If Mort Divine ruled the world

[Einherjar86]

That's how it's parsed by most people who accept the "race is a construct" argument, as well as those who make it. I heard it more than once from college professors, so you can't claim ignorance of the masses in interpretation alone.

I'm not sure how... I'd need an example.

Right, it's a religion. But if I said I was in favor of strict immigration measures against people from Muslim countries guess what I'd be called? Certainly not a "religionist".

Ah, yes - but how do you implement restrictions against Muslims? Well, technically, you'd have to ask them: "Are you a Muslim?" But of course, people can lie about their religion, and anyone can be a Muslim - a European, an Asian, an American, etc. So what's the next most practicable policy? That would be restrictions not on Muslims, but on those most likely to be Muslims. That's where race comes into play.

What I was referring to was the "Great America of the 50s" which included Jim Crow laws - which by some wasn't considered "racist". Of course Jim Crow laws et al were racist. But today, saying that many people illegally crossing the Mexican border are breaking one or more laws is "racist". Mexican isn't a race, it's a nationality. Islam isn't a race, it's a religion. Etc.

I don't perceive the same equivocation. Leftists talk about illegal immigration, and saying that some Mexicans come across the border illegally isn't racist.

Now, as to your second point, you're right that Mexican is a nationality; but in our typical political parlance, "Mexican" stands in for "Central American." So, again, there you have race.

 

[rms]

Ellis is a gem who gets overlooked way too often for being a literary "brat." He's an intelligent guy who wrote some really startling and thoughtful (albeit hideous) shit, but he gets overshadowed. American Psycho is really an incredible novel. Not surprised he'd be one to speak out against language/image police, considering Psycho was the object of much scrutiny upon its release.

American Psycho is pretty fantastic, just wanted you to know someone read your praise of Ellis <3 haha

 

[Dak]

I'm not sure how... I'd need an example.

"Race doesn't exist, we made it up" and/or talking about the greater number of differences within group vs between group, as if that's some sort of disproof.

Ah, yes - but how do you implement restrictions against Muslims? Well, technically, you'd have to ask them: "Are you a Muslim?" But of course, people can lie about their religion, and anyone can be a Muslim - a European, an Asian, an American, etc. So what's the next most practicable policy? That would be restrictions not on Muslims, but on those most likely to be Muslims. That's where race comes into play.

Now, as to your second point, you're right that Mexican is a nationality; but in our typical political parlance, "Mexican" stands in for "Central American." So, again, there you have race.

Central American isn't a race, but the majority obviously aren't white. Yes it is, at minimum, a matter of convenience in these matters that most nations in the world are somewhat racially homogeneous.

I don't perceive the same equivocation. Leftists talk about undocumented immigration, and saying that some Mexicans come across the border undocumented isn't racist.

FYP

Edit: As is almost creepily often the case, Nick shares a pertinent article.

http://theweek.com/articles/640943/how-angela-merkel-imperiled-europes-future

 

[Einherjar86]

"Race doesn't exist, we made it up" and/or talking about the greater number of differences within group vs between group, as if that's some sort of disproof.

I'm sorry, I've never heard a professor say this, and I definitely haven't heard one leave the matter at such a simple level.

I'm not covering for anyone here; this just seems to me like an unfair generalization of university instructors.

Central American isn't a race, but the majority obviously aren't white. Yes it is, at minimum, a matter of convenience in these matters that most nations in the world are somewhat racially homogeneous.

Central America is a racial term in that it basically refers to Native Americans, or those of native descent - the same way that "Muslim" basically stands in for "Middle Eastern" (in a very general sense, but this is how lots of people think).

By making this connection, I don't see any problem in calling out racism where people talk about Muslims or Central Americans ("Mexicans") in general. There are racial identifications that underscore these categories.

FYP

Yes, yes, I know. The logic behind that sentiment is actually not entirely misguided, although somewhat muddled. In short, saying "illegal" immigration can give the impression that the people crossing the border are already criminals prior to having committed the crime of "illegal" immigration. It bestows a retroactive label on these immigrants as "criminal," leading people to believe that it's primarily dangerous murderers, rapists, and drug dealers who are entering the U.S.

Obviously some are, but most aren't. Trump, however, perpetuates this myth in his now stone-age comment on Mexican criminals (can't believe how long ago that was, back when him being the nominee was still "impossible").

