Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[Gavagai]

By this way of reasoning, one may frame progressive taxation as a closet anti-semitism. "OF COURSE, you only want the rich to "pay their fair share"! It is only just a happy coincidence, that so many rich people happen to be Jews, right?"

[AdrienIer]

Jewish people represent a small fraction of the upper class, therefore the analogy doesn't stand.

[Gavagai]

Jewish people represent a small fraction of the upper class, therefore the analogy doesn't stand.

Wait, wait, wait. Are you saying, that if the Jews were the majority of the upper class, then we could legitimately claim progressive taxation to be a form of anti-semitism? Have I understood you correctly?

[AdrienIer]

1 policy wouldn't be enough, it would have to be a combination of things. If the tax rate went up sharply for the tier that was majoritarily jewish, along with other policies that "accidentally" target them, it would probably be because of antisemitism.
Just like the US policies that target the poorest people + those which "accidentaly" make sure that black people stay in poverty, are probably racist

[T-hawk]

The republicans need a coherent immigration policy.

Trump wants merit-based immigration. He hasn't figured out how to make that stand up politically, because it's quite likely that lower merit will correlate with brownness, which sends everyone into a howling frenzy.

Canada is often cited for what appears to be a reasonably successful and well accepted immigration system, and it is merit-based.

[scooter]

The textbook way in recent history has been to enact policies that harm people of lower socioeconomic backgrounds which just so happen to be largely non-white.

A question: if I want to harm people of "lower socioeconomic backgrounds" and do not care about their skin color but happen to live in a society where these people are largely non-white - how should I design my policies to avoid accusations of racism? Also, if I believe that harming the poor is a good thing - shouldn't I support such policies, even if I am not a racist?

I would ask why you would want to harm poor people? And I wouldn't believe your claim that race had nothing to do with it. I'd suggest that if you do some self reflecting to find out why want to harm poor people, and once you have that answer, ask yourself why that is, and so on.

[Mr. Cairo]

The republicans need a coherent immigration policy.

Trump wants merit-based immigration.  He hasn't figured out how to make that stand up politically, because it's quite likely that lower merit will correlate with brownness, which sends everyone into a howling frenzy.

Canada is often cited for what appears to be a reasonably successful and well accepted immigration system, and it is merit-based.

Yes, and most of Canada's recent immigrants are brown, so no, that is not what is keeping Trump and the Republicans from having a coherent immigration policy.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-qu...2b-eng.htm

[Gavagai]

The textbook way in recent history has been to enact policies that harm people of lower socioeconomic backgrounds which just so happen to be largely non-white.

A question: if I want to harm people of "lower socioeconomic backgrounds" and do not care about their skin color but happen to live in a society where these people are largely non-white - how should I design my policies to avoid accusations of racism? Also, if I believe that harming the poor is a good thing - shouldn't I support such policies, even if I am not a racist?

I would ask why you would want to harm poor people? And I wouldn't believe your claim that race had nothing to do with it. I'd suggest that if you do some self reflecting to find out why want to harm poor people, and once you have that answer, ask yourself why that is, and so on.

19th-century British truancy laws are a paradigm example of a policy which specifically targeted the poor and they had nothing to do with racism as British population was almost exclusively white at that time. This example shows that one can support laws against the poor while being indifferent to their race. Ergo, your refusal to believe that my hypothetical example is plausible is unfounded and my questions still stand.

[Gavagai]

US policies that target the poorest people + those which "accidentaly" make sure that black people stay in poverty

The policies which would make sure that the poorest people remain poor would be absolutely the same, you still fail to make this distinction.

[scooter]

I would ask why you would want to harm poor people? And I wouldn't believe your claim that race had nothing to do with it. I'd suggest that if you do some self reflecting to find out why want to harm poor people, and once you have that answer, ask yourself why that is, and so on.

19th-century British truancy laws are a paradigm example of a policy which specifically targeted the poor and they had nothing to do with racism as British population was almost exclusively white at that time. This example shows that one can support laws against the poor while being indifferent to their race. Ergo, your refusal to believe that my hypothetical example is plausible is unfounded and my questions still stand.

We were talking about the context of US politics. The US has an above-average disdain for the poor I'd say by first-world Western standards, and racism, both blatant and subtle, are a large part of that here. I'm not 100% sure what your background is, but I don't think you live in the US? Correct me if I'm wrong.

That said, a law that is trying to keep kids in school is not an example of attempting to harm poor people, regardless of whether it did or not. It's clearly attempting to help, regardless of whether it actually helped or hurt.