Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The battle lines have shifted. It's now nationalism vs. globalism, not conservative vs. liberal. It turns out that the elite, while split between conservatism and liberalism, is firmly in the globalist camp. The people tend to go the other way, especially once the hollow veneer of political correctness is shattered (terrorist attacks, migrant crises, and economic downturns can do that).

You're seeing it in Britain, where Brexit crossed party lines. The people were told they couldn't have a say on immigration or many other aspects of their lives. Britain's cultural identity, their nationhood, would just have to give way over time to a pan-European globalized society. They were told that high-minded technocrats in Brussels, not the British nation, should run their country. It turns out that the common people don't like that deal.

You're seeing it in America. Trump is not running on a policy platform. He's signed up to enough conservative pieties to get the Republican Party behind him, but his whole campaign is really premised on kicking out the ruling elite and restoring government for the interests of the American people, not the establishment and their globalist agenda. Regardless of whether you agree that his policies will accomplish that, there's no denying that that's the core sentiment that he's tapping into. This is the quote that seems to be extremely popular among his supporters: "We will no longer surrender this country or its people to the false song of globalism. The nation-state remains the true foundation for happiness and harmony. I am skeptical of international unions that tie us up and bring America down."

You're seeing it in continental Europe, with nationalist parties pulling supporters from both the establishment conservative and left-wing parties. Marine Le Pen's National Front has a very good chance of winning the election in France next year. Her platform isn't right-wing or left-wing, it's nationalist and seeks to preserve the culture of the French nation, including their social and economic model.

Alternative for Germany (AfD) is gaining rapidly in reaction to the disastrous decision to allow migrants to flood into Germany. They have benefit in the polls at the expense of both the main left and right parties.

The supporters of these movements are unified in one thing: a love for and desire to preserve their nation's culture and values, which they perceive to be under siege from uncontrolled immigration and globalization.

"We just want to preserve our culture" is the loudest racial dog-whistle I know. It's been around since Jim Crow and it looks like it's not going away any time soon.

This implies there is no such thing as a culture worth saving, and that the only reason someone might find value in it is because of racism. Not coincidentally, this is the globalist message. All people are the same, the only thing that matters is economic growth, and nation-states will soon be a thing of the past.

Turns out, normal people have something to say about that.

I think the nationalism vs globalism framing is correct, but somehow misleading. I love the cultures of countries, but am a globalist.

I don't like that capital is far more global and well-treated than labour is, but at least the EU made some strides in the direction of more movement for people.

However, while in principle the EU is great (my only problem is that it isn't globalist enough), the practicalities seem to have been co-opted by international capital.

For instance, law-making powers are still reserved to the Commissioners. Politicians who never have to run for elections again are not the right people to put in such a role, and yet, that's what happens.

The Council of Ministers are even worse. All the national governments get together, fight, make a decision that the EU then implements, then each national government goes home and blames the EU for it.

Meanwhile, things that would actually make life better for the people of the EU (roaming charges are a good example) are held up for years because they damage sets of national interests.

Don't even get me started on the Euro.

On the other hand, the EU means that western europe and some of the rest has been in relative peace for over sixty years now, and there is definitely more of a sense of common identity across the countries, which is brilliant. We've changed from young men dying in the muck to old men arguing over idiocies, and while that's not a perfect change, its still better than the alternatives.

But the forces of maximising profit by shifting work to lower-cost countries are the real causes of the hollowing-out of much of the UK outside London. This, along with perceived loss of identity, causes those people to lose faith in all of the internationalist movements which are backed by capital, and vote Leave.

Just because something can be a racial dog-whistle doesn't mean that it's wrong or that it's always motivated by racism. I'm a Hispanic-American, the first generation born in America, and I'll be casting my ballot for Mr. Trump.

Here's my reasoning. Immigration has to be at levels, under conditions, and from cultures that are conducive to assimilation. I don't think we have that today, and what's being proposed by the other side is a big step in the wrong direction. Immigration to America works when it's a melting pot. When people are coming to work hard and to earn their own way, not to collect on generous benefits that would make them rich in their home country (edit:[1]). There was a time when a large percent of immigrants went home after a few years because they weren't cut out for America. America does not need millions of low-skill migrants; we already have more low-skilled people than our economy seems to be able to accommodate. Immigration must be for the benefit of the American people, not out of any sense of fairness or duty to potential migrants.

