Open Thread and Link Farm, The Budget Cut My Torso Edition
- Noah Berlatsky on “Virtue Signaling.”
“The most insular tribalism is the tribalism that forswears tribalism. Heaven and neoliberalism forbid we admit that we actually need other people for love, approval, and guidance.”
- Believing Your Own Lies
So-called “Crisis Pregnancy Centers” claim to prevent tens of thousands of abortions – but, unsurprisingly, they’re lying.
- The Free-Trade Consensus Is Dead | New Republic
The Obama Administration claims that they’re fighting to protect labor and the environment when they negotiate trade deals – but, unsurprisingly, they’re lying. (Link via Nobody.)
- Ironic effects of anti-prejudice messages | EurekAlert! Science News
From a pdf of the study itself: “Ironically, motivating people to reduce prejudice by emphasizing external control produced more explicit and implicit prejudice than did not intervening at all. Conversely, participants in whom autonomous motivation to regulate prejudice was induced displayed less explicit and implicit prejudice compared with no-treatment control participants.”
- Anti-fat bias shows up in really little kids – Futurity
“The preference for average versus obese figures was strongly related to maternal anti-fat prejudice. Other potential factors such as parental BMI, education, and even children’s television viewing were not related to what sort of figure the child preferred to look at.”
- Getting a photo ID so you can vote is easy. Unless you’re poor, black, Latino or elderly. – The Washington Post
- A Comprehensive Guide To The Debunked “Bathroom Predator” Myth
- North Carolina Lawmakers Are Trying To Take Away The Only ID Undocumented Immigrants Can Get | ThinkProgress
- Doctors remove nurse from patient’s arm.
- See how Mount Rushmore was SUPPOSED to look | Roadtrippers
They ran out of money.
- Side-By-Side: The Good Wife’s First And Last Scenes – YouTube
This is really neat if you’re a fan of The Good Wife (and I am), but probably not of interest otherwise.
- Yale’s World-Famous Ethics Professor Accused Of Sexual Harassment – BuzzFeed News
- What Cultural Appropriation is NOT
- A point-counterpoint: Men Are Sabotaging The Online Reviews Of TV Shows Aimed At Women | FiveThirtyEight versus Cathy Young’s critique of same. I think Cathy makes some decent points, although the headline and subheadline are silly. (Update: Cathy comments further, and says that the headline was “obviously” a joke.)
- Court to Hear Appeal From Purvi Patel, Convicted of Feticide – NBC News
So much for that “pro-life isn’t about putting women in jail” claim.
- Ayn Rand’s Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone – The Toast
This entry was posted in
Link farms. Bookmark the
permalink.
Anyone wants a dinosaur?
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/992645470/beasts-of-the-mesozoic-raptor-series-action-figure
I’ll cop to using the term “virtue signaling.” Berlatsky makes some good points about the limitations of the word for conveying that much in terms of argument. It’s basically a pretentious word for “pretentious.” Somewhere between pretentious and pandering lies virtue signaling. Those two words have their place in describing things that exist, so why shouldn’t virtue signaling?
Alternately, it can represent a view of human nature. People act in self interest, so any action that at first appears to be on someone else’s behalf must have another motive behind it.
I also use “virtue signalling,” but in a slightly different way than the author of the article does.
He mostly discusses using the term as an insult to invalidate a stated opinion. I pretty much agree that “virtue signalling” shouldn’t be used in this way. It’s sort of the anti-SJ version of “check your privilege.” It assumes too much about the state of mind and experience of the person expressing an opinion.
Privilege theory works better as a lens through which we view human action in the aggregate. I think “signalling theory” works in much the same way (I actually prefer “tribal signalling” to “virtue signalling). If it is true that many expressed feelings and ideas are really just signalling, then we can make predictions about how humans might respond to certain situations and certain moral dilemmas.
An example of a prediction: If a republican president with strong free-speech stances gets elected, I believe anti-free-speech sentiments would increase on the left (pretty much overnight). Here’s another: If a pro-free trade democrat is elected president, protectionism would be a more prevalent ideology on the right (again, overnight).
We’ve all witnessed people who express a high degree of certainty about a radical idea, even when it is clear they have limited knowledge on the subject. I’ve caught myself doing this. I think much of this has to do with signalling. When I call attention to signalling, I don’t do it to dismiss an idea, I do it to illuminate a possible bias.
You know what’s always fun? When your relatives start talking to you about fear mongering conspiracy scams that they would like to know more about.
Another triumph of free speech in academia:
Plenty of video excerpts at the link. I wonder if DePaul will reimburse Breitbart and the local College Republican chapter for the security they paid for that didn’t do it’s job.
DePaul is a well-known university in the Chicago area, and up to this point I had respect for it. This kind of thing has a lot more influence on the public’s willingness to fund higher education with tax money than you might think.
Amp – can’t read #6 unless you’re either a subscriber or haven’t used up your allotment of free articles for the month.
Re: #8:
I’m sure the proponents see that as a feature, not a bug. In far too many cities, the government sees it’s function as protecting illegal aliens against being deported rather than cooperating with enforcing the law.
