Politics

Politics

  • Obama

    Votes: 4 1.1%
  • Romney

    Votes: 172 48.9%
  • Other

    Votes: 46 13.1%
  • a:3:{i:1637;a:5:{s:12:"polloptionid";i:1637;s:6:"nodeid";s:7:"2882145";s:5:"title";s:5:"Obama";s:5:"

    Votes: 130 36.9%

  • Total voters
    352
C

Cackalacky

Guest
BBC - Future - The man who studies the spread of ignorance

In 1979, a secret memo from the tobacco industry was revealed to the public. Called the Smoking and Health Proposal, and written a decade earlier by the Brown & Williamson tobacco company, it revealed many of the tactics employed by big tobacco to counter “anti-cigarette forces”.
In one of the paper’s most revealing sections, it looks at how to market cigarettes to the mass public: “Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.”

This revelation piqued the interest of Robert Proctor, a science historian from Stanford University, who started delving into the practices of tobacco firms and how they had spread confusion about whether smoking caused cancer.

The tactics of big tobacco to obscure the facts of smoking’s harmful effects led Robert Proctor to create a new word. Proctor had found that the cigarette industry did not want consumers to know the harms of its product, and it spent billions obscuring the facts of the health effects of smoking. This search led him to create a word for the study of deliberate propagation of ignorance: agnotology.

Agnotology is the study of wilful acts to spread confusion and deceit, usually to sell a product or win favour.

It comes from agnosis, the neoclassical Greek word for ignorance or ‘not knowing’, and ontology, the branch of metaphysics which deals with the nature of being. Agnotology is the study of wilful acts to spread confusion and deceit, usually to sell a product or win favour.

“I was exploring how powerful industries could promote ignorance to sell their wares. Ignorance is power… and agnotology is about the deliberate creation of ignorance. “In looking into agnotology, I discovered the secret world of classified science, and thought historians should be giving this more attention.”

The 1969 memo and the tactics used by the tobacco industry became the perfect example of agnotology, Proctor says. “Ignorance is not just the not-yet-known, it’s also a political ploy, a deliberate creation by powerful agents who want you ‘not to know’.”

To help him in his search, Proctor enlisted the help of UC Berkeley linguist Iain Boal, and together they came up with the term – the neologism was coined in 1995, although much of Proctor’s analysis of the phenomenon had occurred in the previous decades.
Balancing act

Agnotology is as important today as it was back when Proctor studied the tobacco industry’s obfuscation of facts about cancer and smoking. For example, politically motivated doubt was sown over US President Barack Obama’s nationality for many months by opponents until he revealed his birth certificate in 2011. In another case, some political commentators in Australia attempted to stoke panic by likening the country’s credit rating to that of Greece, despite readily available public information from ratings agencies showing the two economies are very different.

The spread of ignorance is as relevant today as it was when Proctor coined his term. Proctor explains that ignorance can often be propagated under the guise of balanced debate. For example, the common idea that there will always be two opposing views does not always result in a rational conclusion. This was behind how tobacco firms used science to make their products look harmless, and is used today by climate change deniers to argue against the scientific evidence.

“This ‘balance routine’ has allowed the cigarette men, or climate deniers today, to claim that there are two sides to every story, that ‘experts disagree’ – creating a false picture of the truth, hence ignorance.”

We live in a world of radical ignorance – Robert Proctor
For example, says Proctor, many of the studies linking carcinogens in tobacco were conducted in mice initially, and the tobacco industry responded by saying that studies into mice did not mean that people were at risk, despite adverse health outcomes in many smokers.

A new era of ignorance
“We live in a world of radical ignorance, and the marvel is that any kind of truth cuts through the noise,” says Proctor. Even though knowledge is ‘accessible’, it does not mean it is accessed, he warns. “Although for most things this is trivial – like, for example, the boiling point of mercury – but for bigger questions of political and philosophical import, the knowledge people have often comes from faith or tradition, or propaganda, more than anywhere else.”

When people do not understand a concept or fact, they are prey for special interest groups who work hard to create confusion. Proctor found that ignorance spreads when firstly, many people do not understand a concept or fact and secondly, when special interest groups – like a commercial firm or a political group – then work hard to create confusion about an issue. In the case of ignorance about tobacco and climate change, a scientifically illiterate society will probably be more susceptible to the tactics used by those wishing to confuse and cloud the truth.

Consider climate change as an example. “The fight is not just over the existence of climate change, it’s over whether God has created the Earth for us to exploit, whether government has the right to regulate industry, whether environmentalists should be empowered, and so on. It’s not just about the facts, it’s about what is imagined to flow from and into such facts,” says Proctor.

Making up our own minds
Another academic studying ignorance is David Dunning, from Cornell University. Dunning warns that the internet is helping propagate ignorance – it is a place where everyone has a chance to be their own expert, he says, which makes them prey for powerful interests wishing to deliberately spread ignorance.