I'm not trying to convince you of my views here, just show you that it's not as simple as calling the other side a bunch of bigots. There's nothing inherently wrong with wanting to preserve your culture or to defend the interests of your nation.

[1] Clarifying in response to rconti below: I'm not saying that most immigrants are necessarily coming with the express intent on cashing in welfare checks. I think a welfare state is just not as capable of successfully integrating immigrants the way America has been able to in the past. I suspect generational poverty among descendants of immigrants since 1965 vs. descendants of those who came in the early 20th century and prior would show that (measuring one, two, three, and four generations out). I could be wrong and even if the statistics are on my side, there's so many confounding factors that I'd hesitate to declare victory on that basis.

As long as you're confident that, in fact, "these immigrants these days" aren't coming to the US to work any more, the same way "these kids these days" just want to play video games and type in emoji.

From where I sit, it seems that you're buying into a cultural narrative that has no data to support it. Not looking for an argument, just saying you might want to check your assumptions.

Every generation of new immigrants has always pushed hard to close the door behind them. Welcome to the club.

You're right racial comments are not necessarily wrong, but I think you're wrong to vote for Trump.

Just to avoid using very loaded words like "racist", I'm going to say I think we're all "culturist" to varying extents, which means we like people culturally like ourselves. We use race (or sometimes religion) as a proxy for this, because it's simpler - note that it tends to be the less articulate who do this. But actually it's having the same values, the same social habits and ceremonies and the same language to share them that binds us. Put another way, a black person who absorbs enough white culture is acceptable enough to be voted president; and a white person who absorbs black culture (Eminem) is viewed with suspicion by many white people. It's not the colour - it's the culture.

If you and I were not culturists, we'd probably look at immigration and say that there was an optimal size for a society inhabiting a particular part of the world, and we'd welcome people until we hit the limit. As with any population, some of those people would be a net drain on our society, and some would be a net asset.

In fact it's a lot better than that - numerous studies have found that immigrants tend on average to be far more productive than the population they are joining, and it makes perfect sense because by definition they had the vision, energy and resources to leave their old lives behind. I'm guessing you are a prime example of this. And it is this exact effect that made the US such a powerhouse - in the early 1900s they absorbed millions of the worlds brightest and best who then built the miracle that was 1950/60s America. Then they started putting the breaks on immigration, and... oh dear, the economy is faltering! Why ever could that be?

So it's generally accepted that immigration is not actually a serious problem, and it is only the most culturist and least successful members of our society who think it is because it gives them a convenient excuse for their circumstances. And any politician that tries to whip up support by shouting "immigrants are causing all our problems" automatically loses my respect because the argument is a fallacy, and they know it, but it's the oldest trick in the book to get the less fortunate to support you.

History is littered with politicians who used immigrants as scapegoats, and in every case it did not go well. Do you really want to vote for someone using the same tactics that Fascists used to get into power? And even if you decide immigration is a big enough issue for you, are you sure you want to support all his other policies? You really want to waste huge amounts of your country's resources building a totally ineffective wall? You really want to start profiling large segments of the population - a favourite tool of the most repressive regimes in history? And do you really want the US military to be at the whim of someone who loses his temper when a minor court case goes against him? You're going to vote for someone who promises he's squeaky clean but is the only candidate to refuse to release his tax records? Please use (or don't use) your vote wisely.

There's nothing wrong with liking your culture and wanting to preserve it, with wanting it to succeed. If that makes me a "culturalist" or "culturist" or whatever, then I'll wear the label proudly. When my family moved to this country, they decided to become Americans. That doesn't mean abandoning your heritage, or forgetting it--I love Cuban food, poetry, music, history, and humor--but it does mean embracing the society you moved to and raising your children in its values. Some of what we brought will seep into general American culture, and the rest will be relegated to the history books within a couple generations. That's the melting pot.

Mass migration to Europe from the Middle East is an unmitigated disaster, even before the current refugee crisis. France in particular is a good example of what can really go wrong with unmanaged immigration. You have second and third generation Muslims becoming more fundamentalist than their parents, developing incredible animosity toward the rest of France (and receiving it too). Without pointing fingers at whose fault it is, the French or the immigrants, it's a total disaster for both. It frankly doesn't matter whose fault it is, it should have never been allowed to happen. I'm incredibly alarmed that the left in America is totally and willfully blind to those risks. They call you racist and shout you down if you dare challenge them. They're promising to bring in hundreds of thousands of people from the Middle East. It will be millions if it goes the way of other promises that the American people have gotten on immigration.

