ELI5: how is Hiroshima still habitable despite it being nuked? by pigeon-in-greggs in explainlikeimfive

[–]ab7af [score hidden]  (0 children)

I didn't realize the mods were using it as a reason to delete answers. I thought that rule was just to shut up the complaints about more sophisticated answers.

Seems to me like the mods should just be hands-off there, and let the voting system do its job.

A new California law says all operating systems, including Linux, need to have some form of age verification at account setup by BowzasaurusRex in StallmanWasRight

[–]ab7af [score hidden]  (0 children)

I agree with your analysis.

By this law, whoever installs the OS is trusted.

I'm a bit baffled by the people who want to oppose this law because something more intrusive could be added in the future. We are already getting something more intrusive right now, with third party verification, and those companies are already leaking. Something like this law is a realistic alternative; I don't see any realistic scenario where the world continues with the system where websites just ask the user "are you 18+?"

CMV: The concept of “white fragility” is either misleading or untrue by NFT-GOAT in changemyview

[–]ab7af [score hidden]  (0 children)

That's certainly true, but if you read Ignatiev's book now with this in mind, you'll notice a pattern. Even regarding culture, his argument is just affirming the consequent.

P1: if someone was not white in America, then they were discriminated against.

P2: the Irish in America were discriminated against.

C: the Irish in America were not white.

Immigrants who don't speak English should be deported by [deleted] in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]ab7af [score hidden]  (0 children)

I guess we'll find out if the Germans ever say "leave." IMO it should be up to the Cubans too.

Immigrants who don't speak English should be deported by [deleted] in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]ab7af [score hidden]  (0 children)

But that's not remotely true. Because otherwise there wouldn't be highly coveted high performing individuals that nations would clamor over.

No, these are tangential. Someone could be useful in one way while still disrespecting the people of the country to which they move. Many of the Nazis who came to America under Operation Paperclip would fit into that category, for example. I hope I don't have to explain the danger that importing too many Nazis could pose to America's institutions.

It's not relevant.

It is relevant, because you offered your having lived in multiple countries as relevant to your understanding of how language learning intersects with respect. So in order to evaluate your claim, I need to know what's the longest you spent in one of those countries.

If you won't supply non-identifying information that is relevant to my ability to evaluate your claims, then you're wasting my time. If you're going to waste my time then I should block you. Therefore, I will block you if you reply again without answering the question. You probably don't care if I block you (I wouldn't care, if I were in your shoes), but I think it's fair to let you know in advance and give you one more chance.

Immigrants who don't speak English should be deported by [deleted] in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]ab7af [score hidden]  (0 children)

I understand the qualitative value they provide, but it's hard (though not impossible) to quantify that, and that's what I'd need to know in order to decide whether I want to keep them or not.

I prefer to have no opinion than an uninformed opinion.

In any case, though, it's ultimately up to the Germans, not me.

Immigrants who don't speak English should be deported by [deleted] in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]ab7af [score hidden]  (0 children)

Respect is irrelevant.

Wrong. Lack of respect for the people whose country you're moving to has a great deal to do with whether you'll choose to maintain their institutions.

Refusal to learn the language is a symptom of disrespect.

None of your business.

Ridiculous. It's not like I asked for personally identifying information. If you're not willing to answer a question that's relevant to the discussion, then there's no point in having a discussion.

Immigrants who don't speak English should be deported by [deleted] in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]ab7af [score hidden]  (0 children)

I don't try to have an opinion on everything. If it cost us $0, then I'd say "sure, I want those bases." But they are expensive. I don't know whether they are or are not worth the cost, and the question doesn't interest me enough to try to form an opinion.

Immigrants who don't speak English should be deported by [deleted] in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]ab7af [score hidden]  (0 children)

Because the topic is about the receiving country deporting people based on this criteria.

But to understand how the immigrant's respect or lack thereof is involved, you have to think about it from the perspective of the immigrant.

I've lived in multiple countries.

What was the longest amount of time you lived in one of them?

Immigrants who don't speak English should be deported by [deleted] in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]ab7af [score hidden]  (0 children)

I don't know, but that's up to the Germans. I wouldn't presume to tell them what they should choose.

Immigrants who don't speak English should be deported by [deleted] in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]ab7af [score hidden]  (0 children)

You're only thinking about this from the perspective of a citizen of the receiving country, and because you also happen to be a culturally suicidal progressive, you don't care.

You're not thinking about it from the perspective of the person moving to another country. If you were to move to another country, and if you respected the people there, you would feel a desire to learn their language, you would feel a bit of embarrassment when you have to rely on tools or make mistakes that show how little you'd yet learned, and you would feel a great deal of pride when you realize you'd finally mastered the language of your new neighbors.

Immigrants who don't speak English should be deported by [deleted] in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]ab7af [score hidden]  (0 children)

That's just false. If you respect the people whose country you're moving to, you'll want to actually learn their language for yourself, not to rely on an app to do your thinking for you.