In general, leftists do want to talk about "undocumented" immigration, and to put measures in place to reduce it. Focusing on all the noise about illegal immigration and racism takes everyone's attention off the fact that leftists/democrats actually do perceive a problem that needs to be addressed.

 

[Dak]

I'm sorry, I've never heard a professor say this, and I definitely haven't heard one leave the matter at such a simple level.

I'm not covering for anyone here; this just seems to me like an unfair generalization of university instructors.

Well it obviously isn't all instructors, or even most. But I have heard these comments from people holding PhDs, and I suspect if more were pressed to speak on the subject I could find more.

Central America is a racial term in that it basically refers to Native Americans, or those of native descent - the same way that "Muslim" basically stands in for "Middle Eastern" (in a very general sense, but this is how lots of people think).

By making this connection, I don't see any problem in calling out racism where people talk about Muslims or Central Americans ("Mexicans") in general. There are racial identifications that underscore these categories.

I do see a problem - it's not necessarily racist. Is it wrong to notice the racial commonality between the French terror perpetrators and the 9/11 hijackers? Saying "Arabs are terrorists" would be an example of racism. Saying "We need to better vet people from Arab countries because of a historically verified greater liklihood of terrorist attacks from Arab immigrants and/or their children than other immigrants and citizens" is not racist.

Mestizos are the majority ethnic group in Latin America, and originated as a designator of a mixed group, unlike Arabs (although Arabs are quite mixed at this point compared to the original "Arabs from Arabia". But the Middle East (and "Muslim countries") includes Iran and the Stans at the edges, which are not Arab countries. Then there is also Turkey and Indonesia that are "Muslim Countries". I may have forgotten some.

Yes, yes, I know. The logic behind that sentiment is actually not entirely misguided, although somewhat muddled. In short, saying "illegal" immigration can give the impression that the people crossing the border are already criminals prior to having committed the crime of "illegal" immigration. It bestows a retroactive label on these immigrants as "criminal," leading people to believe that it's primarily dangerous murderers, rapists, and drug dealers who are entering the U.S.

Obviously some are, but most aren't. Trump, however, perpetuates this myth in his now stone-age comment on Mexican criminals (can't believe how long ago that was, back when him being the nominee was still "impossible").

In general, leftists do want to talk about "undocumented" immigration, and to put measures in place to reduce it. Focusing on all the noise about illegal immigration and racism takes everyone's attention off the fact that leftists/democrats actually do perceive a problem that needs to be addressed.

The undocumented nature of people illegally entering the country is that we don't know whether or not the majority are dangerous. One line of thinking is that those that don't mind breaking the law to get in won't mind breaking the law once in. I would guess that the majority that cross to try and stay aren't dangerous (at least, in a narrow and purely violent crime sense), but the border is crisscrossed pretty regularly by dangerous elements. But that gets into drug war issues and that's sort of an aside to immigration, although not to border security. I think the more intelligent arguments would focus more on border security, but that doesn't have the same emotional effect as THEY TERK UR JERBS, even though it is true that illegal immigrants drag down wages by increasing and undercutting the citizen labor supply pool. Which is why big business is so "enlightened" on immigration.

 

[Einherjar86]

Well it obviously isn't all instructors, or even most. But I have heard these comments from people holding PhDs, and I suspect if more were pressed to speak on the subject I could find more.

I suspect that most wouldn't put it as simply as you did.

I do see a problem - it's not necessarily racist. Is it wrong to notice the racial commonality between the French terror perpetrators and the 9/11 hijackers? Saying "Arabs are terrorists" would be an example of racism. Saying "We need to better vet people from Arab countries because of a historically verified greater liklihood of terrorist attacks from Arab immigrants and/or their children than other immigrants and citizens" is not racist.

Noticing isn't necessarily racist; but yes, implementing universal policies based on less than .01% of a certain population is racist.

It's also racist considering that most terror attack from the past fifty years or so have been committed by non-Muslims.

Mestizos are the majority ethnic group in Latin America, and originated as a designator of a mixed group, unlike Arabs (although Arabs are quite mixed at this point compared to the original "Arabs from Arabia". But the Middle East (and "Muslim countries") includes Iran and the Stans at the edges, which are not Arab countries. Then there is also Turkey and Indonesia that are "Muslim Countries". I may have forgotten some.

This is just making my point. How many people do you think have a wide knowledge of the ethnic differences within these regions? Probably very few; but that doesn't stop them from generalizing about Mexicans and Arabs.

