Downvoting snappy is a bannable offence

Snapshots:

1. neoliberals unironically arguing be... - archive.org, archive.today, removeddit.com

I am just a simple bot, *not** a moderator of this subreddit* | bot subreddit | contact the maintainers

u/EmpiricalAnarchism would you rather live under Bernie or would you rather live under Trump?

How long of a time horizon are we talking about?

Long-term, I think a Bernie victory would be worse for the country, insofar as two Trumpian nationalist parties is worse than one.

Short term, Bernie would probably be better for me.

Bernie doesn't want open borders because there are so many poor people in the world

None of whom matter one iota less than any Amercian. Bernie's bigotry is not a selling point I find convincing. And if it was, I'd simply vote for the bigger bigot, viz. Trump.

Do you believe in open borders and what in your opinion is the difference between nationalism and patriotism?

Thanks for answering our questions!

Do you believe in open borders and what in your opinion is the difference between nationalism and patriotism?

1. Yes, I believe in open borders.

2. Patriotism is a sense of pride for one's country; nationalism is the perfidious notion that co-nationals (which, frequently, proxies for coethnics) are inherently more worthy than others. In other words, the latter is an ingroup/outgroup dynamic, whereas the former is not necessarily.

1. Don't you think there would be a lot of problems caused by open borders? Why would anyone work towards bettering their country when they could simply immigrate to a better one? My opinion is that immigration (excluding asylum seakers) should be reserved to the capable; people with money or knowledge with an additional program to help the less fortunate but it shouldn't be in excess.

2. Is nationalism inherently bad? The definition of nationalism is: identification with one's own nation and support for its interests, especially to the exclusion or detriment of the interests of other nations. Is that necessarily a bad thing?

I really appreciate your civility and hope you don't turn this into a race issue as I am neither American nor white.

Don't you think there would be a lot of problems caused by open borders?

I mean, not problems that would be so difficult to overcome that they negate the positive impact of opening borders. A world with open borders is a world that is significantly wealthier than the world we have now, and assimilating immigrants isn't particularly difficult as long as you don't adopt exclusionary policies which prevent their assimilation. Where assimilation is difficult, the difficulty stems from uppity natives, and I'm reticent to suggest that we should condemn people to destitution, starvation, and death simply because the locals are xenophobic.

Why would anyone work towards bettering their country when they could simply immigrate to a better one?

This argument doesn't make a whole lot of sense, though, particularly insofar as emigrating is often a way to make one's country better; many developing countries have economies which rely significantly on remittances from expats, and economic migrants in particular provide a windfall of resources which can help developing countries develop. Additionally, many people literally cannot make their countries better. The average citizen of China can do little to nothing to help China democratize, develop, or better its record on human rights. The best he can hope to do is avoid becoming a victim of the state itself. Many countries have extraordinarily closed political systems which nobody should be trapped under because of xenophobia. It's inhuman, not to mention un-American.

Is nationalism inherently bad?

Yes. There is no moral value to conationality or coethnicity.

I really appreciate your civility and hope you don't turn this into a race issue as I am neither American nor white.

I don't tend to go there unless someone goes there with me first, honestly, and usually that only happens when talking about Israel.

on your first point, i believe that self-determination of a people - and yes, that includes white peoples - is of the utmost importance - if the locals are xenophobic

I don't. Self-determination was a useful concept at the end of the age of empires leveraged to dismantle European - and only European - territories into smaller constituent parts while simultaneously denied to the countless colonial subjects under imperial yoke in Africa and Asia. It is not something that has any moral weight - it was an innovation designed only to justify the dismantling of the central powers following the first world war and that's all. There is no moral value to coethnicity or conationality - someone is not more worthy of my attention or concern because we share a skin color or accent.

that country could then, theoretically, provide additional resources/financial support to organisations or indeed to other countries that might be housing refugees.

Yeah they usually won't though, and generally speaking, countries that dislike refugees won't help other countries support refugees.

otherwise it is basically a) undemocratic to the extreme, b) creating pointless political tension, c) going to increase far-right support, d) effectively destroying a native culture and e) almost by definition an invasion.

Democracy without liberalism is pointless.

Political tension stemming from not committing violence against otherwise innocent people for crossing imaginary lines on a map is hardly "pointless" and is in fact humanitarian to the extreme.

Racist natives becoming slightly more openly racist is not a good reason to use violence against otherwise innocent people for crossing imaginary lines on a map.

Native cultures - particularly the predominantly white cultures that are most frequently the subject of this defense - are of no intrinsic value and, should they be unable to be maintained because a few other people move in who have a different person, then they aren't worth being maintained at all.

That is not how the word "invasion" works.

many people who don't want large scale immigration still support their country giving resources to such ends in other countries. i dont think that denying immigrants in one country is necessarily condemning them to death.

If you oppose immigration, you, by definition, support utilizing violence against otherwise innocent people for crossing an imaginary line on a map.

The thing that has threatened those groups isn't immigration, its colonialism and it's legacy.

Because settler colonialists spent centuries commuting genocide against them. Restricting immigration to protect natives from native-born whites just seems like giving the whites two wins.

Whites getting wins is why those cultures are endangered.

To rephrase - your argument doesn't make sense. Native Americans (to roll with this example) aren't threatened because people cross the border from Mexico. They're threatened because the government has forced them into de facto ethnic ghettos while simultaneously sapping every productive resource available to those communities to ensure that they remain in abject poverty. State violence is directed at them continuously - native Americans are statistically speaking more likely to be killed by police than any other group in the U.S., not to mention the extent to which every land treaty with native tribes have been abrogated to provide white natives with more farmland or mineral rights. And again, there is the issue of the genocide committed against them.

Your logic suggests that because white people who hate immigrants and minorities have made these cultures endangered, we can't let more brown people in. Yet the new brown people don't threaten these cultures; the white people whose ideology you're catering to does.

Same argument applies to native Australians, just the genocide ended more recently.

I still don't understand what they want.

Fucking liberal capitalists. I'm voting for Tucker Carlson in 2024.