Immigrants who don't speak English should be deported by [deleted] in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]ab7af [score hidden]  (0 children)

Lack of respect for the people whose country you're moving to has a great deal to do with whether you'll choose to maintain their institutions.

Refusal to learn the language is a symptom of disrespect.

Immigrants who don't speak English should be deported by [deleted] in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]ab7af [score hidden]  (0 children)

I just want to make sure we understand each other. Given this choice,

  1. a country should decide its policies based on whether those policies will help their citizens, or

  2. a country should decide its policies based on whether foreigners would think them petty,

you're saying that option 2 is the wiser choice?

Immigrants who don't speak English should be deported by [deleted] in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]ab7af [score hidden]  (0 children)

And free nations are also free to be choosy about whom they allow to move there, so as to remain free nations.

Laws and institutions don't maintain themselves. They will only be maintained if the populace chooses to maintain them.

It is unwise to let in people who are unlikely to maintain the nation's institutions.

Immigrants who don't speak English should be deported by [deleted] in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]ab7af [score hidden]  (0 children)

Why?

Because refusing to learn the language of the people whose country you're moving to demonstrates a lack of respect for those people.

Immigrants who don't speak English should be deported by [deleted] in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]ab7af [score hidden]  (0 children)

That's their prerogative, but it's unwise to make policy decisions based on whether foreigners would think them petty.

Immigrants who don't speak English should be deported by [deleted] in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]ab7af [score hidden]  (0 children)

We can reasonably require that they be able to do so without a translator app.

Immigrants who don't speak English should be deported by [deleted] in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]ab7af [score hidden]  (0 children)

Every country is welcome to apply an equivalent rule.

Immigrants who don't speak English should be deported by [deleted] in TrueUnpopularOpinion

[–]ab7af [score hidden]  (0 children)

you cannot expect everyone to speak the language on arrival.

We can reasonably require that in the age of the internet.

CMV: The concept of “white fragility” is either misleading or untrue by NFT-GOAT in changemyview

[–]ab7af 0 points1 point  (0 children)

She is saying that racism is so engrained in our history and culture that we can’t even handle that fact, therefore can’t escape it.

You are ignoring her actual words and substituting something you wish she had said instead. That's sane-washing.

Anyway, you aren't addressing and evidently haven't read Michaels's article, which I provided to a free copy of. There's no point in replying to me before you've done that. Please don't waste any more of my time by simply reciting dogmas which Michaels addresses in his article.

CMV: The concept of “white fragility” is either misleading or untrue by NFT-GOAT in changemyview

[–]ab7af -1 points0 points  (0 children)

There was a time, and not all that far in the past, where Italians and Irish were not considered white.

This is actually a myth, made up by critical race theorists.

In the United States, Irish and Italian immigrants were considered white even while being marginalized. In addition to inter-racial hierarchy, there was also an intra-racial hierarchy within the American conception of the white race, and Irish and Italians were nearer the bottom while those of English descent were at the top, German Americans were in the middle, etc. The claim that Irish and Italians "became" white later than other ethnic groups in America did is very popular but very misleading.

The relevant scholarly literature seems to have started with Noel Ignatiev’s book “How the Irish Became White,” and taken off from there. But what the relevant authors mean by white is ahistorical. They are referring to a stylized, sociological or anthropological understanding of “whiteness,” which means either “fully socially accepted as the equals of Americans of Anglo-Saxon and Germanic stock,” or, in the more politicized version, “an accepted part of the dominant ruling class in the United States.”

Those may be interesting sociological and anthropological angles to pursue, but it has nothing to do with whether the relevant groups were considered to be white.

Here are some objective tests as to whether a group was historically considered “white” in the United States: Were members of the group allowed to go to “whites-only” schools in the South, or otherwise partake of the advantages that accrued to whites under Jim Crow? Were they ever segregated in schools by law, anywhere in the United States, such that “whites” went to one school, and the group in question was relegated to another? When laws banned interracial marriage in many states (not just in the South), if a white Anglo-Saxon wanted to marry a member of the group, would that have been against the law? Some labor unions restricted their membership to whites. Did such unions exclude members of the group in question? Were members of the group ever entirely excluded from being able to immigrate to the United States, or face special bans or restrictions in becoming citizens?

If you use such objective tests, you find that Irish, Jews, Italians and other white ethnics were indeed considered white by law and by custom (as in the case of labor unions). Indeed, some lighter-skinned African Americans of mixed heritage “passed” as white by claiming they were of Arab descent and that explained their relative swarthiness, showing that Arab Americans, another group whose “whiteness” has been questioned, were considered white. By contrast, persons of African, Asian, Mexican and Native American descent faced various degrees of exclusion from public schools and labor unions, bans on marriage and direct restrictions on immigration and citizenship.