We need to be very careful. We should accept the best and brightest from these countries. But we cannot repeat the horrible mistake that the Europeans have made.

Uncontrolled mass migration is new to America. For the first sixty years of the Republic, there was almost no immigration. Then until the early 1920s, immigration was mostly restricted to Europeans, who already had a great deal in common culturally with Americans. Then from the early 20s until the 1965 Immigration Act, there were strict quotas imposed per country-of-origin that slowed immigration to a trickle. (Though mass illegal immigration does predate the 1965 act by a few years, I believe.)

>And it is this exact effect that made the US such a powerhouse - in the early 1900s they absorbed millions of the worlds brightest and best who then built the miracle that was 1950/60s America. Then they started putting the breaks on immigration, and... oh dear, the economy is faltering! Why ever could that be?

The mass migration from Mexico into the US is not the brightest and most talented, it's Mexican peasants. There's nothing wrong with being a Mexican peasant, and I wish the best for them. The ones who are now my countrymen deserve the same consideration and acceptance as any American. But America does not need to import millions of peasants. They're a total mismatch for what our country needs, which is high-skill labor. We have enough low-skill workers that can't find jobs. I don't see how we benefit from adding more. Especially people with very low expectations for wages and the employer-employee relationship. Mexican poverty is Mexico's problem. Why do we need to make it America's problem too? We have our own problems to solve.

No one thinks the economy is faltering because we're not allowing enough immigration from Mexico. The idea is frankly a little ridiculous.

It didn't have to be this way. The American people have been making their views on this uncontrolled migration, on the wink-wink approach to illegal immigration in particular, very clear for a long time. They were sold a massive amnesty in 1986 in exchange for increased enforcement. It was a great humanitarian act, worthy of a great nation. It also ended up being a total and brazen lie by the politicians. The Democrats are happy to keep importing voters and the Republicans are happy to importing cheap labor. All while swindling the people. Time's up.


So I should vote for the other side that reflexively calls me racist and bigoted whenever I don't agree with them? The side that takes innocent cops that were defending their lives and ruins their careers and lives, so that Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton can advance theirs? The side that has forced colleges to lower the standard of evidence in college sexual assault cases, so young men can have their lives ruined by an accusation? The side that has invented a gender wage gap to sow division? The side that arranged to carry a massive banner at the front of the gay pride parade in NYC this weekend, saying "Republican Hate Kills"? The side that will try to destroy my career if I donate to the wrong political cause? Look, I can make your side look like demons too.

The attack on the judge was a bad move and poorly argued. Instead of "he's Mexican and I want to build a wall", he could have argued the defensible "he's associated himself with some Hispanic-American political groups that have political goals that I represent a huge threat to" (or really, just have left it alone). I would never join an organization called "La Raza", which literally means "The Race"; the thought is appalling to me, as it should be to you. It was appalling to Cesar Chavez, the left-wing Mexican-American civil rights activist, when they were first founded.

Trump has been in the public spotlight for decades, runs major companies with many employees, and no one ever thought to call him racist or accuse him of discrimination until he said he wanted to build a wall.


Hackernews is rate-limiting me, here's my response to maxerickson:


I stand corrected. Here are the Google search results for "Donald Trump racist" up to 2008, before his criticism of Obama got the word thrown around a ton. Almost everything comes from one guy's tell-all-type memoir (aka tabloid crap) and the rest speaks for itself as political opportunism. If anything, it actually helps prove my broader point about it being thrown around ridiculously.


Year 2000, people call Trump racist: http://graphics.boston.com/globe/nation/packages/gaming/part...

1993, Governor of Connecticut calls Trump bigoted: http://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/05/nyregion/weicker-apologize...

First link, they call him racist. Because he opposed their casino; zero evidence of racial bias, just cutthroat business. Seems like exactly what the GP is talking about - just throwing insults.

Second link is Trump pointing out exactly what the first article says! That X place wants to run a casino, but can't get legal permission. So they go to Indian tribes to get the legal part bypassed. It hardly seems bigoted to point out this is just exploiting a legal loophole.

It does everyone a disservice to so lightly throw around these words. If I were to start calling every panhandler/beggar that bothers me "assault", people would discount it. Same with all these accusations - they are losing their impact and people will start ignoring it. If Trump and the like are to be defeated, his opponents are going to have to come up with more substance instead of yelling "bigot".