The undocumented nature of people illegally entering the country is that we don't know whether or not the majority are dangerous. One line of thinking is that those that don't mind breaking the law to get in won't mind breaking the law once in. I would guess that the majority that cross to try and stay aren't dangerous (at least, in a narrow and purely violent crime sense), but the border is crisscrossed pretty regularly by dangerous elements. But that gets into drug war issues and that's sort of an aside to immigration, although not to border security. I think the more intelligent arguments would focus more on border security, but that doesn't have the same emotional effect as THEY TERK UR JERBS, even though it is true that illegal immigrants drag down wages by increasing and undercutting the citizen labor supply pool. Which is why big business is so "enlightened" on immigration.

So then why not refer to them as "undocumented"? Why emphasize the "illegal" aspect of it? My comment was about rhetoric.

 

[Dak]

I suspect that most wouldn't put it as simply as you did.

I wasn't simplifying what I heard, and I think most people - PhD in something or not - don't understand that everything is a construct.

Noticing isn't necessarily racist; but yes, implementing universal policies based on less than .01% of a certain population is racist.

What is the % of non-Muslim, non-immigrant terrorists in a given non-Muslim country? What is the percentage of liklihood of radicalization? Etc.

It's also racist considering that most terror attack from the past fifty years or so have been committed by non-Muslims.

Citation please, and what an arbitrary timeframe. No nuclear weapons have been used against anyone in the past fifty years or so, I guess they don't exist.

This is just making my point. How many people do you think have a wide knowledge of the ethnic differences within these regions? Probably very few; but that doesn't stop them from generalizing about Mexicans and Arabs.

Probably almost everyone has even less than I do, which is in the grand scope of things, very little (much less regarding Arabs than mestizos, since I married one). The irony to me in unintellectual generalizing about both Arabs and Mestizos is that those most likely to do it are most likely to be of similarly poor habits. Arabs and Mestizos form and propogate very backwards cultures compared to white elites, whether liberal or conservative, but mestizo culture is pretty comparable to white flyover culture, even if the particulars are different and they don't like each other (which is actually a point of comparison). Arabs though have a completely non-westernized approach to things, whereas Mestizos are somewhat westernized because of colonialism. My father in law and my step father are pretty damn similar, and I don't have much in common with either except military service.

So then why not refer to them as "undocumented"? Why emphasize the "illegal" aspect of it? My comment was about rhetoric.

Because immigrating outside of the legal process is a calculated attempt to break the law for personal gain, not the overlooking of a formality like accidentally forgetting to check a box.

 

[Einherjar86]

I wasn't simplifying what I heard, and I think most people - PhD in something or not - don't understand that everything is a construct.

People with PhDs are a minority, not "most people." And if anyone understands what "construct" means, it's people with PhDs.

What is the % of non-Muslim, non-immigrant terrorists in a given non-Muslim country? What is the percentage of liklihood of radicalization? Etc.

The FBI statistics say that 94% of terror attacks in the U.S. since 1980 have been committed by non-Muslims. So there's a start.

Citation please, and what an arbitrary timeframe. No nuclear weapons have been used against anyone in the past fifty years or so, I guess they don't exist.

Google search "percentage of non-Muslim terrorists" and take your pick. But my main source is the FBI stats, which I believe I've linked before.

You can extend it back further if you want, before WWII... or as recently as 1980 (which is when the FBI statistics actually cut off). I don't think it will make much of a difference.

Probably almost everyone has even less than I do, which is in the grand scope of things, very little (much less regarding Arabs than mestizos, since I married one). The irony to me in unintellectual generalizing about both Arabs and Mestizos is that those most likely to do it are most likely to be of similarly poor habits. Arabs and Mestizos form and propogate very backwards cultures compared to white elites, whether liberal or conservative, but mestizo culture is pretty comparable to white flyover culture, even if the particulars are different and they don't like each other (which is actually a point of comparison). Arabs though have a completely non-westernized approach to things, whereas Mestizos are somewhat westernized because of colonialism. My father in law and my step father are pretty damn similar, and I don't have much in common with either except military service.

I don't see where you're going with all this. No matter.

Because immigrating outside of the legal process is a calculated attempt to break the law for personal gain, not the overlooking of a formality like accidentally forgetting to check a box.

