American Politics Discussion Thread

[DaveV]

One more thing about racism: at its heart is generalization and stereotyping. If I know you are X, then it automatically follows that you are Y. Its insidiousness is its dehumanization: you are no longer an individual, but an archetype.

[T-hawk]

I have to disagree with you two. Yes, there may be adults, bringing unrelated children with them, but by separating everybody, you also hit true families. I also don't think that the parents are idiots for trying to enter the country.

Trying to enter or remain in the country illegally. Remember that's the key principle here. "Idiot" may be an unnecessarily strong descriptor, but try replacing it with "lawbreaker parents" and you will understand the opposition.

If you do not want to be separated from your children, there is a very very simple solution: do not attempt to enter or remain in the United States illegally.

[ipecac]

I have to disagree with you two. Yes, there may be adults, bringing unrelated children with them, but by separating everybody, you also hit true families.

So what? The kids need protection, to be separated even temporarily to determine relationship.

What happens when a parent commits a crime? They risk being arrested, at least temporary detention - temporary separation from their children. The same applies for illegally crossing the border.

[ipecac]

Keeping children with their parents is not as sacrosanct as you think. Apart from the borders, law enforcement separate parents from kids every day. This is standard procedure, this is normal, and no one objects to it.

Only over illegal immigration is dissension stirred up, because of politics.

[ipecac]

One more thing about racism: at its heart is generalization and stereotyping. If I know you are X, then it automatically follows that you are Y. Its insidiousness is its dehumanization: you are no longer an individual, but an archetype.

Why are generalizing and stereotyping found universally? Why are they fundamental to human nature?

[Mardoc]

One more thing about racism: at its heart is generalization and stereotyping. If I know you are X, then it automatically follows that you are Y. Its insidiousness is its dehumanization: you are no longer an individual, but an archetype.

Why are generalizing and stereotyping found universally? Why are they fundamental to human nature?

If we're going to philosophy, why are there ducks?

[ipecac]

If we're going to philosophy, why are there ducks?

Not quite, we're still at biology, psychology, or sociology. We're trying to understand human nature, not existence itself.

It is claimed that tribalism and stereotyping is bad. The natural question is therefore, is why are they universal? Do they confer some survival benefit? What constructive benefits could they actually confer?

[Gustaran]

I have to disagree with you two. Yes, there may be adults, bringing unrelated children with them, but by separating everybody, you also hit true families. I also don't think that the parents are idiots for trying to enter the country.

If you do not want to be separated from your children, there is a very very simple solution: do not attempt to enter or remain in the United States illegally.

The use of family separation as a draconian penalty to deal with illegal immigration is not a very compelling point. By the same logic, you could pass any law that carries a draconian penalty in order to attempt to eradicate unlawful behaviour.

Example: A law that allows the government to permanently confiscate any car that was used to break the speed limit in order to eliminate speeding altogether.
By your logic that wouldn't be a problem: Breaking the speed limit is illegal. If you do not want to have your car confiscated do not break the speed limit.

In general, this line of thought is rather superficial. I find this "logic" often in discussions with Americans, for example about the criminal justice system in the US: "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time" (which of course doesn't do anything to explain why the US has the highest incarceration rate in the world - up to 10 times of certain countries in Europe. Yet still, the homicide rate is 6 times higher. You would think this discrepancy is rather obvious and would lead to changes, but for some reason that is not the case).

In short: Justifying immoral punishment by the fact that it can be avoided through lawful behaviour is an invalid argument.

[Mardoc]

If we're going to philosophy, why are there ducks?

Not quite, we're still at biology, psychology, or sociology. We're trying to understand human nature, not existence itself.

It is claimed that tribalism and stereotyping is bad. The natural question is therefore, is why are they universal? Do they confer some survival benefit? What constructive benefits could they actually confer?

I don't think it's possible to really answer this.  Some possibilities, none of them testable, many somewhat contradictory, all pretty much useless in determining my own political choices:
- It's a spandrel, a necessary side effect of a valuable skill like generalizing about the natural world
- Tribes were useful in the environment of evolutionary adaptation
- Stereotyping is useful if you're too stupid to be more nuanced
- Stereotyping is useful to the individual, like theft, but it's worth giving up if in exchange the rest of society does too
- It's not really universal, it only appears to be universal to someone who has succumbed to stereotyping in the first place
- God made us that way, to give us something to strive against
- Aristocrats and colonizers invented stereotypes to divert attention away from themselves

I'm sure you have another theory - if I could reel off seven mutually contradictory theories in ten minutes, then I'm sure I'm only scratching the surface of the possibilities.

[ipecac]

If we're going to philosophy, why are there ducks?

Not quite, we're still at biology, psychology, or sociology. We're trying to understand human nature, not existence itself.

It is claimed that tribalism and stereotyping is bad. The natural question is therefore, is why are they universal? Do they confer some survival benefit? What constructive benefits could they actually confer?

I don't think it's possible to really answer this.  Some possibilities, none of them testable, many somewhat contradictory, all pretty much useless in determining my own political choices:
- It's a spandrel, a necessary side effect of a valuable skill like generalizing about the natural world
- Tribes were useful in the environment of evolutionary adaptation
- Stereotyping is useful if you're too stupid to be more nuanced
- Stereotyping is useful to the individual, like theft, but it's worth giving up if in exchange the rest of society does too
- It's not really universal, it only appears to be universal to someone who has succumbed to stereotyping in the first place
- God made us that way, to give us something to strive against
- Aristocrats and colonizers invented stereotypes to divert attention away from themselves

I'm sure you have another theory - if I could reel off seven mutually contradictory theories in ten minutes, then I'm sure I'm only scratching the surface of the possibilities.

There are many possibilities, but which are real? Stereotyping is a type of generalisation, and I would say that one main reason why many persist is because that they are accurate as generalisations.