I think the author is being a little generous. At least with respect to the homogeneity argument, the choice of differences there is anything but arbitrary, it's a racist dogwhistle that says we...
There’s a weird related tendency in conservative arguments where the arguer will pick one arbitrary difference between country X and country Y to show that the system in country Y could never work in country X. For instance: Ah yes, Sweden has paid family leave, but it is ethnically homogeneous.
I think the author is being a little generous. At least with respect to the homogeneity argument, the choice of differences there is anything but arbitrary, it's a racist dogwhistle that says we can't help anyone because then we'd have to help everyone, even the minorities.
This exactly. When you hear that universal healthcare isn't possible for America because we're "too diverse", what you should be hearing is "but we want good things only for white people."
This exactly. When you hear that universal healthcare isn't possible for America because we're "too diverse", what you should be hearing is "but we want good things only for white people."
I haven't heard that one. I have heard that universal healthcare isn't possible in America because it's too large, but I don't believe I ever heard anyone go on to explain how that's relevant. Not...
I haven't heard that one. I have heard that universal healthcare isn't possible in America because it's too large, but I don't believe I ever heard anyone go on to explain how that's relevant.
Not doubting that that argument is being made, of course. Just pointing out that sometimes it's a dogwhistle, sometimes it's just a non-sequitur.
I think the framing is usually that certain groups (nudge nudge) aren’t mature enough to handle a robust welfare state responsibly. In other words, if we had paid family leave, then they’d just...
I think the framing is usually that certain groups (nudge nudge) aren’t mature enough to handle a robust welfare state responsibly. In other words, if we had paid family leave, then they’d just start having tons of babies because the leave is paid for.
It’s still dumb, but the “logic” behind it is clearer.
That's basically my point: whatever the framing, saying we can't have such and such social program because we aren't ethnically homogenous is fundamentally an argument based in racism.
That's basically my point: whatever the framing, saying we can't have such and such social program because we aren't ethnically homogenous is fundamentally an argument based in racism.
I think we're not allowed to talk about racist dogwhistles, because people get all apoplectic when they think you're calling them racist. The author was probably being strategic, rather than...
I think we're not allowed to talk about racist dogwhistles, because people get all apoplectic when they think you're calling them racist. The author was probably being strategic, rather than generous. Nathan's a smart dude, I'm kind of a fan, so maybe I'm assuming too much...
When I've encountered this argument, it's framed as the American people aren't ready for this because it would help others from different groups. Kind of a secondhand racism I guess. And, you...
When I've encountered this argument, it's framed as the American people aren't ready for this because it would help others from different groups. Kind of a secondhand racism I guess. And, you know, having witnessed the 2016 election I'm not sure this argument is totally wrong. Conservatives have been othering welfare recipients and using that to attack the whole system since at least the 70s.
In politics, shouting about Venezuela is effective because you only need quick sound-bytes to capture peoples attention, but I had hoped a magazine would use its longer-form nature to actually...
In politics, shouting about Venezuela is effective because you only need quick sound-bytes to capture peoples attention, but I had hoped a magazine would use its longer-form nature to actually make a case that could start some real debate, not Breitbart-level nonsense. I've never read the National Review myself so I didn't know what to expect, but it seems to be reflective of the brain-drain the American right has experienced.
I think the author is being a little generous. At least with respect to the homogeneity argument, the choice of differences there is anything but arbitrary, it's a racist dogwhistle that says we can't help anyone because then we'd have to help everyone, even the minorities.
This exactly. When you hear that universal healthcare isn't possible for America because we're "too diverse", what you should be hearing is "but we want good things only for white people."
I haven't heard that one. I have heard that universal healthcare isn't possible in America because it's too large, but I don't believe I ever heard anyone go on to explain how that's relevant.
Not doubting that that argument is being made, of course. Just pointing out that sometimes it's a dogwhistle, sometimes it's just a non-sequitur.
I think the framing is usually that certain groups (nudge nudge) aren’t mature enough to handle a robust welfare state responsibly. In other words, if we had paid family leave, then they’d just start having tons of babies because the leave is paid for.
It’s still dumb, but the “logic” behind it is clearer.
That's basically my point: whatever the framing, saying we can't have such and such social program because we aren't ethnically homogenous is fundamentally an argument based in racism.
I think we're not allowed to talk about racist dogwhistles, because people get all apoplectic when they think you're calling them racist. The author was probably being strategic, rather than generous. Nathan's a smart dude, I'm kind of a fan, so maybe I'm assuming too much...
When I've encountered this argument, it's framed as the American people aren't ready for this because it would help others from different groups. Kind of a secondhand racism I guess. And, you know, having witnessed the 2016 election I'm not sure this argument is totally wrong. Conservatives have been othering welfare recipients and using that to attack the whole system since at least the 70s.
In politics, shouting about Venezuela is effective because you only need quick sound-bytes to capture peoples attention, but I had hoped a magazine would use its longer-form nature to actually make a case that could start some real debate, not Breitbart-level nonsense. I've never read the National Review myself so I didn't know what to expect, but it seems to be reflective of the brain-drain the American right has experienced.
Keep in mind that the National Review is often seen as a good example of the 'intellectual conservative', yet it pushes out drivel like this.