I'll concede this, but to be honest it's because I don't really care. I say "illegal immigration" when talking about it with my colleagues and peers. If they secretly think I'm being racist, then so be it. I probably am.

 

[Dak]

People with PhDs are a minority, not "most people." And if anyone understands what "construct" means, it's people with PhDs.

Read what I said again.

The FBI statistics say that 94% of terror attacks in the U.S. since 1980 have been committed by non-Muslims. So there's a start.

Google search "percentage of non-Muslim terrorists" and take your pick. But my main source is the FBI stats, which I believe I've linked before.

You can extend it back further if you want, before WWII... or as recently as 1980 (which is when the FBI statistics actually cut off). I don't think it will make much of a difference.

Fair enough, but the FBI doesn't label things terrorist attacks in the way most people would think of them, whether it confirms one position or the other or not. The San Bernardino attacks weren't considered "terrorist attacks" by the FBI, but it was a mass shooting by Muslims purportedly because of Islamic radicalization. Whether or not it is officially a terrorist attack, it is a mass victim attack by radical Muslims. This isn't a problem endemic to any other religion, and it just so happens you don't see many white European/Amerikaner radicalized Muslims. Of course we have had some mass shooter whites, but within the US, or more broadly with Euro/Anglo whites in Euro/Anglo countries it's less of a problem.

Nevermind the problem of decreased trust issues eroding social functioning. I don't hate other races, but I think that overall it's better for everyone for like to be with like, and without being forced together we do this naturally.

I don't see where you're going with all this. No matter.

That the problems from Mestizo and Arab immigration are quite different, and is perceived differently by different people.

 

[Baroque]

I think that overall it's better for everyone for like to be with like, and without being forced together we do this naturally.

Completely disagree, and i'm not sure we can even be friends anymore bro. Confirms some suspicions I had for a while.

 

[Einherjar86]

Read what I said again.

I wasn't simplifying what I heard, and I think most people - PhD in something or not - don't understand that everything is a construct.

So you're saying that most people, even those with PhDs, don't understand that everything is a construct - i.e. what it means for something to be a construct. I think I understood you.

Fair enough, but the FBI doesn't label things terrorist attacks in the way most people would think of them, whether it confirms one position or the other or not. The San Bernardino attacks weren't considered "terrorist attacks" by the FBI, but it was a mass shooting by Muslims purportedly because of Islamic radicalization. Whether or not it is officially a terrorist attack, it is a mass victim attack by radical Muslims. This isn't a problem endemic to any other religion, and it just so happens you don't see many white European/Amerikaner radicalized Muslims. Of course we have had some mass shooter whites, but within the US, or more broadly with Euro/Anglo whites in Euro/Anglo countries it's less of a problem.

You're just fear-mongering at this point.

Nevermind the problem of decreased trust issues eroding social functioning. I don't hate other races, but I think that overall it's better for everyone for like to be with like, and without being forced together we do this naturally.

Well, from what I've heard you say, you would prefer to live in a shack removed from society, schooling your children on the ills of modernity. So I guess that doesn't surprise me.

 

[Dak]

So you're saying that most people, even those with PhDs, don't understand that everything is a construct - i.e. what it means for something to be a construct. I think I understood you.

Yes. You didn't respond to that originally.

You're just fear-mongering at this point.

Everyone has a different idea of what it means to fear monger I guess. I moved past fear-mongering half a decade ago.

Well, from what I've heard you say, you would prefer to live in a shack removed from society, schooling your children on the ills of modernity. So I guess that doesn't surprise me.

It's funny, that's what those who worked around me thought years ago. The epitaph on my exit plaque for the USMC makes it sound like I'll be a mountain hermit. Yet here I am, still living in the middle of modernity and working within the degree mill at an advanced level. Either I'm a seriously special case, or people are quite misguided in their characterizations, or both. While you were typing your response, I was life coaching a black middle schooler.

 

[Dak]

Completely disagree, and i'm not sure we can even be friends anymore bro. Confirms some suspicions I had for a while.

It's not an absolute statement, and it doesn't mean I hate people different from me. It also doesn't even refer to race. It says "like people". Pat would know I've been interested in the concept of phyles for a while. I'm married to a mestizo for fucks sake. My children are mixed.

 

[Einherjar86]

Yes. You didn't respond to that originally.

And if anyone understands what "construct" means, it's people with PhDs.

How is that not a response?

