561 sats \ 17 replies \ @elvismercury 12 Feb \ on: The reality of the Danish fairytale news
Good article -- I really like DHH. Controversial sometimes but a good actor, I think. This quote:
Is a nice example of being honest about something complicated. We talked about that a bit the other day.
DHH is definitely a "good actor". He is always very straight forward. His posts are always tight, but insightful.
reply
Very complicated indeed, especially when considering the social cost of openly deviating from the orthodoxy.
I wouldn't caractérise this post as controversial; it's honest, and well argued.
DHH is spot on here, and I couldn't agree more. In-group preferences are real, normal, and healthy. I see parallels with Dawkins' "Selfish Gene" theory.
But don’t you for a second think this unity isn’t contingent on the homogeneity of ethnicity, values, norms, and perhaps even religion.
reply
You omitted an important passage:
You can contrast this political reality with Sweden, which otherwise shares a lot of similarities with the Danes in terms of welfare-state design. They went with an open-door policy on immigration for far longer, ended up taking many more (about 3x Denmark), and are now in a world of hurt with the highest gun-murder rate in all of Europe, along with an overall crime rate 50% greater than Denmark.
reply
Complicated?
I think the issue is simple if one were honest like DHH.
It’s only complicated if sentiment guides immigration policy.
Countries have borders for a reason. Countries do not have space and infrastructure to absorb unlimited number of third world immigrants
reply
It's complicated because what is moral is complicated unless you have a trivial sense of morality.
reply
If you start with the premise, open immigration is the right thing, then anyone who opposes immigration is immoral.
reply
That's possible, but more nuanced cases are also possible, e.g., you value life and believe it to be moral to reduce suffering when you can. So now you're faced with a tradeoff of whose suffering do you reduce, under what circumstances, and how do you adjudicate between competing demands?
All of that can (and does) play out in how people think about immigration, and is one of the key constituents of politics. Accusing people who construct this incredibly complicated decision surface of 'virtue signaling' is a strategy I no longer have patience to indulge.
reply
When you say constituents, are you counting aliens and immigrants or only citizens?
reply
"Constituents" = "ingredients"
reply
The vast majority of voters support curtailing immigration, witness Denmark and Sweden
reply
You are conflating sympathy or virtue signaling with morality.
reply
You're conflating your opinions with my opinions.
reply
That was not my intent.
I must have a trivial sense of morality
reply
Immigration is a political not moral issue
reply
What do you think are the ingredients to politics?
reply
This is a difficult question which can be its own thread…
One critical ingredient is what DHH mentioned: cohesive culture.
Others are:
Rule of law,
Clean elections,
Unbiased media,
Free speech
Listening to voters. Open immigration has never been a majority view in USA and Western Europe.
From DHH:
In the mid-90s, after a decade of doe-eyed optimism about immigration in general and asylum seekers in particular, a powerful nationalistic party set a tone for foreigners in Danish politics that remains to this day. At first the political establishment fought this new force, sought to keep them out of influence, but it didn’t last long, because the renegades represented the will of a large number of Danes who realized the dangers of unrestricted immigration early, and voted accordingly.
reply