Monday, January 21, 2019
If immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate
Shouldn't we be making legal immigration less prohibitive, so that fewer people want to cross illegally. Trump wants to make it more prohibitive if you come from "shithole" countries like Mexico, Honduras, or El Salvador, and then of course needs bigger walls and more border security to keep people from coming in. My main disagreements with people like Trump over immigration center much more on legal immigration than on illegal immigration. If you let more people in legally, you take business away from the cartels and the smugglers. They are no longer needed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
233 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 233 of 233It's like dealing with toddlers.
Mary Poppins actually dealt with toddlers and see what happened to her!
Another "Catholic" Governor pushes for infanticide.
Something is in the air. Something is going to happen and I think it's going to be a Big Ugly.
Next thing you know, they'll cry anytime a white person wears a black shirt.
Blogger Legion of Logic said...
If he suspected it was blackface and was informed it was not, but rather a picture of coal miners dirty after work, then he no longer has any ground to be offended. The facts and context rule out offense, unless he is offended by the sight of coal miners - in which case, too bad for him.
How could the owner of the photograph possibly know "it was not blackface" if the owner was not there? As I pointed out, there is nothing contradictory about it being both coal miners after work and blackface.
Did you actually look at the picture after I mentioned few items, or were you just making conjectures? Because I have never seen mouth protection that so closely followed lip-lines, as it did for a couple of miners on the right. Compare the patchy dirt of three miners to the solid black of the other five.
It's fine you're not offended. I would be surprised if you were. If you want to continue to insist you magically know this is not blackface, more power to you and defend away.
bmiller said...
Even Mary Poppins is an evil racist now! :-)
You sure are easily triggered.
I would be surprised if you were. If you want to continue to insist you magically know this is not blackface, more power to you and defend away.
It's not on me to prove a negative. That's now how it works. I have no reason to assume anything other than that it is a picture of coal miners, thus I have no reason to assume there is anything offensive about it.
If you would like to prove there is something offensive about it, please go ahead, but thus far neither you nor the op-ed author has provided a single reason.
"Now" should be "not". "That's not how it works".
Another "Catholic" Governor pushes for infanticide.
Just Democrats being bold enough to admit their values.
Here you go, One Brow. It's exactly what it appears to be.
"You don’t need the secret police when you have taught people to police themselves according to your totalitarian principles."
You also don't have to be a white male Christian to require that training.
She said:
"I don’t think it’s sunk in until this very moment, when I sat down to write this post — that I am going to be a published author."
But then the police showed up!.
This story is a courtesy for those that have a poverty of sources of information.
I would rather flip the ignorant outraged off and lose money doing so, than take one step back at their demand.
I would rather flip the ignorant outraged off and lose money doing so, than take one step back at their demand.
Me too. I reacted that way once (maybe more than once?)and it was not a "career enhancing" decision.
But it's her dream and livelihood to be published. I suspect she will try to strip out the "offending" parts, but no matter how she edits it, she is toast in the "mainstream" SciFi community.
I predict she will get published in the "alternate" SciFi community (yes, SciFi has these divisions). This is supremely ironic in that SciFi used to be "edgy" and non-judgmental. It's fiction after all, right?
This would not even be an issue for the *fictional* accounts of the SPANISH INQUISTION!!
And before anyone says it: "No one expected the SPANISH INQUISTION" :-)
Legion of Logic said...
I have no reason to assume anything other than that it is a picture of coal miners, thus I have no reason to assume there is anything offensive about it.
We both agree it is a picture of coal miners relaxing in a pub. The disagreement is over whether a certain type of behavior was a part of that relaxation.
If you would like to prove there is something offensive about it, please go ahead, but thus far neither you nor the op-ed author has provided a single reason.
Well, I certainly can't take your (metaphorical) fingers out of your ears for you. If you refuse to see the difference between blackface and ordinary dirt, so be it.
bmiller said...
But then the police showed up!.
This story is a courtesy for those that have a poverty of sources of information.
What police? An author chose to not publish a book, based on public reaction. Why do you hate capitalism so much? I'm getting tired of your saying the government should force people to publish books they don't want published.
Legion of Logic said...
I would rather flip the ignorant outraged off and lose money doing so, than take one step back at their demand.
Exactly. Freedom and capitalism.
I linked it to you, One Brow. It is a picture of coal miners from 1910 in Wales.
Further, I Googled "dirty coal miners" and got tons of other pictures in which they look exactly like the miners in the picture in question. Guess all coal miners are racists.
So again, absent a single shred of evidence that there is anything questionable about the photo, the only logical conclusion thus far is that the op-ed writer is either an emotional cripple or an idiot.
By your logic of there being a possibility of some sort of bigotry, then every picture ever taken that has a human in it is possibly bigoted in some manner, depending on who looks at it and what spin they choose to give their "interpretation". The alternative, which mature adults would advocate, is to require proof of bigotry before slinging the accusation.
Legion of Logic said...
I linked it to you, One Brow. It is a picture of coal miners from 1910 in Wales.
It's the same picture, AFAICT.