Everyone has a different idea of what it means to fear monger I guess. I moved past fear-mongering half a decade ago.

If you say so...

It's funny, that's what those who worked around me thought years ago. The epitaph on my exit plaque for the USMC makes it sound like I'll be a mountain hermit. Yet here I am, still living in the middle of modernity and working within the degree mill at an advanced level. Either I'm a seriously special case, or people are quite misguided in their characterizations, or both. While you were typing your response, I was life coaching a black middle schooler.

I said it's what you would prefer, not that it's what you're doing. I still think it's an accurate diagnosis.

 

[Dak]

How is that not a response?

If you say so...

Well then I think you're sheltered and wrong on your expectations then, despite your experiences in academia. Mileage may vary with institutions. People misread me because they can't and don't read what I read and can't/don't interpret things how I interpret things. Some might interpret my response in the thread about making a movie as an egotistical response but my oldest younger brother and I have a sort of weird situation where everyone thinks we grew up super privileged but we didn't, and don't understand our histories/perspectives.

I said it's what you would prefer, not that it's what you're doing. I still think it's an accurate diagnosis.

Ehhh, I wouldn't mind living on a mountain. I like the mountains. I like the beach. I like much of nature other than jungle/swamp. But I don't dislike the benefits of modernity/civilization or people in general. As a person who has resided exclusively in the southeast and west, I'm a prime appreciator of the wonder that is refrigeration. As a high-IQ person, I am a prime appreciator of the wonder that is the internet and technological connectivity. As a person who has experienced a lot of immature fakeness, I am a prime appreciator of realness, even if it is realness I can't commune with.

 

[rms]

If Dak was from Cali..

 

[Dak]

Yeah, that's why I have investments in polyester and a neckbeard.

 

[rms]

Lord of the Rings too

 

[arg]

A non-negative assessment (no crime or terrorist data on a refugee)...

Or a "consolation positive -after- the fact of illegal entry" (x% of them contribute y% to the economy after z number of years / generations)...

...are NOT compelling reasons to accept illegals or refugees.

Immigration should be ONLY LEGAL and provide an IMMEDIATE CONCRETE POSITIVE.
examples:
- we need 5 farmers so we open the door, let them in, then close the door
- we need 1 surgeon and 1 programmer, so we open the door, let them in, then close the door

 

[Einherjar86]

Well then I think you're sheltered and wrong on your expectations then, despite your experiences in academia. Mileage may vary with institutions. People misread me because they can't and don't read what I read and can't/don't interpret things how I interpret things. Some might interpret my response in the thread about making a movie as an egotistical response but my oldest younger brother and I have a sort of weird situation where everyone thinks we grew up super privileged but we didn't, and don't understand our histories/perspectives.

What I find funny is that I actually have more exposure to academic situations than you, from what I can gather. This isn't to claim any kind of authority in the matter, but only to say I've interacted with more academics, at multiple institutions and conferences. I have indeed come across people who've said what you quoted, in the manner you quoted it.

But they are in the minority, and it is a small minority. Almost - almost - none of the academics I've had the good fortune to interact with characterize the notion of "social construct" in the way that you did.

I think you have the experience and education to arrive at your own conclusion regarding the concept of social construction, but I don't think you have the evidence to suggest that I'm "sheltered and wrong" on my expectations, if only for the reason that my expectations derive from what I presume is an experience that is broader than yours. The level of intellectual rigor with which you address the issue is common among humanities scholars, although it may surface less in undergraduate courses if only for the reason that it involves a lot of heavy theory that often doesn't make it into undergrad curricula (which is unfortunate, but not an indicator of an instructor's level of comprehension).

Ultimately, you can choose to believe that I'm lying or that I'm subject to a kind of intellectual blindness. Either is your prerogative.

Ehhh, I wouldn't mind living on a mountain. I like the mountains. I like the beach. I like much of nature other than jungle/swamp. But I don't dislike the benefits of modernity/civilization or people in general. As a person who has resided exclusively in the southeast and west, I'm a prime appreciator of the wonder that is refrigeration. As a high-IQ person, I am a prime appreciator of the wonder that is the internet and technological connectivity. As a person who has experienced a lot of immature fakeness, I am a prime appreciator of realness, even if it is realness I can't commune with.

As a high-IQ person, I can appreciate the fact that enjoying the marvels of modernity inevitably leads to commingling with those of different phyles. I don't think that's something to be avoided for its own sake.