My worry is not that we are losing the ability to make up our own minds, but that it’s becoming too easy to do so – David Dunning
"While some smart people will profit from all the information now just a click away, many will be misled into a false sense of expertise. My worry is not that we are losing the ability to make up our own minds, but that it’s becoming too easy to do so. We should consult with others much more than we imagine. Other people may be imperfect as well, but often their opinions go a long way toward correcting our own imperfections, as our own imperfect expertise helps to correct their errors,” warns Dunning.

US presidential candidate Donald Trump's solutions that are either unworkable or unconstitutional are an example of agnotology, says Dunning.

Dunning and Proctor also warn that the wilful spread of ignorance is rampant throughout the US presidential primaries on both sides of the political spectrum.

“Donald Trump is the obvious current example in the US, suggesting easy solutions to followers that are either unworkable or unconstitutional,” says Dunning.

So while agnotology may have had its origins in the heyday of the tobacco industry, today the need for both a word and the study of human ignorance is as strong as ever.
 
Last edited:

IrishLax

Something Witty
Staff member
Messages
37,544
Reaction score
28,990
BBC - Future - The man who studies the spread of ignorance

In 1979, a secret memo from the tobacco industry was revealed to the public. Called the Smoking and Health Proposal, and written a decade earlier by the Brown & Williamson tobacco company, it revealed many of the tactics employed by big tobacco to counter “anti-cigarette forces”.
In one of the paper’s most revealing sections, it looks at how to market cigarettes to the mass public: “Doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy.”

This revelation piqued the interest of Robert Proctor, a science historian from Stanford University, who started delving into the practices of tobacco firms and how they had spread confusion about whether smoking caused cancer.

The tactics of big tobacco to obscure the facts of smoking’s harmful effects led Robert Proctor to create a new word. Proctor had found that the cigarette industry did not want consumers to know the harms of its product, and it spent billions obscuring the facts of the health effects of smoking. This search led him to create a word for the study of deliberate propagation of ignorance: agnotology.

Agnotology is the study of wilful acts to spread confusion and deceit, usually to sell a product or win favour.

It comes from agnosis, the neoclassical Greek word for ignorance or ‘not knowing’, and ontology, the branch of metaphysics which deals with the nature of being. Agnotology is the study of wilful acts to spread confusion and deceit, usually to sell a product or win favour.

“I was exploring how powerful industries could promote ignorance to sell their wares. Ignorance is power… and agnotology is about the deliberate creation of ignorance. “In looking into agnotology, I discovered the secret world of classified science, and thought historians should be giving this more attention.”

The 1969 memo and the tactics used by the tobacco industry became the perfect example of agnotology, Proctor says. “Ignorance is not just the not-yet-known, it’s also a political ploy, a deliberate creation by powerful agents who want you ‘not to know’.”

To help him in his search, Proctor enlisted the help of UC Berkeley linguist Iain Boal, and together they came up with the term – the neologism was coined in 1995, although much of Proctor’s analysis of the phenomenon had occurred in the previous decades.
Balancing act

Agnotology is as important today as it was back when Proctor studied the tobacco industry’s obfuscation of facts about cancer and smoking. For example, politically motivated doubt was sown over US President Barack Obama’s nationality for many months by opponents until he revealed his birth certificate in 2011. In another case, some political commentators in Australia attempted to stoke panic by likening the country’s credit rating to that of Greece, despite readily available public information from ratings agencies showing the two economies are very different.

The spread of ignorance is as relevant today as it was when Proctor coined his term. Proctor explains that ignorance can often be propagated under the guise of balanced debate. For example, the common idea that there will always be two opposing views does not always result in a rational conclusion. This was behind how tobacco firms used science to make their products look harmless, and is used today by climate change deniers to argue against the scientific evidence.

“This ‘balance routine’ has allowed the cigarette men, or climate deniers today, to claim that there are two sides to every story, that ‘experts disagree’ – creating a false picture of the truth, hence ignorance.”

We live in a world of radical ignorance – Robert Proctor
For example, says Proctor, many of the studies linking carcinogens in tobacco were conducted in mice initially, and the tobacco industry responded by saying that studies into mice did not mean that people were at risk, despite adverse health outcomes in many smokers.

A new era of ignorance
“We live in a world of radical ignorance, and the marvel is that any kind of truth cuts through the noise,” says Proctor. Even though knowledge is ‘accessible’, it does not mean it is accessed, he warns. “Although for most things this is trivial – like, for example, the boiling point of mercury – but for bigger questions of political and philosophical import, the knowledge people have often comes from faith or tradition, or propaganda, more than anywhere else.”

When people do not understand a concept or fact, they are prey for special interest groups who work hard to create confusion. Proctor found that ignorance spreads when firstly, many people do not understand a concept or fact and secondly, when special interest groups – like a commercial firm or a political group – then work hard to create confusion about an issue. In the case of ignorance about tobacco and climate change, a scientifically illiterate society will probably be more susceptible to the tactics used by those wishing to confuse and cloud the truth.