(I'm in Guatemala, and some people here realise how good Trump will be for them. By blocking illegal Mexican immigration, if immigrants are needed, it'll open up more legal pathways for countries that aren't Mexico.)

No, you don't have to vote for the other side. But you're definitely voting for someone who is obviously going to be a poor leader. And he's demonstrated poor judgement over and over again. All the signs are out there but you choose to ignore them because you hate the other side so much. I cannot understand how a Hispanic can vote for someone who is so anti-Hispanic among other things. Are you HOPING that it's all an act? Really? This election is not a trick question. Many in the GOP have rejected him. Does that not count for anything?

We don't always get easy choices but I refuse to abdicate my responsibility to make the best choice for my country, even if it means swallowing some of my reservations. The other side has nominated an unprincipled criminal who has shown utter contempt for accountability in the course of her public service. Not to mention that I share about 0-5% of her policy views.

Aside from the whole judge debacle, which I concede can be seen that way, I don't see any evidence that Trump is anti-Hispanic. It's a nice narrative for the other side, because it turns off any thinking about the substance.

The GOP is unfortunately full of people who are more interested in abiding by liberal PC pieties, more interested in not being called racist, more interested in staying in power, than they are in actually delivering for their voters and for the American people. The Romney's and Bush's of the world just offer a slow-motion surrender instead of an overnight loss. Sometimes that's all you can get and it's better than nothing. Trump offered the base a chance to go all in. Despite his weaknesses, it's probably as good a timing as we will ever get.

Like I said in my topmost comment here, there's also the plain fact that many of these Republicans don't share the world view of the wing of the party that Trump represents. American parties are big tents with lots of room for ideological diversity. In countries with proportional systems, politicians have to negotiate with multiple parties to get a majority in Parliament. In America, that fight happens in the People.

Also, look, Trump is divisive obviously. He might win, but he's very controversial and has generated a lot of animosity, because he slaughters everyone's sacred cows. If he loses, some think it could damage the Republican brand for a long time, especially if our politically-correct culture continues down its current path. A lot of Republicans are trying to hedge their bets, to prevent another long-term calamity like the fallout from Goldwater's loss. I disagree with them, but I see where they're coming from.

> The other side has nominated an unprincipled criminal who has shown utter contempt for accountability in the course of her public service. This is really naive. Both sides are hardly saints. This sounds like a talking point from the GOP or Fox News.

So, after the Leavers won the #Brexit vote, we hear of these racist attacks on Polish immigrants by idiots emboldened by the vote result. I would not be surprised to see the same thing happen in the US.

A talking point from Fox News? This has been all over the media for months, even if some left-wing outfits have been trying to downplay it. If a normal government employee did what she did, they'd be out of a job, barred from ever having a security clearance again, and potentially facing criminal charges for the reckless handling of classified data. They'd almost certainly be facing criminal charges for destruction of evidence.

Also, have you not seen the large number of violent anti-Trump protesters attacking Trump supporters and police?

You need to add an extra newline to go to a new line btw.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/02/politics/donald-trump-californ... . It of course opens with the weasely "fair" opening sentence: "Protesters and supporters of Donald Trump clashed in the streets of San Jose, California, Thursday night after the presumptive GOP nominee held a rally." But the violence was exclusively in one direction, violent anti-Trump mobs attacking peaceful Trump supporters while waving Mexican flags and burning American ones. The biggest provocation from a Trump supporter was apparently waving the middle finger. A mob cornered her and threw eggs at her face. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc-quick-cuts/watch/trump-supporter-... At least she didn't have a bloodied face and need to be taken away in an ambulance, like some Trump supporters have. This has been playing out all over the US.

If you vote based on who has the most violent supporters, then you'd be crazy to cast your ballot for a left-winger in any Western country. There's a contingent of far-left protesters in the West that just cause mayhem at any major event, like party conventions, G8 summits, WTO summits, Davos, etc. You barely hear about it because it's basically background-noise to Western society at this point. I don't think it's fair to use this as a shot against everyone on the left, unless they're trying to accuse conservatives of violence, or unless they're purposefully tolerating or equivocating about the violence, like the mayor of San Jose did.