And, of course, the article shows the usual combination of bias and lies. For example, Trump’s position calling for enforcement of the U.S./Mexico border is called “anti-immigrant” rather than “anti-illegal alien”, as if Trump had called for halting immigration rather than stopping people from entering the U.S. illegally. The conflation of opposing people from crossing our border and staying in the U.S. illegally as “anti-immigrant” is one of the most blatant ways that the left shows that it fully embraces the philosophy of “the ends justify the means”.
RonF,
Trump has proposed making it harder for people to become legal immigrants–in addition to calling for a ban on all Muslim immigration, he has also called for ending birthright citizenship, and has even said, “I’m opposed to new people coming in. We have to take care of the people who are here.”
If that isn’t enough to call Trump “anti-immigrant,” rather than simply “anti-illegal-immigrant,” then what would be?
Calling for a *temporary* ban on Muslim immigration is a response to a specific threat – much like when Pres. Carter banned immigration from Iran during the Iran hostage crisis. I can’t say I favor it, and I personally don’t see how you’d enforce a religion-based immigration ban. But he could block immigration from majority-Muslim countries and accomplish much the same goal. I don’t see it as commentary on immigration as a whole but to a particular population that he (and a whole lot of other Americans) see as a threat, especially after watching what’s going on in Germany, France, etc.
I’m curious as to what ending birthright citizenship has to do with immigration. I thought the current line was that there are no such things as “anchor babies”. Frankly, I think that birthright citizenship should NOT be granted to anyone born in the U.S. that does not have at least one parent that is a citizen or where both parents are not legally resident aliens. Again, I don’t see refusal to grant citizenship to the children of people here illegally as being anti-immigrant.
The only references I find to your last statement (“I’m opposed to new people coming in”) both cite him as having said that in 1999, but not during his Presidential campaign. Do you have any reference to him having said that during the campaign?
Trump’s proposed ban on Muslims entering the country was “until we figure out what’s going on” or something like that — that vague of a goal for when to end it doesn’t really give me much confidence that it’s meant to be “temporary.” As for the comparison to Carter, I can’t find anything that says that Carter did it because Iranians within the US were seen as a threat. The cancellation of visas was part of the sanctions on Iran, to pressure them to release the hostages. There is no one to pressure here — by all accounts, ISIS would be thrilled if refugees had nowhere to go.
Well, I wrote this comment and then I kind of talked myself around to agreeing a bit with you. Indeed, I’m sure Donald Trump is very happy with any northern/western European types who want to immigrate. He’s just violently racist and xenophobic against everyone else. “You see, his position is totally rational once you understand that his knowledge of Muslims and terrorism comes entirely from his own/the right-wing media’s paranoid xenophobic fantasies!” isn’t exactly a defense, in other words; it’s just convicting him of a slightly different crime. (“Slightly” because the Venn diagram of the groups he hates and immigrants has a lot of overlap, and even more overlap in the national discourse.)
Well, birthright citizenship is guaranteed by the Constitution except in certain very limited circumstances (parents who are diplomats) so regardless of whether this view is anti-immigrant it’s unconstitutional.
Even back when non-whites weren’t allowed to become naturalized citizens, their kids still had birthright citizenship.
Banning immigration based on a religious test is not the same thing as banning immigration based on a nationality test. Furthermore, Carter’s ban had a number of exceptions, including anyone who said that they were opposed to the Iranian Revolutionary government. Since we’re conflating Islam and ISIS: I’m pretty sure 100% of the Muslims who want to immigrate to the US would be willing to declare themselves opposed to ISIS.
Furthermore, I’m pretty sure that, on entering the US, you have to state whether you’ve been a member of an organization seeking to undermine or overthrow the US government. So, that’s pretty much already included.
There’s a take on this that says that this has not been adjudicated yet. From what I understand – and my understanding is not necessarily complete and I’ll entertain correction – the case that this was decided on concerned a child born to two resident (i.e.,. legally present) aliens. There are those who argue that when one is illegally present in the U.S. you are at least attempting to remove yourself from the jurisdiction of the Federal government and thus birthright citizenship could be withheld and still be consistent with the Constitution.
All very semantic, but if all that’s true there’s enough room for the Supremes to skate by if they chose. I certainly have no idea if those who wrote the 14th Amendment had this distinction in mind or not.
That didn’t seem to stop numerous Nazis from lying about that back in the ’40’s and ’50’s.
Well, at that time, there pretty much was no such thing as illegal immigration. The first federal law restricting immigration wouldn’t be passed for another few years, and that only barred prostitutes and convicts. Chinese Exclusion came a few years later.
US v. Wong Kim Ark. His parents had immigrated from China, and he was born in San Francisco about ten years before the Chinese Exclusion Act. His parents were allowed to live in the US, but they were not eligible to become naturalized citizens, since only whites were allowed to be naturalized. (And there were several Supreme Court cases about defining what “white” meant for that purpose — both Japanese and Indian were ruled to be “not white.”)
RonF:
Well, if you want something at the standards of Carter’s temporary ban, to keep out Islamic terrorists, then we already have that in place.
If what you want is something more radical and discriminatory, stop bringing up Carter.
I’ve learned a lot of historical immigration law while doing genealogy research, since a lot of my ancestors immigrated at a time when the laws were changing every few years, and then there was a huge change in the early twenties, which was the first time we really had quotas.
RonF: “That didn’t seem to stop numerous Nazis from lying about that back in the ’40’s and ’50’s.”
And…what exactly would stop Muslims from lying about their religions in order to immigrate to the US?
Or do you have a more rigorous screening process than the one recommended by Trump:
Willie Geist: Donald, a customs agent would ask the person his or her religion?
Donald Trump: They would be probably, they would say, ‘are you a Muslim?’
Geist: And if they said ‘yes,’ they would not be allowed in the country?
Trump: That is correct.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/428198/muslim-immigration-ban-and-constitution-jim-geraghty
Further, Ron, can you name a single national security expert who believes that banning Muslim immigration would actually help the war on terror? Most I have read, on both the left and the right, have said such a policy would embolden ISIS and alienate our allies. ISIS would love it if we banned Muslim immigration–it would help recruiting, prevent many of their victims from fleeing, and solidify their narrative that “The West is at war with Islam.”
Basically, I don’t think you’ve through this through at all. But I could be wrong.
There are some cases where it’s impossible in practice. At the moment you can use a islamic marrage to get a visa, or apply for a visa for employment as an imam. You can’t do that and lie about being a Muslim.
Also the sheer level of ignorance about Islam among progressives amazes me. You assume Muslims would behave like secular agnostics, they wouldn’t.
Basic facts: In Islam apostasy is a crime against God punishable by hellfire. Devout Muslims could lie to immigration, but many would not be willing to offend Allah and risk their souls. Apostasy also has consequences under Sharia. It annuls marriages. The hudud punishment is death. It is a crime in 20 countries. Lying would not be easy, and would have consquences – under their own beliefs – if it happened.
Well, I’m just an ignorant progressive, but anti-Muslim conservatives have told me for years that Muslims are allowed to lie in service of their faith, and that this practice is called taqiya. Anti-Muslim conservatives, who are of course not ignorant at all, have used this charge to accuse even moderate Muslims of supporting terrorism.
Of course, other sources tell me taqiya is a way for Muslims to claim to not be Muslim in order to escape persecution, so presumably, a Muslim refugee trying to flee ISIS could claim to not be a Muslim in order to immigrate here, and that would be totally acceptable in their religion.
And obviously, terrorists–the people this ban would presumably be designed to keep out–probably wouldn’t draw the moral line at lying of they were determined to attack Americans.
Of course, there’s always the possibility that this proposed ban isn’t about keeping out terrorists, and just about keeping out all Muslims. In which case, your comment makes total sense, Pete. But I’m just an ignorant progressive, what do I know?
Yes. That’s exactly what Trump said – the ban was about keeping out Muslims because of hatreds prevalent in that community, not only terrorists.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement-on-preventing-muslim-immigration
Birthright citizenship is the right of the child, not the parents.
Pete:
If you’re unwilling to disagree more respectfully than this, Pete, please stop posting comments here.
As Chris pointed out, the rest of your comment was nonsense. Your quote from Donald Trump, which you included without any criticism or apparent skepticism in your more recent comment, is no better.
As Polifact points out, the “poll” was by the Center for Security Policy (an extreme right anti-Muslim org), who have not been willing to fully share their methodology, which is – to put it lightly – suspicious. The firm’s own expert, when asked, admitted that they can’t “extrapolate directly from an online, opt-in survey to the broader U.S. population.” And:
As for your complaint that progressives are ignorant about Muslims… I hope the irony hasn’t gone over your head.
Does ethnic and religious homogeneity produces greater social cohesion?
The Atlantic reports that Oregon has about the most generous social safety net in the nation — and also has a nearly all-white population; that is, people are willing to be generous to those who look like themselves. And Oregon’s demographic composition is not an accident: according to the article, black people were legally excluded from living in Oregon until 1926.
Why don’t we just have a little box on those immigration forms they hand out on the airplane where you’re asked to draw Muhammad. Anyone who turns it in with the space blank goes straight to Gitmo!
So, over this weekend:
Chicago – 6 people shot dead, 63 people wounded
Cincinnati – 1 Gorilla shot dead
Which story went viral?
Man bites dog.
Also, the gorilla story let everybody pretend to be experts on parenting, gorillas, zoo design, and veterinary tranquilizers. Anything that lets people pontificate on stuff that they once saw in a movie or something is sure to get shared, as everyone gives their opinion on who’s to blame and what everyone should have done.
ISIS just declared that as they lose territory they’ll resort to more irregular military tactics. Given this fact, why shouldn’t we consider it newsworthy when we demonstrate our ability to target guerrilla forces?
What else happened in Illinois? The legislature passed a bill that would automatically register Illinois citizens to vote whenever they present the documentation to show their qualifications — such as when renewing a driver’s license, or seeking assistance from the Departments of Human Services, Healthcare and Family Services, Employment Security, and Aging. This was an initiative long pursued by the prior governor, Pat Quinn.
Quinn was defeated — yet his spirit lives on! And not just in prison! (Yet.)