Further, I Googled "dirty coal miners" and got tons of other pictures in which they look exactly like the miners in the picture in question. Guess all coal miners are racists.
I tried that as well. I saw many pictures where the coal dust was spread unevenly, with random patches of black, skin, and in-between. Very few of them with solid black completely covering the face and no patchiness.
Of course, you saw exactly what you wanted to see, so to you, those two things are the same, as long as we are discussing whether something may or may nor be blackface.
So again, absent a single shred of evidence that there is anything questionable about the photo,
Outside of the visual evidence of the photo itself?
...depending on who looks at it and what spin they choose to give their "interpretation".
The world must be so confusing for you, if you think these things are random and subjective.
It's the same picture, AFAICT.
Um yes, that is the point of linking it. Unless your point is that the reporter from Wales flew to Arizona back in 2014 to take the picture? That's some impressive mental gymnastics if you think so.
I tried that as well. I saw many pictures where the coal dust was spread unevenly, with random patches of black, skin, and in-between. Very few of them with solid black completely covering the face and no patchiness.
Yes, dust does not intentionally try to be consistent. But since there were others just like it, and not a single reason to think "OH NOES THE RACISM", then we still have 99.9 percent certainty the Arizona picture is a picture of Welsh coal miners who were not trying to be racist.
Of course, you saw exactly what you wanted to see
Absent any other information, it could perhaps be justifiable to a reasonable person (perhaps) to ask about the photo if blackface came to mind. But once the truth is revealed, that it is nothing but a picture of coal miners, then a reasonable person would instantly understand and no longer question the picture.
You still have not explained how a reasonable person could continue to assert that the picture of coal miners is still questionable. It's a picture of coal miners.
Outside of the visual evidence of the photo itself?
"Theoretically possible" is not as compelling as "far more likely and less nefarious". If the guy with the "theoretically possible" explanation wants to give it similar weight as the likely explanation, there has to be actual supporting evidence. There is none.
Good thing you aren't a judge and jury. Any accusation not involving blatant lies or supernatural explanations would lead to a "guilty" charge just for being possible in theory.
The world must be so confusing for you, if you think these things are random and subjective.
Yeah, pretty sure I'm the one taking things as they are. It takes a heavy dose of conspiracy mindset and emotional fragility to read anything nefarious into a 1910 photograph of dirty Welsh coal miners having a drink, particularly with no evidence supporting the conspiracy.
Legion of Logic said...
But since there were others just like it, and not a single reason to think "OH NOES THE RACISM",
Sometimes I forget just how unlearned people are about history.
Back in 1910, there was nothing nothing at all unusual about blackface. You would regularly see it in local entertainments, among people having a good time, etc. People saying "OH NOES THE RACISM" were few and far between, but the actual racism was wide-spread, prevalent, and taken by many to be based in biology. When saying these coal miners were likely engaging in blackface, I'm not saying they were being malicious, hateful, evil, or had any other type hurtful intent. They were just having the type of fun that was common for white people to engage in, that they would have seen in the occasional entertainment, etc.
You still have not explained how a reasonable person could continue to assert that the picture of coal miners is still questionable. It's a picture of coal miners.
Does being a coal miner make you immune to racism somehow? If not, why keep bringing this up?
... less nefarious ... judge and jury. Any accusation ... conspiracy mindset...
I haven't claimed anything nefarious occurred, offered any accusations, made any judgments, nor proposed any conspiracies. I just talking about what seems to have happened in some pub in 1910; an activity that would be common whenever white people already had a lot of black dirt on their faces.
Well, now this is embarrassing
Now THAT is what the op-ed writer should be covering. There is no alternate explanation there.
One Brow,
I don't deny that the scenario you outlined is within the realm of possibility. My issue isn't with the scenario itself, but rather the op-ed writer. Let's analyze. This is all from what he wrote.
He pointed out that he spoke with a "white restaurant owner". I'd have said "the owner".
He complains that because HE thought the picture was offensive, that the owner should take it down. He ignores alternate, and more plausible, and more innocuous, explanations in favor of his outrage.
He said the context of the photo is "not important", when in fact the context is ALL that is important.
From out of nowhere, he says "The larger issue is the lack of representation of marginalized people and their voices in Phoenix." Now where in the world did that come from? How is this even remotely relevant? Is he complaining that there aren't enough minorities to force the "white owner" to take the picture down?
He says "Frequently, I enter art galleries and I am not represented in the art, which leads to uneducated curation for exhibitions." That sounds like gibberish to me.
He says "the photograph of men in blackface was a threat to me and my face and voice were ignored." Notice how he asserts that they are in blackface, despite having no evidence they were in blackface. That is not a tolerable behavior that should be rewarded by acceding to his demand.
He says "A business’ photograph of men with blackened faces culturally says to me, “Whites Only.” It says people like me are not welcome." Guess what, coal miners? You are racist for getting dirty! Do Navy SEALS need to stop darkening their faces, too?
And finally, he says that taking the "offensive" picture down would be "for the greater good". No, caving to the ignorant outraged is NEVER good.
Legion,
Now THAT is what the op-ed writer should be covering. There is no alternate explanation there.