A couple of comments. Firstly, I strongly advise you to look at the repeated rise and decline of Silvio Berlusconi. I think Trump's awfully similar to Mr. Berlusconi in many ways, including some of the circumstances that caused Italians to elect him. Italian machismo has a different face than American machismo, but it's kind of the same. Mr. Berlusconi was not politically correct. The net result was a pretty poor PM... beyond scandals and giggle-worthy headlines, there really wasn't much policy advancement, unless it empowered Berlusconi's personal fortunes. He also was a leader that was not respected by the EU in any way, not a terribly good deal in this global world. The economy ended up stalled (Berlusconi fixed none of Italy's business structural problems)

Mr. Berlusconi was also anti-immigrant, similar to Trump (actually not quite as coarse, but no matter). It didn't matter much one way or another, frankly. I get the impression today's Italians don't look quite that fondly on that era.

I get that some of the above (the EU / global part) is part of the reason for things like Berlusconi, Trump, Brexit, etc. I also think, ironically, that any economic impact (which in some cases is big) might disproportionately affect many who vote for such things. Talent / company "brain drains" happened under Berlusconi, and it looks like the same will happen under Brexit. Those that can are more likely to move wherever the jobs and opportunities are. Those that can't end up in a not quite so enriched country. This really isn't a solution for the globalization / technology inequality problem. It might exaggerate it for all I know.

The second: Since 9/11, only two general classifications of terrorists have actually committed mass murder in America. The first is Islamic terrorists. The second is right-wing terrorists (right-wing as in: white supremacists, anti-semitism , militia types, anti-abortion advocates). Don't get me wrong -- the far left-wing certainly is capable of violence, the clashes at the Trump rallies are deplorable, and there have been murderous radical left terrorists in the past. But these days, I consider right-wing white supremacists in particular the most "likely to commit terrorism" category next to radical Islamists. I don't know of a left wing incident recently where a church was mass-shot; white supremacists have mass-shot two churches this decade.

It, of course, is not fair to use these right-wing white supremacists as a generalization of conservatives (as it would be the other way, as you say). But Donald Trump's unashamed nativism, macho authoritarianism, and identity politics does make me worry a bit whether this will encourage more white supremacists terrorism in the future. We'll see, I guess.


Citation needed. He's talked a lot about limiting Mexico's free access to free movement of people. This disproportionately affects Mexico and Mexicans, and their media reflects it!

Having gone through immigration ordeals, it's a slap in the face to embrace illegal immigration. I put up with the law, and it hurts me[1]. Others just say fuck it, run across, and that's supposed to be OK? Or more ridiculously, saying it's not OK is racist?

For every other country that's not Mexico, stemming Mexican immigration is a boon. Of course his words are spun to make people offended. I spoke to one woman here (Guatemala) who said "But he hates people like me". But when asked, she couldn't say why, she had just heard reports. After showing what he really said, she no longer believed it.

Oh, and immigration laws south of the US are a lot harsher than the US! My daughter's a Canadian-American in Guatemala. Since she doesn't have her GT passport, if she tries to leave the country, she owes a $4000 fine for being here illegally[2]. Imagine the backlash if the US imposed exit fines on such immigrants! I only point this out to highlight the absolute hypocrisy when these countries complain about US policies.

Let's face it: A huge chunk of the world population would jump at the chance to live in the US. Their countries would also love that, as remittances are a huge business. (Mexico gets what, $2BN a month? That's perhaps 1-2M households being supported?) If the US needs immigration, then they should do so in a fair-to-everyone way, not in a way that lets people get hurt, forces illegal crossings, allows Mexico to stop non-Mexicans from making the attempt, etc. And this also selects for "not the best people". The professional people I know in Latam would never dream of visa overstay, let alone illegal crossings. The ones I do know that gone illegally might be nice people, but they're hardly the top talent the US can attract.

People need to stop being hysterical, stop worrying about looking bad, and actually examine fairness and data to determine policy. Being anti-illegal-immigration is not racist by any means, and insisting so will just result in being ignored.

1: My daughter was killed indirectly due to immigration law forcing us to go to a poor country with junk healthcare.

2: Yes I can sort it out for probably half that amount. But the point remains.

I believe you can be anti-illegal-immigration and not racist. It's also not a stance that Trump or the GOP owns.

> People need to stop being hysterical Well, have you heard what's coming out of Trump's mouth? He's exploiting people's fear of Mexicans. That carelessness counts as being anti-Hispanic and also, have you heard what he said about that judge...

When Trump talks about building a wall (charging Mexico for it!) and deporting all illegal immigrants you can't ignore that pipe-dream. Somehow this guy is going to solve illegal immigration? That's why you're supporting him? Because why write this huge defence of him?