Consider climate change as an example. “The fight is not just over the existence of climate change, it’s over whether God has created the Earth for us to exploit, whether government has the right to regulate industry, whether environmentalists should be empowered, and so on. It’s not just about the facts, it’s about what is imagined to flow from and into such facts,” says Proctor.

Making up our own minds
Another academic studying ignorance is David Dunning, from Cornell University. Dunning warns that the internet is helping propagate ignorance – it is a place where everyone has a chance to be their own expert, he says, which makes them prey for powerful interests wishing to deliberately spread ignorance.

My worry is not that we are losing the ability to make up our own minds, but that it’s becoming too easy to do so – David Dunning
"While some smart people will profit from all the information now just a click away, many will be misled into a false sense of expertise. My worry is not that we are losing the ability to make up our own minds, but that it’s becoming too easy to do so. We should consult with others much more than we imagine. Other people may be imperfect as well, but often their opinions go a long way toward correcting our own imperfections, as our own imperfect expertise helps to correct their errors,” warns Dunning.

US presidential candidate Donald Trump's solutions that are either unworkable or unconstitutional are an example of agnotology, says Dunning.

Dunning and Proctor also warn that the wilful spread of ignorance is rampant throughout the US presidential primaries on both sides of the political spectrum.

“Donald Trump is the obvious current example in the US, suggesting easy solutions to followers that are either unworkable or unconstitutional,” says Dunning.


So while agnotology may have had its origins in the heyday of the tobacco industry, today the need for both a word and the study of human ignorance is as strong as ever.

Kind of like how Obama swore the ACA "wasn't a tax" (but it was upheld under the power to tax) and that "if you like your health plan, you can keep it" when you obviously couldn't?

Politicians making promises that cannot be kept is as old as time, and hardly exclusive to Donald trump. Goes all the way back to the 6th grader running for school president and promising free ice cream.
 

NDVirginia19

Rally
Messages
4,420
Reaction score
5,129
But then he says "equal pay for equal work" referencing the 77 cents statistic that he parroted out last year which has been proven wrong on multiple occasions.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,119
That was a brilliant speech and, I thought, a good rebuttal. How is Nikki Haley not a GOP presidential candidate?
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,616
Reaction score
2,713
Can anybody who is more liberal on gun control explain to me the logic of creating "Gun free zones" and also advertising it? What does that really accomplish?

It is a safe place to shoot up a crowd since your are ensured nobody there will have a gun.

So our school fundraisers want to highlight "safety" in response to the tragedies in the news. They want to build a "man cage" at the school entrance, essentially double buzz in anyone like some jewelry stores or pawn shops. They think this solves the problem of the one in 100,000 chance someone tries to storm the school. These people honestly believe this great expense and inconvenience will make our kids safer. Forget accessing between periods when kids go back and forth to the detached gym, to and from the church for weekly mass, constant in and out to the playground.... no some attacker is going to knock and the front door and ask to be let in - attack at the best fortified position when all flanks are exposed.

I suggest the principal gets a conceal carry permit (in jest b/c the principal is a princess) and the jaws hit the floor. Then I think about it more and we have two ex military teachers, why wouldn't you want them to have a gun locked away in their office or bottom desk drawer? If shit breaks loose, the place goes in lock down or shots are fired - everyone hunkers down in their rooms, plenty to time to get the firearm from a secure position before your room is breached. The alternative of hoping for the police to show up before the entire school is shot up is just about ridiculous to me.

So my thought for you to ponder - an armed citizen as first responder. Seems the political thread is as good as any for this.
 

NDVirginia19

Rally
Messages
4,420
Reaction score
5,129
Female GOP...Don't women view that as some sort of Mutiny?

Something that always blew my mind, liberals tend to accuse the GOP not liking abortion as being an affront to women ("the war on women") when in reality women are pretty much 50/50 on abortion, and a majority of the loudest pro life supporters are women.
 

NDVirginia19

Rally
Messages
4,420
Reaction score
5,129
It is a safe place to shoot up a crowd since your are ensured nobody there will have a gun.

So our school fundraisers want to highlight "safety" in response to the tragedies in the news. They want to build a "man cage" at the school entrance, essentially double buzz in anyone like some jewelry stores or pawn shops. They think this solves the problem of the one in 100,000 chance someone tries to storm the school. These people honestly believe this great expense and inconvenience will make our kids safer. Forget accessing between periods when kids go back and forth to the detached gym, to and from the church for weekly mass, constant in and out to the playground.... no some attacker is going to knock and the front door and ask to be let in - attack at the best fortified position when all flanks are exposed.

I suggest the principal gets a conceal carry permit (in jest b/c the principal is a princess) and the jaws hit the floor. Then I think about it more and we have two ex military teachers, why wouldn't you want them to have a gun locked away in their office or bottom desk drawer? If shit breaks loose, the place goes in lock down or shots are fired - everyone hunkers down in their rooms, plenty to time to get the firearm from a secure position before your room is breached. The alternative of hoping for the police to show up before the entire school is shot up is just about ridiculous to me.

