If they actually delivered on their promise of deporting all undocumented immigrants (5% of the labor force), the profitability of farming, hospitality, construction, and restaurants would collapse overnight. They have to create this spectacle to keep their cultural base happy.
The irony is that anyone who's a Jew (and many who don't) know the phase "Never again". It's meant to convey "never again will we let concentration camps, pogroms, and the like happen".
And yet ... like a lot of things humans claim to believe in ... some Jews (and others who claim to believe in "never again") not only ignore "never again" ... they're at the forefront of pushing for these policies!
And if you ask some of them about the contradiction, it comes out that (to them) the phrase only means "never again ... to Jews". Doing to other people what the Nazis (and Russians, and all sorts of other groups throughout history) have done to the Jews is ok ... as long as "someone who isn't like me" is the victim.
> And if you ask some of them about the contradiction, it comes out that (to them) the phrase only means "never again ... to Jews".
Who have you actually asked about this? I defy you to name a real Jewish person that you've asked this question, who has given you that answer. I want proof.
Odds are high this will get flagged, but it's worthy of discussion here.
The problem is the discussion is done purely on emotional terms (e.g., "bad people come in and hurt good people") vs what are the benefits and what are the costs and how do they add up?
Also, how do we have a system that ensure that the process is optimized to maximize the benefit and minimize the cost?
Given that the people being rounded up in extrajudicial raids and held in deplorable conditions are actual humans with feelings, families, friends, memories, communities, how can emotion not be at the centre? Yes, policy must be considered. But the main design consideration here seems to be inflicting terror.
The current administration has shown no willingness to step back and think this through in the systematic way you suggest.
selectively going after the bad people - violent criminals and the like - seems like a good start.
CBP/HSI is currently driven by a quota system, to my knowledge. quotas incentivize going after the most law-abiding people because they're safer and easier to nab.
a lot could be gained simply by rewarding ICE agents based on how dangerous the people they apprehend are, rather than measuring headcount.
I think one would be hard-pressed to find anyone who would say "please let dangerous people in". There is a system in place to address that, but no doubt could be improved.
And for those who had family arrive much earlier (such as myself), the criteria for entry was incredibly lax. My mother's side came in the early 1900's so was subject to the 1906 Naturalization Act which basically said "you have to speak english and tell us about family members". My father's side was here early enough to basically just be here long enough and then it's a done deal.
As the OP states, these pogroms are rooted in racism and otherism, and the cruelty is the point. We can do better than that.
hate feels good. when you really hate someone (or a group of people) your hatred feels justified. no wonder "FAFO" has become such a popular acronym of late.
not that everyone (or even most people) believe what they're feeling is hatred. maybe you call it "deserved justice," or "an eye for an eye" or "harsh but necessary."
but if you feel Schadenfreude - catharsis or pleasure from someone's suffering - then you're feeling hatred.
as a trans woman, I (and my people) are often on the receiving end of this. to be clear, I'm not saying that any opposition to trans rights is borne of hatred, any more than any support of border enforcement is hatred. but if you feel that catharsis at the anguish of a group you oppose, be honest with yourself: why?
If you're a politician in Alabama, and you can propagandize your constituents so their top issue is stopping the six trans girls in the state who want to join their high school track team from being able to do so, it means that they won't care as much about issues that actually matter in their lives, like why they haven't gotten a raise in 5 years or why the only hospital less than 3 hours away from them has shut down. I think this is a large factor in why conservative media works the way it does.
right. politicians love to sow hatred. it's easier to promise to make the constituents' enemies suffer than to promise to make their consituents' lives better. plus the polarization leads to safer votes ("I don't agree with everything Mr. X is doing, but damned if I'll let Mr. Y win")
Hitler famously stoked hatred for Jews to increase his popularity. I know that Germany was already fairly antisemitic prior to Hitler's rise to power, but I wonder how many "moderates" felt Schadenfreude towards the Jews by Kristalnacht. how fast did the propaganda take effect?
It's not just conservative media, mainstream democrats also made identity politics the highlight of their campaigns when the constituents also hadn't gotten a raise in 5 years and don't have a hospital within a 3 hour drive.
Doesn't anyone remember how Trump 2 happened? Refocusing on identity issues instead of class/wealth inequality issues is how we are going to get Trump 3.
> I'm not saying that any opposition to trans rights is borne of hatred
As a cis man, I'll say that it likely is borne of hatred, but more so, as a tool to rile the masses to be angry enough to vote for whoever feeds that hate.
The only good thing I can say about transphobia is that it's a sign that homophobia has pretty much run its course as a political wedge issue.
> As a cis man, I'll say that it likely is borne of hatred, but more so, as a tool to rile the masses to be angry enough to vote for whoever feeds that hate.
certainly a lot of it is, but I think there truly are people with sincere religious or moral beliefs that don't wish any ill on trans people despite opposing our decisions. acknowledging that is fairly key to building bridges, imo.
(also because I expected to be downvoted to oblivion, so I tried to make my take as measured and nonthreatening as possible. I did not succeed, it appears.)
As anti-religion as I am, I never want to ascribe malice to anyone just because they are religious. But once they use their faith as a weapon against others it cross the line of decency.
There's nothing wrong with feeling uncomfortable about the subject because to you it's not "normal", but thats on you if it is.
If they actually delivered on their promise of deporting all undocumented immigrants (5% of the labor force), the profitability of farming, hospitality, construction, and restaurants would collapse overnight. They have to create this spectacle to keep their cultural base happy.
So, pogroms. What you describe is called a pogrom.