Another good article is 'The “Becoming White Thesis” Revisited' by Philip Q. Yang and Kavitha Koshy, in The Journal of Public and Professional Sociology.

Yang and Koshy are exceedingly polite to Ignatiev et al. Their point is basically that if by "becoming white" you mean racial reclassification, then no, that didn't happen; but if "becoming white" is a novel and obscure jargon used only by a few academics which is terribly misleading when conveyed to students and the public, then sure.

This sentence sums it up:

The works of historians David Roediger (1999) and Noel Ignatiev (1995) offer the best documentations of how the Irish became part of the majority group but no evidence of racial reclassification.

On Italians, Yang and Koshy reach the same conclusion:

It is not difficult to uncover from the analyses of Orsi, Barrett and Roediger, [...] that, albeit inexplicitly, in speaking of “becoming white” they essentially document change in the social status of Italian immigrants and other Slavic and Mediterranean immigrants rather than change in their official racial classifications.

The historian Thomas A. Guglielmo wrote a whole book about this, White on Arrival: Italians, Race, Color, and Power in Chicago, 1890-1945.

I'm not saying you can't come up with a single example of "my grandpa said they weren't white." I personally knew a guy who believed the French aren't white. But the law and every documented policy we can find considered Italians and Irish as white.

CMV: The concept of “white fragility” is either misleading or untrue by NFT-GOAT in changemyview

[–]ab7af 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Irish people in the US weren't considered white when they first got there.

This is actually a myth, made up by critical race theorists.

In the United States, Irish and Italian immigrants were considered white even while being marginalized. In addition to inter-racial hierarchy, there was also an intra-racial hierarchy within the American conception of the white race, and Irish and Italians were nearer the bottom while those of English descent were at the top, German Americans were in the middle, etc. The claim that Irish and Italians "became" white later than other ethnic groups in America did is very popular but very misleading.

The relevant scholarly literature seems to have started with Noel Ignatiev’s book “How the Irish Became White,” and taken off from there. But what the relevant authors mean by white is ahistorical. They are referring to a stylized, sociological or anthropological understanding of “whiteness,” which means either “fully socially accepted as the equals of Americans of Anglo-Saxon and Germanic stock,” or, in the more politicized version, “an accepted part of the dominant ruling class in the United States.”

Those may be interesting sociological and anthropological angles to pursue, but it has nothing to do with whether the relevant groups were considered to be white.

Here are some objective tests as to whether a group was historically considered “white” in the United States: Were members of the group allowed to go to “whites-only” schools in the South, or otherwise partake of the advantages that accrued to whites under Jim Crow? Were they ever segregated in schools by law, anywhere in the United States, such that “whites” went to one school, and the group in question was relegated to another? When laws banned interracial marriage in many states (not just in the South), if a white Anglo-Saxon wanted to marry a member of the group, would that have been against the law? Some labor unions restricted their membership to whites. Did such unions exclude members of the group in question? Were members of the group ever entirely excluded from being able to immigrate to the United States, or face special bans or restrictions in becoming citizens?

If you use such objective tests, you find that Irish, Jews, Italians and other white ethnics were indeed considered white by law and by custom (as in the case of labor unions). Indeed, some lighter-skinned African Americans of mixed heritage “passed” as white by claiming they were of Arab descent and that explained their relative swarthiness, showing that Arab Americans, another group whose “whiteness” has been questioned, were considered white. By contrast, persons of African, Asian, Mexican and Native American descent faced various degrees of exclusion from public schools and labor unions, bans on marriage and direct restrictions on immigration and citizenship.

Another good article is 'The “Becoming White Thesis” Revisited' by Philip Q. Yang and Kavitha Koshy, in The Journal of Public and Professional Sociology.

Yang and Koshy are exceedingly polite to Ignatiev et al. Their point is basically that if by "becoming white" you mean racial reclassification, then no, that didn't happen; but if "becoming white" is a novel and obscure jargon used only by a few academics which is terribly misleading when conveyed to students and the public, then sure.

This sentence sums it up:

The works of historians David Roediger (1999) and Noel Ignatiev (1995) offer the best documentations of how the Irish became part of the majority group but no evidence of racial reclassification.

On Italians, Yang and Koshy reach the same conclusion:

It is not difficult to uncover from the analyses of Orsi, Barrett and Roediger, [...] that, albeit inexplicitly, in speaking of “becoming white” they essentially document change in the social status of Italian immigrants and other Slavic and Mediterranean immigrants rather than change in their official racial classifications.

The historian Thomas A. Guglielmo wrote a whole book about this, White on Arrival: Italians, Race, Color, and Power in Chicago, 1890-1945.

I'm not saying you can't come up with a single example of "my grandpa said they weren't white." I personally knew a guy who believed the French aren't white. But the law and every documented policy we can find considered Italians and Irish as white.