So my thought for you to ponder - an armed citizen as first responder. Seems the political thread is as good as any for this.

I don't like the idea of the average teacher having to own a gun, I think that brings up a lot of security issues down the line.
 

palinurus

New member
Messages
2,406
Reaction score
192
Female GOP...Don't women view that as some sort of Mutiny?

Half of the women governors in the US are Republicans (3 of 6; 3 out of 5 elected women governors are Republicans) and, of course, Republicans are the most recent major party to have a woman on the presidential ticket. Women voted 55% for Obama in 2012, but the ideological split is by no means lopsided.
 

RDU Irish

Catholics vs. Cousins
Messages
8,616
Reaction score
2,713
I don't like the idea of the average teacher having to own a gun, I think that brings up a lot of security issues down the line.

I would argue former military isn't exactly average - a larger part of my question is what is an effective way of dealing with the (real or perceived) threat? I think teachers with weapons on site is a better answer than fortifying one out of many entrances to the facility.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
Jody Bottum just published an article titled "A War of Choice":

The Little Sisters of the Poor are headed to the Supreme Court this year, seeking escape from the contraception mandates of Obamacare — under which they fall, the government claims, as insurance providers for the employees in their nursing homes. The Justice Department is fighting the Little Sisters tooth and nail, determined not to allow them to evade the law's requirements, because .  .  . because .  .  .

Um, in truth, the Obama administration has never made entirely clear why it's so desperate to rope nuns into bureaucratic schemes for providing contraception. After all, the administration has let other organizations slip through the cracks. Unions have their exemptions, Congress has its exemptions, and the politically connected seem able to get Obamacare waivers for the price of a postage stamp. Nearly "every other party who asked for protection from the mandate has been given it," says Mark Rienzi, a senior counsel for the Becket Fund. "It made no sense for the Little Sisters to be singled out for fines and punishment. .  .  . The government has lots of ways to deliver contraceptives to people — it doesn't need to force nuns to participate."

A quiet waiver for the Sisters back in 2012 would have saved the administration some of the political headache of defending Obamacare, yet again, before the Supreme Court. If nothing else, the waiver would have put a less sympathetic group as lead plaintiff in this case. Just listen to the name: Little Sisters of the Poor. Even Justice Sonia Sotomayor, from the liberal edge of the Supreme Court, couldn't stomach the Tenth Circuit being mean to the Little Sisters; in January 2014 she issued the emergency injunction that has brought the case to the full Court.

Recently, however, the Judicial Crisis Network's Carrie Severino, writing one of the many amici briefs for the Little Sisters case, has directed attention to emails from officials at the IRS and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Why has the Obama administration insisted on applying an unrelated tax regulation (a provision defining the entities that have to file tax returns) to determine which religious groups fall under the contraception mandates of Obamacare? The answer starts to emerge when, in the light of the administration's intransigence in the Little Sisters case, we look back at those emails.

In October 2011, for example, Medicare's Alexis Ahlstrom wrote her agency's law and policy advisers to find out "what student health plans at catholic universities cover today. Can we reach out to our sources at Aetna and Nationwide to see if they can answer the question?" And in July 2012, a flurry of IRS emails refer to Catholic Charities, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, religious nursing homes, religious hospitals, and Catholic colleges — all in an effort to define a policy that would sidestep the constitutional problems of compelling churches even while it forced religious institutions to obey the Obamacare mandates for contraception (including abortifacients).

None of this is exactly new. The 2012 emails have been available since their 2013 release by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, which subpoenaed them from the IRS. But we're seven years into the Obama administration, and the pattern of opposition to religious institutions— the pattern apparent in those emails and culminating now in the Little Sisters case — is visible for all to see.

Back in 2009, in the early days of Obama's presidency, there was some talk of the new administration's care for the religious. Thus, for example, while she was secretary of state, Hillary Clinton would occasionally speak of this country's commitment to "freedom of faith," at home and abroad.

We should have seen the problem signaled by that slightly odd phrasing, for "freedom of faith" is the freedom to hold one's faith in private, and the religious attack in America has not been an attack on faith. Not really, not in its essence. No one has proposed that government agents break into the homes of believers to wrench the crucifixes from the walls and the mezuzahs from the doorways.

The attack has been instead on religion itself — the freedom of faith to assert itself in public. The old argument was that religion had intruded too far into governmental space, and thus, for example, public-school prayer had to be banned and religious monuments needed to be removed from public parks and courthouse grounds. The newer notion, percolating through the years of Obama's presidency, is that religion has intruded too far into public space, and thus any exemption from the practices of ordinary businesses is inherently bad.

In this schema, the state controls more than its own property. It controls anything that appears in public, and the strictures that limit governmental religion must also limit public religion. Our government has become a jealous one, hungry to claim all authority — moral as well as legal and political — that once existed in other institutions.