That's correct, I agree with Krugman's use of the term pogrom here if that wasn't clear.
The irony is that anyone who's a Jew (and many who don't) know the phase "Never again". It's meant to convey "never again will we let concentration camps, pogroms, and the like happen".
And yet ... like a lot of things humans claim to believe in ... some Jews (and others who claim to believe in "never again") not only ignore "never again" ... they're at the forefront of pushing for these policies!
And if you ask some of them about the contradiction, it comes out that (to them) the phrase only means "never again ... to Jews". Doing to other people what the Nazis (and Russians, and all sorts of other groups throughout history) have done to the Jews is ok ... as long as "someone who isn't like me" is the victim.
This story has nothing to do with Jews or Jewish views.
Blaming Jews for everything is so 1930s.
It's unfortunately very much a thing still. The Right only cares about Israel for 2 reasons:
This isn't snark, it's how things are -- all of this is easily verified: And first reasonable hit on the anti-semitism thing (but plenty more out there): https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11922252/> And if you ask some of them about the contradiction, it comes out that (to them) the phrase only means "never again ... to Jews".
Who have you actually asked about this? I defy you to name a real Jewish person that you've asked this question, who has given you that answer. I want proof.
You are making antisemitic accusations.
Odds are high this will get flagged, but it's worthy of discussion here.
The problem is the discussion is done purely on emotional terms (e.g., "bad people come in and hurt good people") vs what are the benefits and what are the costs and how do they add up?
Also, how do we have a system that ensure that the process is optimized to maximize the benefit and minimize the cost?
Given that the people being rounded up in extrajudicial raids and held in deplorable conditions are actual humans with feelings, families, friends, memories, communities, how can emotion not be at the centre? Yes, policy must be considered. But the main design consideration here seems to be inflicting terror.
The current administration has shown no willingness to step back and think this through in the systematic way you suggest.
selectively going after the bad people - violent criminals and the like - seems like a good start.
CBP/HSI is currently driven by a quota system, to my knowledge. quotas incentivize going after the most law-abiding people because they're safer and easier to nab.
a lot could be gained simply by rewarding ICE agents based on how dangerous the people they apprehend are, rather than measuring headcount.
I think one would be hard-pressed to find anyone who would say "please let dangerous people in". There is a system in place to address that, but no doubt could be improved.
And for those who had family arrive much earlier (such as myself), the criteria for entry was incredibly lax. My mother's side came in the early 1900's so was subject to the 1906 Naturalization Act which basically said "you have to speak english and tell us about family members". My father's side was here early enough to basically just be here long enough and then it's a done deal.
As the OP states, these pogroms are rooted in racism and otherism, and the cruelty is the point. We can do better than that.
[dead]
hate feels good. when you really hate someone (or a group of people) your hatred feels justified. no wonder "FAFO" has become such a popular acronym of late.
not that everyone (or even most people) believe what they're feeling is hatred. maybe you call it "deserved justice," or "an eye for an eye" or "harsh but necessary."
but if you feel Schadenfreude - catharsis or pleasure from someone's suffering - then you're feeling hatred.
as a trans woman, I (and my people) are often on the receiving end of this. to be clear, I'm not saying that any opposition to trans rights is borne of hatred, any more than any support of border enforcement is hatred. but if you feel that catharsis at the anguish of a group you oppose, be honest with yourself: why?
If you're a politician in Alabama, and you can propagandize your constituents so their top issue is stopping the six trans girls in the state who want to join their high school track team from being able to do so, it means that they won't care as much about issues that actually matter in their lives, like why they haven't gotten a raise in 5 years or why the only hospital less than 3 hours away from them has shut down. I think this is a large factor in why conservative media works the way it does.
right. politicians love to sow hatred. it's easier to promise to make the constituents' enemies suffer than to promise to make their consituents' lives better. plus the polarization leads to safer votes ("I don't agree with everything Mr. X is doing, but damned if I'll let Mr. Y win")
Hitler famously stoked hatred for Jews to increase his popularity. I know that Germany was already fairly antisemitic prior to Hitler's rise to power, but I wonder how many "moderates" felt Schadenfreude towards the Jews by Kristalnacht. how fast did the propaganda take effect?
It's not just conservative media, mainstream democrats also made identity politics the highlight of their campaigns when the constituents also hadn't gotten a raise in 5 years and don't have a hospital within a 3 hour drive.
Doesn't anyone remember how Trump 2 happened? Refocusing on identity issues instead of class/wealth inequality issues is how we are going to get Trump 3.
> I'm not saying that any opposition to trans rights is borne of hatred
As a cis man, I'll say that it likely is borne of hatred, but more so, as a tool to rile the masses to be angry enough to vote for whoever feeds that hate.
The only good thing I can say about transphobia is that it's a sign that homophobia has pretty much run its course as a political wedge issue.
> As a cis man, I'll say that it likely is borne of hatred, but more so, as a tool to rile the masses to be angry enough to vote for whoever feeds that hate.
certainly a lot of it is, but I think there truly are people with sincere religious or moral beliefs that don't wish any ill on trans people despite opposing our decisions. acknowledging that is fairly key to building bridges, imo.
(also because I expected to be downvoted to oblivion, so I tried to make my take as measured and nonthreatening as possible. I did not succeed, it appears.)
As anti-religion as I am, I never want to ascribe malice to anyone just because they are religious. But once they use their faith as a weapon against others it cross the line of decency.
There's nothing wrong with feeling uncomfortable about the subject because to you it's not "normal", but thats on you if it is.