Again: What has trump said that's actually anti-Hispanic (not even just Mexican) or outright racist? I have looked up a lot of what Trump _exactly_ says. He's very careful with his words; people just project meaning into them to get the result they want.

All people have biases, even judges. The judge in question belongs to "La Raza Lawyers" ("The Race"). La Raza in general is very pro-immigration and doesn't like Trump's policies. Trump didn't say it was because he was Mexican heritage, he said it was because the judge kept ruling against him. But it's not crazy to think there may be some bias there, possibly.

I don't know why you think it's a pipe dream. Charging Mexico is trivial: Threaten the remittances. Tax them or just ban them (add more AML/KYC rules). Since there's 1-2M households depending on this income, even a 2 month interruption would devastate Mexico - they can't play around with it. As far as deporting people, the US deported 1M in a the 50s[1]. With social media and modern tech, it should be easy to surpass that number.

I'm not even supporting him here. I'm just annoyed that people that could take down Trump don't, and instead resort to baseless insults. We just saw this happen with Brexit. The Remain side, outside of debates, was a lot of "don't be racist" screaming. People are ignoring this kind of yelling, and it desensitizes people to actual racism.

This isn't really a good topic for HN, but please email me (see profile) so we can discuss more.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback

Are you the same type of person who accuses people of cultural appropriation? Does it exist or not? Is culture something worth cherishing and preserving and experiencing or is it too tribal for the modern era?

I had a great trip overseas recently. I loved being in a different place and in a different culture. I hope the people of that place continue their traditions because I want others to experience it as well.

I want my own culture to continue, as horrible as that might sound. It's not perfect, and its always changing for better or worse, but its my culture and I think there's value in its existence.

I think the way the recipe goes is something like this: any non-dominant culture is unique and worth preserving (however, it may not be appropriated by outsiders) and any dominant culture is not only oppressive by nature but not worth preserving (should be diluted) except where its philosophy is to prefer non-dominant culture --and it may be appropriated, most naturally.

Do you have a definition of culture? The argument for, or against, preserving it depends heavily on that definition.

I am from India. Millennia of foreign trade and coexistence with other religions yet preserved a cultural identity within most subgroups of Hinduism. This cultural identity relates to seasonal festivals, religious festivals, ceremonies related to events of life (such as birth of a child and marriage), etc.

During the last three decades, or so, we have been experiencing a new wave of globalisation. It has resulted in a growing trend of identity and relationships getting determined solely based on economic factors. This relentless drive for financial growth has largely relegated the cultural legacy to the fringes.

One of the most visible social consequences is that of alienation. Common gatherings and celebrations are rare except in the cases of two or three high-profile festivals. Neighbours do not know one another; they do not talk to one another except for a mechanical "Hello"; they do not have a few moments for one another's needs.

Culturally, these people have - if at all - erred on the side of being "nosy", not alien. But, that is the new reality.

Similarly, those parts of culture that relate to the softer or the subtler aspects of Nature are dying a rapid death. Examples include the harvest festival (makara sankranti) and celebrating Sun (ratha saptami). A natural consequence of this is that people are losing touch with Nature, an appreciation for it, and spend most of their time indoors. There is little to no physical exercise outdoors.

It can be argued that gyms and other exercise regimen should be followed, etc. However, I see more value in having a culture that seamlessly integrates them into everyday life.

Finally, I am at a loss to understand how exactly this relates to racism. Any such connotations have to be tacked on; they are not intrinsic to culture.

A good portion of mainstream American and European liberals would consider Jewish culture to be a real thing that deserves preserving, even while they claim that saying the same thing about any other culture or identity is racist

What is Jewish culture? Jews are as diverse a group as any other group. Jewish culture includes everything from religious nut jobs, to academia, to gay rights, to you name it. Jews are a extremely wide spectrum of opinion. Probably all spectrum of opinion is covered by Jews. So yeah let's preserve that. Let's preserve my Jewish culture, though I am not a Jew I share the same culture of all human opinions.

I love my country[1] Europe which is secular, hedonistic, sexually liberated and with gender equality. I want to preserve it that way.

[1] I do think of it that way.

Funny, "Dog-whistle" is the loudest dog-whistle I know, for strawmanning. "We all know what you really mean, wink wink, nod nod, and therefor you are a bigot / racist / etc."

this comment being downvoted is great testament to the political and, even more important, social inaptness of the highly brainwa... err... educated tech community. not funny.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact