"Borderism" is "Problematic"
Forgot to express my annoyance at the following:
The Washington Post saw fit to publish some SJW/neo-PC nonsense.
The Washington Post saw fit to publish some SJW/neo-PC nonsense.
I wish it were feasible to admit everyone who wants to come to the U.S.. In particular, I wish we could admit every last political refugee on the planet. And then there are the economic refugees...
And, of course, there is something philosophically puzzling about refusing people admission to your country when that means that they will be denied rights that you acknowledge as universal human rights.
However...for rather obvious practical reasons, we cannot admit everyone who wants to come to the U.S. We'd almost immediately become radically overpopulated, and probably end up on a trajectory toward third-world status.
It's not an option, and it's obviously not an option.
Also, of course, such policies worsen world overpopulation because less-populous countries act as safety valves, bleeding off excess population from countries with higher populations. But that's a rather different kind of problem.
At any rate, there's nothing wrong with thinking hard about the situation...but that "borderism" op-ed is mindless crap. The lefty-left seems to think that simply slapping "-ism" (or "-phobia") on the end of words constitutes some kind of argument. And liberals have a bad habit of falling for that nonsense. I doubt that they'll fall for this one, but given the recent rise of the neo-PCs, who knows? There does seem to be some tendency among many contemporary liberals to frown on the enforcement of immigration policies. And who can be happy about chasing down and kicking out people who are simply looking for a better life?
(And, of course, the red herring of Loving v. VA has no place in this conversation at all. Another tactic of the lefty-left: pretend that anyone who disagrees with you is a racist. Jebus, these people...)
Anyway. There are real questions in this vicinity, but the mindless nonsense in this op-ed isn't anything like a serious answer to any of them.
[Oh, and don't forget...everything is "problematic"! The paleo-PCs loved "offensive", but the neo-PCs are dedicated to "problematic"...thus having ruined another perfectly good word for me...]
However...for rather obvious practical reasons, we cannot admit everyone who wants to come to the U.S. We'd almost immediately become radically overpopulated, and probably end up on a trajectory toward third-world status.
It's not an option, and it's obviously not an option.
Also, of course, such policies worsen world overpopulation because less-populous countries act as safety valves, bleeding off excess population from countries with higher populations. But that's a rather different kind of problem.
At any rate, there's nothing wrong with thinking hard about the situation...but that "borderism" op-ed is mindless crap. The lefty-left seems to think that simply slapping "-ism" (or "-phobia") on the end of words constitutes some kind of argument. And liberals have a bad habit of falling for that nonsense. I doubt that they'll fall for this one, but given the recent rise of the neo-PCs, who knows? There does seem to be some tendency among many contemporary liberals to frown on the enforcement of immigration policies. And who can be happy about chasing down and kicking out people who are simply looking for a better life?
(And, of course, the red herring of Loving v. VA has no place in this conversation at all. Another tactic of the lefty-left: pretend that anyone who disagrees with you is a racist. Jebus, these people...)
Anyway. There are real questions in this vicinity, but the mindless nonsense in this op-ed isn't anything like a serious answer to any of them.
[Oh, and don't forget...everything is "problematic"! The paleo-PCs loved "offensive", but the neo-PCs are dedicated to "problematic"...thus having ruined another perfectly good word for me...]
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home