undefined

points

[-]

So suppose there's a large group of people arriving into your country en mass, you poll them about eg., women's rights and you find that 80%+ of them hold highly regressive views that were rare and fringe in even in the last 100+ years of your own country. Indeed, women would be warned about them even in the antebellum south. Now suppose they're a different colour than the present inhabitants.

Which fact is most salient in your analysis of whether to retain their presence, or admit more?

If its the latter, then I think there's racism in play here, but not of the kind you imagine. Namely, it seems you'd think feminism is only for white people. Or perhaps that human rights are a white things. Others, of course, disagree.

by SiempreViernes3 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

Assuming you have an accurate individual level test, and the policy action you suggest is to not administer the test to each applicant and instead treat them all as homogeneous group and reject them based on older test results?

Yeah that's a racist idea.

by willmarch25 minutes ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

I think judging any group of individuals as if they are all a single entity (be it through the lens of a particular majority view or a particular race) is discriminatory to the individual (hence discriminatory overall).

In your example (with made up numbers), if 20% are being denied citizenship and opportunity simply because they once resided in the same geographic region as another 80% (with different views), then that is discriminatory because they are not being viewed as individuals but are guilty by simply existing as part of a larger group that they have no choice over.

This is why we screen individual applicants, view each person as a single human with their own thoughts and needs, and judge everyone as an individual and not as a group; to avoid the wrong of discriminating against entire classes of people.

by tastyface33 minutes ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

"you find that 80%+ of them hold highly regressive views"

Question is, does this info come from reputable pollsters? Or is it just a factoid propagated by right-wing media?

Also, impossible to square with a conservative white base *also* holding similarly regressive views. (Speaking from a US perspective, not a Euro one, but the same people yelling about regressive immigrants are also genuinely trying to disenfranchise women in favor of male-headed family units, and other things in this vein.)

by mjburgess21 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

It's a question to be taken literally.

Isn't is strange your reaction to this question is to doubt the premise rather the challenge to your public virtues?

That's very much the point. Your belief that P(Virtuous|Brown) is so high it completely swamps your abillity to hear posteriors.

by tastyface17 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

My posteriors are based not on some perceived virtue of brown immigrants (wat) but my experience with nativist parties: they are, to the last, full of despicable, immoral hucksters who will stop at nothing to accrue and consolidate power, including blasting out endless streams of vile propaganda that eventually takes hold on a population level. So forgive me for demanding some fact-checking before considering any action based on this sort of nebulous "polling."

by pixel_popping26 minutes ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

It's not right-wing propaganda. Surveys from reputable sources like Pew Research have consistently shown that people from many countries in the Middle East and parts of Africa hold significantly more conservative views on women's rights, gender roles, and related issues than the European average.

so... when individuals from those regions migrate to Europe, they often bring those "attitudes" with them. Without meaningful assimilation, those views tend to persist in the next generation as well, this is literal y documented.

by tastyface22 minutes ago|

parent|

[-]

OK, well, so do Catholics and Orthodox Jews. As well as a large portion of religious folks in the nativist caucus. (I notice you completely ignored the second part of my comment.)

And "significantly more conservative" does not mean 80%+.

by kannanvijayan21 minutes ago|

parent|

prev|

[-]

I'd point out that pointing at those largely powerless people is a tactic used by domestic power centres that have their own regressive views and policies which they want to draw discourse away from.

I'd ask for a comparison of how these arrivals have led to worse policy outcomes in terms of women's rights, and how that compares to the policy behaviour and outcomes of domestic groups.

I'd close out with a pointed question about which group it is that should be treated as a greater threat.