The churches suffer from this notion, to some degree. But they are not the reason for the prosecution of the Little Sisters of the Poor. The target is, instead, what we might call the in-betweens — the organizations that are the expression of faith out from the churches and into the public realm. Hospitals, colleges, prep schools, orphanages, homeless shelters, nursing homes: Every such institution, by performing its work, seems an outrage, an offense against the monopoly on public life that government claims. Each is an assertion that moral and social authority can derive from sources other than acts of law.

The administration has refused religious accommodation precisely because it is religious, and these in-between institutions must be brought to heel. They must be made indistinguishable from nonreligious institutions. And if the Little Sisters of the Poor get forced out of their nursing homes, that's a shame, perhaps — but it's the price of doing business, when a jealous government has seized the public square.

Freedom of faith, perhaps: Believe what you want, in private. But freedom of religion, absolutely not: Everyone must conform, in public.
 

Whiskeyjack

Mittens Margaritas Ante Porcos
Staff member
Messages
20,894
Reaction score
8,126
AmCon's Benjamin Schwarz just published a scathing indictment of neoliberal immigration policy in an article titled "Unmaking England". It is a long read, but it's one of the best pieces I've come across in months. This is already the most pressing issue in Europe, and it's only going to become more important here in the coming years. Well worth your time.

And on a related note, The NYT's Ross Douthat just published an article titled "Ten Theses on Immigration":

My Sunday column argued, fairly strenuously, that mass immigration on the scale of the last two years will put more stress on the politics and culture of Germany than any prudent statesman should accept, and that the German government should do everything in its power to not only limit migration but actually restrict asylum rights and begin deportation for some of the migrants who have already arrived.

This is unlikely to happen; even less likely is the resignation of Angela Merkel, which I concluded the column by suggesting would be appropriate at this point. But whatever comes in Germany it seems very likely that immigration, and with it what the former National Review editor John O’Sullivan calls “the national question,” will dominate European and American debates for at least as long as the refugee emergency continues in the Middle East and North Africa. And since the immigration debate has long been dominated at the elite level by voices that blend an economistic view of immigration as always and everywhere a net plus with a cosmopolitan-utilitarian view of open borders (or something close) as a humanitarian obligation, it seems worth laying out some premises that I think ought to underly the conservative alternative to that consensus.

First, though, two links, one on the European debate and one on the American, which I think provide a useful survey of the issues that ought to matter to the right (and not only to the right). First, this Ben Schwarz essay in the latest issue of The American Conservative, arguing that mass immigration is unraveling English identity and norms and customs with unforeseeable results. Second, this Reihan Salam essay in National Review on U.S. immigration policy, making a case for “a new melting-pot nationalism … to counter the ethnic and class antagonisms that threaten our society today.”

Now to my own premises:

1. The nation-state is real, and (thus far) irreplaceable. Yes, the world of nations is full of arbitrary borders, invented traditions, and convenient mythologies layered atop histories of plunder and pillage. And yes, not every government or polity constitutes a nation (see Iraq, or Belgium, or half of Africa). But as guarantors of public order and personal liberty, as sources of meaning and memory and solidarity, as engines of common purpose in the service of the common good, successful nation-states offer something that few of the transnational institutions or organizations bestriding our globalized world have been able to supply. (The arguable exception of Roman Catholicism is, I fear, only arguable these days.) So amid trends that tend to weaken, balkanize or dissolve nation-states, it should not be assumed that a glorious alternative awaits us if we hurry that dissolution to its end.

Nor should it be assumed that immigration can save nation-states from their own internal difficulties, because …

2. Immigration is a perilous solution to demographic decline. One of the common right-of-center cases for mass immigration, offered by politicians like Jeb Bush and optimistic economists alike, is that in an age of falling birthrates the West needs migrants to sustain its economies and support its welfare states. (“New Germans who are today being fingerprinted as their asylum claims are processed will tomorrow care for the elderly and pay the taxes that fund a generous welfare state,” The Economist promised last fall.)

This is true up to a point, but its logic assumes that immigrant assimilation goes reasonably well — that immigrants find it relatively easy to learn the language, to adapt (at least up to a point) to Western social norms, to find and hold jobs in a post-industrial economy, and that they don’t simply become another set of clients of the welfare state they were supposed to save. And under conditions of demographic decline the pressure to adapt will necessarily be weaker, because there are simply fewer natives around to define the culture into the new arrivals are expected to assimilate. (In the German case, as my column suggested, a few more years of migration at this pace could forge a rising generation in which Middle Eastern and North African immigrants are actually a near-majority.) In which case the odds of fragmentation and balkanization go up, because …

3. Culture is very real, and cultural inheritances tend to be enduring. Present-day America attests to that fact: We pride ourselves (justifiably) on our success assimilating immigrants, but centuries after their arrival various immigrant folkways still define our country’s regions and their mores. The Scandinavian diaspora across the upper Midwest still looks a great deal like Scandinavia — hardworking, gender egalitarian, with high levels of civic trust, higher-than-average educations and incomes, etc. The cavaliers, servants, and slaves migration to Tidewater Virginia obviously still shapes the Deep South’s entrenched hierarchies of race and class. The Scots-Irish migration to Appalachia and its environs is still heavily responsible for America’s sky-high-by-Western-standards murder rate. And of course the wider world is full of similarly striking case studies.

What this implies is that accepting immigrants from a particular country or culture or region involves accepting that your own nation, or part of your own nation, will become at least a little more like their country of origin. With small or slow migrations this may only happen at the margins and it may be swamped by other effects; with large or swift migrations it may happen in more significant ways. But whether the immigrants are coming from Asia or Latin America or the Middle East or North Africa, you will be able to see in those regions at least some foretaste of their impact on your own society. And what you see matters, because …

4. Cultural commonalities help assimilation; cultural differences spur balkanization. That is, the more a foreign-born population has in common with the nation it’s entering — in terms of everything from language to religion to family structure to education levels to cultural habits — the more easily it can make itself truly at home in its adopted country.

And these commonalities are a complex, in which no single variable is necessarily a trump. For instance, race and racism are obviously potentially powerful obstacles to assimilation. But as Schwarz points out, the English experience suggests that racial differences need not preclude immigrant success in cases where other cultural variables favor integration:

Take a black immigrant from Jamaica in the 1950s. He—the first New Commonwealth immigrants were overwhelmingly men—was probably Anglican, likely cricket-playing, and quite possibly a wartime veteran of the British armed forces or merchant navy. Had he been schooled, he would have learned England’s history and been introduced to its literature. (Probably owing to these commonalities, today’s black Caribbean population has the highest rate of intermarriage with British whites of any minority group.) The cultural distance that separated him from a white British native was almost certainly smaller than is the chasm that today separates a white British resident of, say, Sheffield from her new neighbor, a Roma immigrant. Yet that immigrant, having almost certainly arrived from Bulgaria, Slovakia, or Romania, would be classified by UK immigration authorities as a European Union migrant—EU citizens enjoy the unfettered right to live and work in Britain—and would therefore be presumed “white” by researchers making extrapolations from immigration data.

Likewise, immigrants whose ethnicity (or race or religion) looks similar on a bureaucratic spreadsheet can have very different trajectories depending on where they’re actually coming from. A “South Asian immigrant” immigrant fleeing Idi Amin’s purge of Uganda’s Indian petit-bourgeoisie is not a “South Asian immigrant” from rural Kashmir. A “Muslim immigrant” from Istanbul is not a “Muslim immigrant” from eastern Syria is not a “Muslim immigrant” from Afghanistan.

This means, in turn, that the “multicultural” vision of society beloved of the contemporary left can take an almost infinite varieties of forms —and the crucial question for determining the shape and direction of that society is not necessarily how many cultures are represented and welcomed, but which ones, in what numbers, and at what pace. Which matters because …

5. Punctuated immigration encourages assimilation; constant immigration limits it. Salam’s essay makes this point well:

In Replenished Ethnicity, Stanford sociologist Tomás Jiménez argues that one of the main differences between the Mexican-origin population in the U.S. and the white-ethnic descendants of immigrants who arrived in the early 1900s is that because mass European immigration ended more than 80 years ago, Italian Americans do not generally find themselves in social worlds dominated by recent Italian immigrants. The result is that Italian-American identity is largely symbolic and optional, and Italian Americans are perceived as indistinguishable from other white Anglos. The end of immigrant replenishment led to sharp increases in inter-ethnic marriages for Italian Americans and other white ethnics. Mexican Americans, in contrast, are part of an ethnic community that until recently was constantly being replenished by new Mexican arrivals, which in turn has sharpened the distinctiveness of Mexican identity.

This dynamic applies to other ethnic groups as well. In 2007, Zhenchao Qian of Ohio State and Daniel T. Lichter of Cornell found that over the course of the 1990s, the percentage of Asians marrying whites, and Hispanics marrying whites, fell sharply, a development they attribute to rising immigration. As the size of an ethnic group increases, in-group contact and interaction increases. This in turn strengthens in-group ethnic solidarity while reducing intermarriage.

This effect is particularly strong, as Schwarz notes, when marriage itself becomes a transmission belt for migrants, as it has been for many people (especially women) passing from the Muslim world to England:

Two-thirds of British Muslims only mix socially with other Muslims; that portion is undoubtedly higher among Pakistanis and Bangladeshis specifically. Reinforcing this parallel life is the common practice of returning “home” for a few months every two or three years and an immersion in foreign electronic media. Integration into a wider national life is further hindered—and the retention of a deeply foreign culture is further encouraged—by the fact that most Pakistani marriages, even if one spouse is born in Britain, essentially produce first-generation-immigrant children: the one study that measured this phenomenon, conducted in the north England city of Bradford, found that 85 percent of third- and fourth-generation British Pakistani babies had a parent who was born in Pakistan. (Incidentally, that study also found that 63 percent of Pakistani mothers in Bradford had married their cousins, and 37 percent had married first cousins.)

This pattern applies to economic assimilation as well: The one place where even the most pro-immigration economists generally concede that new immigration drags down low-skilled wages is among the previous cohort of immigrants. Thus the faster immigrant populations replenish themselves, the more slowly they can hope to gain ground economically relative to natives.

When critics of open immigration raise this point, the rebuttal is often that well, the immigrants themselves tend to favor more immigration, so we should defer to their ethnic solidarity rather than trying to impose our view of their economic best interests. But deferring to their ethnic solidarity is a good way to ensure that assimilation happens very slowly, because …

6. Cosmopolitanism is unusual; tribalism comes naturally. The Western way of life – economically individualistic, voluntaristic in religion, defined by nuclear families rather than extended clans – was already unusual (WEIRD, in the jargon of sociologists) by human standards before the current era of mass migration. But it did not aspire to a pure cosmopolitanism: the “individualistic” Westerner in 1960 could still rely on various commonalities (religious, linguistic, social, sexual) handed down from the pre-liberal French or English or Teutonic past. (Schwarz notes the fascinating research showing that English schoolchildren had been playing the same games since the 12th century A.D.)

Now, though, there is a palpable sense in the liberal circles that in the ideal society everyone would be a true citizen of the world, a dilettante of culture and religion, equally comfortable around neighbors of any race or faith or background, with no unchosen preferences or loyalties.

One need not delve into, say, Robert Putnam’s research on diversity and the decline of social trust to see that this is not in fact how most people wish to live. (The recent statistic, somewhat shocking to the creative class, that even in our highly-mobile and deracinated America most people live within eighteen miles of their moms, should tell you something about the resilience of tribe even in a late-modern WEIRDo society like ours.) And if the only model of assimilation you offer new arrivals to your society is a cosmopolitan ideal that’s both unattainable and unattractive to many people, and if at the same time your immigration policies make it relatively easy for them to reject that ideal and build a permanent tribal enclave instead – well, you shouldn’t be surprised if that’s what they choose to do.

Nor should you be surprised that this, in turn, provokes greater tribalism among native dissenters from a pure cosmopolitanism – be they stark dissenters like Trump voters or Le Pen supporters, or milder dissenters like the sixty-three percent of German women who now feel that Germany’s has welcomed too many migrants in the last year. Which brings us to the next point:

8. Native backlash against perceived cultural transformation is very powerful, and any politics that refuses to take account of it will fail. Even if you suppose, that is, that mass immigration would be an unalloyed good in a world where Western populations could manage to overcome their (or what you think of as their) bigotry and nativism and racism, in the world that actually exists politicians have to account for those forces and not simply assume that the right Facebook rules and elite-level political conspiracies can perpetually keep a lid on populism. If you make choices that very predictably empower the National Front or Pegida or Trump, you cannot wash your hands of those consequences by saying, “oh, it’s not my fault that my fellow countrymen are such terrible bigots.” The way to disempower demagogues is not to maintain a high-minded moral purity that’s dismissive of public opinion’s actual shape; it’s to balance your purity with prudence, so as to avoid handing demagogues issues that might eventually deprive you of power entirely, and render all your moral ambitions moot.

In this vein, Tyler Cowen has suggested that because it courts backlash so brazenly, the open borders movement might not necessarily be good for open borders in the long run. But one could go further and say that extremely liberal immigration policies might not be good for liberal norms, period, in the long run. Which matters because …

9. Liberal societies are not guaranteed survival. Francis Fukuyama’s “end of history” is an excellent descriptive frame for the contemporary developed world, but it is not an infallible prophecy. The liberal order has been remarkably resilient, the alternatives still look deeply unappealing – but one cannot assume that this pattern will continue indefinitely, or make political choices as though liberalism, pluralism and democracy are fixed features of the modern landscape, rather than still-contingent things.

Which does not mean that liberal societies should be governed in an apocalyptic mood, or that perpetual “one percent doctrine” should guide leaders facing any policy dilemma. But it does mean that political stability is not something that statesmen can simply take for granted, or leave out of their equations when they think through the long-term consequences of their choices. And when you combine the factors discussed above – the resilience of cultural identity, the power of tribalism, the risks of backlash – then mass immigration on the scale we’ve seen recently in Europe, particularly combined with what may be a long era of relative economic stagnation, offers of the most plausible drivers for a near-future breakdown in liberal norms. So it’s an area where statesmen should proceed with greater caution than they would in normal policy debates, rather than recklessly pushing the fast-forward button on potentially destabilizing trends.

But how much caution depends on context, and here it’s important to stress that …

10. Europe and America are different. I’ve made this point before, but it deserves reiteration: All of the reasons for caution about mass immigration apply on both sides of the Atlantic, but they don’t apply in the same way. America has a longer history of successful assimilation, a melting-pot and mongrel culture that makes hyphenated identities easier to integrate, a geographical separation that (even now) makes it easier to manage immigration flows, and a tradition of religious pluralism that probably offers more room for, say, a conservative Islam to grapple with modernity than does the post-Christian laicité that’s official in France and unofficial elsewhere in Europe.

We also aren’t just a narrow sea away from an array of broken, chaotic, fundamentalism-ravaged societies, and we don’t face the kind of demographic mismatch with Latin America that Europe faces with Africa. Immigration enthusiasts on the right often overstate and oversentimentalize the “Catholic values” that Latin American migrants share with religious conservatives in the U.S., but there is no question, none, that much of Latin America has more in common culturally with the contemporary U.S. than the Iraqi hinterland has in common with contemporary England — or at least the parts of England that haven’t become, as Schwarz puts it, “metaphorical foreign encampments” within a late-modern society.

As someone who is (obviously) skeptical of the elite-level consensus on immigration’s benefits, I’m glad to see the G.O.P. and conservatism tilting away from George W. Bush/Rubio-Schumer “comprehensivism” on immigration policy. But I also think that the stampede to Trumpism is being unduly influenced by a conflation of the American and European situations. Europe faces a real, potentially deep and epoch-defining crisis — a refugee problem that could threaten the very foundations of the continent’s post-Cold War order. America faces a much more normal sort of policy quandary, to which the ideal political response could reach the destination that Salam proposes in his essay — sharper limits on low-skilled migration and a more Canadian or Australian approach to immigration as, effectively, recruitment — without huge and wrenching shifts, mass deportations, religion-specific entry bans, and all the rest of the Trumpian bill of goods.

So while we should be guided, no less than Europe, by a greater prudence than our leadership has shown to date, we should also recognize that what is, for Germany especially, now a crisis over there remains as yet an opportunity for us.
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
So the president is either delusional or was trying to bullshit the country in his SOTU speech. I'm not one to sit around and yell doomsday, but numbers don't lie.

What the Market Drop Is Saying About the State of the Obama Economy - Fortune

On Friday, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was down nearly 400 points. That capped off the worst two-week market start of a year since records have been kept, which for the Dow Jones Industrial Average goes back to 1897.

Bond market guru Jeffrey Gundlach of Doubleline has said global growth could be as low as 1.9%, making 2016 the worst year for the global economy since 2009.

Median average wages grew by just 7% over the past seven years, one of the weakest rates for an economic recovery. This suggests the labor market is weaker than the 5% unemployment rate would suggest.


For one, the labor force participation rate is the lowest it has been in decades. This is likely the result of more and more baby boomers retiring. But the participation rate has also fallen among workers 25-54 year old, suggesting at least some of the drop has to do with frustrated workers who have given up on the job search.
 

Emcee77

latress on the men-jay
Messages
7,295
Reaction score
555
AmCon's Benjamin Schwarz just published a scathing indictment of neoliberal immigration policy in an article titled "Unmaking England". It is a long read, but it's one of the best pieces I've come across in months. This is already the most pressing issue in Europe, and it's only going to become more important here in the coming years. Well worth your time.

And on a related note, The NYT's Ross Douthat just published an article titled "Ten Theses on Immigration":


Many interesting points in that Douthat piece, particularly about punctuated v. constant immigration and (briefly) comparing our immigration policy to Canada and Australia.

Makes me wanna read the two source pieces. But I'll tell you Whiskey, I don't know how you find the time. My excuses are work and family, but those don't stop you ...
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018

That's tough. In one hand, there were 215k users on that site that would otherwise go unknown and unpunished. If the site went down, the creeps would have simply moved to another site. That being said, the images are something that we would all liked to have seen come down as quickly as possible. I see how people would be urked with them using the images as a pawn for catching predators. I wouldn't want my child's image being used in such a manner.

All that being said... I think the ends justified the means here.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433

I say good for the FBI....

I know people whose children's pictures were up there might be upset...but the FBI didn't acquire/post them, and had the FBI not found these a-holes out, and stepped in, the exposure would have been indefinite. So sorry moms and dads, but there is no legitimate beef here, IMO. Moms and Dads benefited from the FBI finding these Aholes and taking your kid's picture down far sooner than it would have come down, and we all benefited because I'm sure a bunch participants are going to jail, and are going to be exposed for who/what they are...Lots of wins here.
 

pumpdog20

Well-known member
Messages
4,741
Reaction score
3,152
I say good for the FBI....

I know people whose children's pictures were up there might be upset...but the FBI didn't acquire/post them, and had the FBI not found these a-holes out, and stepped in, the exposure would have been indefinite. So sorry moms and dads, but there is no legitimate beef here, IMO. Moms and Dads benefited from the FBI finding these Aholes and taking your kid's picture down far sooner than it would have come down, and we all benefited because I'm sure a bunch participants are going to jail, and are going to be exposed for who/what they are...Lots of wins here.

Is it safe to say you don't have kids? Would you have no legitimate beef if your son or daughter was used?
 
Top