I was born and grew up in did.

It's no use pretending that employers are pro-immigration thanks to their worldliness and desire to help non-Americans, either. Nigel Farage in the UK represents the epitome of national bias yet guess what he did when he wanted to hire somebody for cheap? Yup, that's right. Immigrants.

>I'm attempting to point out that there are few good distinguishing principles between the two cases

Failing I would say.

>I've repeatedly said that "treat badly" means "threaten with violence for engaging in mutually agreeable trade" and "we" means "organizations that purport to act on our behalf" (US Govt, white supremicist groups, etc).

Ok, so I agreed - no violence towards Nigerians who come to the US looking for work. Perhaps a mild deportation, that's all (it's happened to me before due to a visa mixup and it didn't leave any bruises).

Quite easily. Nobody needs a visa to employ black Americans.

As I expected - another smug non-sequitur and ducking the core question. Have fun.

I'm just going to assume that you are incapable of asking a direct question since I still don't see what you're getting at.

I understand his question.

The question is: Why is it acceptable for a group of people defined by "nationality" to form a collective (government) that creates and enforces economic protection for itself against non-members, but not acceptable for a group defined by "race" to do the same?

The closest you came to answering this was when you wrote "Given that it does exist, it should operate for the benefit of its citizens." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8886112) which to me reads as "it is acceptable because that's the way it is today" or possibly "it is not acceptable but that's just the way it is".

    mild deportation

All laws/regulations (even the good ones) are ultimately enforced by the implicit threat of violence. You only get a "mild deportation" if you cooperate in the process.

That is the nature of laws and regulations.

If you would prefer instead to live under the explicit and constant threat of violence there are societies on this planet without laws and regulations.

You are not disputing anything I wrote. You seem to be replying as if I were arguing against this, when I was actually pointing out a fact that you failed to acknowledge when you wrote "no violence towards Nigerians who come to the US looking for work. Perhaps a mild deportation".

Note that while you wrote "no violence towards Nigerians", in the post you replied to yummyfajitas wrote ""threaten with violence" which is not quite the same.

In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.

-- Anatole France

Reply on news.ycombinator.com