Wanna bet he decides not to cover this story?
Consider the irony:
The Dem VA governor who just came out defending infanticide can't remember if he was the one in blackface or the hood. All on the first day of Black History Month.
God indeed has a sense of humor :-)
A question to Hal if he has been reading:
The Power and the Glory was a novel you liked. What did you like about it?
The reason I ask is because now I've read descriptions of both the novel and the author. Both the novel and the author seem to reflect the same theme of moral ambiguity. Is that the most compelling thing?
The Power and the Glory is one of my favorite novels. Yes, there's a boatload of moral ambiguity in it, but that's not its theme. Rather, it is "How does one proceed in the face of such ambiguity, especially when one finds it within one's self?"
The book is also a marvelous quote mine. Here's just a sample. The main character priest finds himself in a desecrated cemetery. All the statues have been beheaded, and he thinks to himself:
"It was odd – this fury to deface, because, of course, you could never deface enough. If God had been like a toad, you could have rid the globe of toads, but when God was like yourself, it was no good being content with stone figures – you had to kill yourself among the graves."
And there is much, much more like that.
The "whisky priest" seems to be based on Bl Miguel Pro.
But Miguel Pro did not have the character flaws of the "whisky priest". It seems that Greene put some of his own moral flaws into the character.
Would the story have appealed to you less if the main character lacked those flaws and was more like the real Miguel Pro?
"The "whisky priest" seems to be based on Bl Miguel Pro."
I was not aware of that. But it seems that "based on" may be a bit of overstatement. Other than the two priests (one real and the other fictional) both enduring persecution and martyrdom, they do not appear to have anything in common.
There are very few characters in (great) literature that have little to no moral flaws. I can think of Alyosha in The Brothers Karamazov as almost an archetype of such. But he is often regarded as merely 1/3rd of a composite character, along with Ivan and Dmitri - all 3 making up a single, complete personality (rather like the 3 Stooges, or Kirk, Spock, and McCoy).
There's Sir Galahad in the Arthurian legend as well, but let's be honest - he's probably the least interesting knight of the whole Round Table. Lancelot and Gawain have much more going for them.
The Parson in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales is depicted in the most saintly terms, but unfortunately comes off overall as rather humorless. (By the way, the Prologue to the Parson's Tale is one of my all time favorite scenes in all of literature. Other than the Gospels themselves, I must have read it more times than anything else - times without number.)
Hmm... I'm not going to edit what I wrote above, but after considerable thought I cannot think of any morally flawless character in serious literature other than Alyosha and Galahad. Help me out here. Can anyone else think of one?
It seems to me that the "whisky priest" is more an an anti-hero than just a flawed character. It's not like he only had one or 2 failings.
I knew the story of Miguel Pro before Hal had mentioned The Power and the Glory and when I read the description it sounded a lot like what Pro went through, except of course the moral failings of the main protagonist.
Just now, re-reading the Wikipedia article about the novel it seems Greene was aware of Pro (and also a story of a real? "whisky priest").
Another of Greene's inspirations for his main character was the Jesuit priest Miguel Pro, who performed his priestly functions as an underground priest in Tabasco and was executed without trial in 1927 on false charges.[11][13]
To me, it is especially apparent if you read both Wikipedia articles on Pro and the novel.
The real story of Miguel Pro is interesting to me because, well it's a real story.
Miguel Pro's martyrdom has the distinction of being the first ever to be captured on film.
And published nationwide as a warning. Ended up being a very effective funeral announcement.
Legion of Logic said...
He pointed out that he spoke with a "white restaurant owner". I'd have said "the owner".
Do you think a black, or Latino, owner might have related to the author and his point in a different way?
He complains that because HE thought the picture was offensive, that the owner should take it down. He ignores alternate, and more plausible, and more innocuous, explanations in favor of his outrage.
When humans are outraged, or even just mildly annoyed, we have a tendency to ignore alternative explanations.
He said the context of the photo is "not important", when in fact the context is ALL that is important.
I agree with you here that the context matters. Part of the context is who and where the miners were in 1910, but part of the context is also the picture being displayed in Arizona in 2019.
From out of nowhere, he says "The larger issue is the lack of representation of marginalized people and their voices in Phoenix." Now where in the world did that come from? How is this even remotely relevant? Is he complaining that there aren't enough minorities to force the "white owner" to take the picture down?
I believe he is referring to the general sense on unwelcomeness and alienation induced when you do not see people similar to you represented. Here, a white business owner apparently only has pictures of white people on his walls. He's setting an atmosphere of who the owner identifies with and who he wants his clients to identify with, and it seems to be exclusively white.
He says "the photograph of men in blackface was a threat to me and my face and voice were ignored." Notice how he asserts that they are in blackface, despite having no evidence they were in blackface. That is not a tolerable behavior that should be rewarded by acceding to his demand.
We disagree on the visual evidence, obviously.
And finally, he says that taking the "offensive" picture down would be "for the greater good". No, caving to the ignorant outraged is NEVER good.
The owner is making a statement with his pictures. I would saying that making exclusionary statements is also never good.
Post a Comment