Schisms on the Left: The Immigration Policy of Jacinda Arderns Labour Governent.
A couple of nights ago, while happily trawling the squeals of terror, prophesies of doom and the great wailing and gnashing of teeth emanating from various so called "centrist" MSM pundits, bloggers, social media commenters from the right, in the wake of the brand new Labour coalition government, my sense of satisfaction was some what disturbed by a post from somebody I follow on the left criticising James Shaw's comments on questions around Labour's immigration policy.
It seems for some, no party will be left enough, hence why tie right often get in.
His concerns related specifically to a comment along the lines of "I think its more about the 'quality' of immigration", Made by James Shaw- currently solo co-leader of the Greens.In attempting to point out what I think are pragmatic arguments for reducing immigration numbers, at least for the time being, I inadvertently got into a twitter spat with Giovani Tiso, a self described writer, humanist "scientist and saint" with aroung 8,000 followers. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume this last part of his description is tongue in cheek, as it turned out he's mostly a translator.
In an attempt to be more diplomatic, and on the advice of another twitterite, and entertaining for a moment the spurious proposition that my opinion actually matters, this is a rewording of my initial flaming.
- Here goes.
Apparently suggesting that Labour's policies on immigration are pretty reasonable and that families sleeping in cars can't afford “comfortable bourgeois neo liberal globalism” is, as later claimed by Giovanni, "toxic".
I also infer that suggesting that right now we possibly don't have the housing, infrastructure or services, at least in the main centers, to keep up with the current extraordinarily high rates of immigration would also
be considered "toxic” by Tiso and others.
Perhaps he would take a different view if he had niece in pain who needed surgery and was constantly neng put off because the hospital was under resourced.
I assume this adjective, judging by Tiso's replies, would also apply pointing out that many immigrants are being paid crap wages and exploited, which could reasonably be expected to put downward pressure on wages and undermines all workers.
Who knew?
Giovanni also stated that Labour & The Greens et al campaigned on a platform of "slashing immigration",
I guess I must have missed that campaign advert.
It has been said that this kind of knee jerk, ideological response to anyone pointing out that their may
be valid reasons for limiting immigration is exactly why the UK and US have ended up with
Brexit and Trump.
I'm inclined to agree, along with of course the corrosive neo liberal policies and the great inequality they bring that have held sway in the west for 35 years.
I think it's fair to say that some on the left need to put reality ahead of some aspects of their intractable ideology and realise that they are being manipulated by the very arch capitalists they claim to despise, that tthey are effectively if inadvertently, taking a dirty great dump on the workers they claim to
represent.
Neolibrealism, and it's policy partners globalism, mass immigration, and 'free trade' are all very well and good when you live in a charming villa in a leafy suburb of Auckland or else where and and are not struggling to survive.
In reality of course, Labour at least, are talking about reducing the numbers a bit, not ethnic bloody cleansing, lets not start frothing at the mouth here.
To counter another point made, I'm pretty damn sure, but correct me if I'm wrong, that trying to match skills to shortages in immigration policy is pretty bloody standard practice in many countries.
Making things up to bolster a failing argument is never particularly admirable.
I did agree with Giovanni that a lottery system could perhaps be a workable system, however, I fail to
see the point of bringing in people for whom jobs will be scarce, adding to our unemployment problems, and
for whom there is little affordable housing available, especially when those already here are struggling to
find a home as it is.
It's likely best for all concerned therefore, if we match immigration to skills we actually need, those who can help make New Zealand a more prosperous country, in numbers we can house and for whom decent jobs actually exist.
Some times, when you’re dealing with intractable ideologues, it feels a bit like the classic chess board analogy, it’s like playing chess with a pigeon, they run around in circles knocking all the pieces over,
shit all over the board, and then strut around acting like they won.
After failing, I feel, to meaningfully counter a single point I had made, Giovanni then had the bad taste to
go back to his coterie of followers and complain that one statement – “bringing in loads of people who are willing to work for low wages (because it’s a comparative fortune compared to what they earn at home)
puts downward pressure on wages for other workers” – simply an observation of an economic reality that I think few would seriously attempt to debate - was "toxic".
I say good luck with that, many observers have surmised that not acknowledging this truth is how you hand power to right wing fascists, that this sort of lack of insight is predominantly why Clinton lost (and not as is argued by the democratic establishment apologists, because of Russian interference, discredited by Chris Hedges among others), not to mention how that nutter Nutall of Ukip was able to successfully bring about a
referendum in favour of Brexit, a move which may yet prove not be with out merit in the long run.
The argument goes that many workers feel left behind by the establishment "left" neo liberal policies of
recent decades.
Their jobs have been shifted overseas in order to create incalculable profits for the corporations. Wages
have stagnated and unrestrained immigration has created competition for scarce jobs at home, thereby
contributing to the tension and sentiment that Giovanni professes to fear.
Some on the left need to stop undermining workers and the ordinary people they’re supposed to represent, in effect playing into the hands of the right wing cryptofascist capitalists they claim to despise.
You know something is wrong when those on the left are defending the policies of the national government, and parroting the views of right wing pundits.
The right have not suddenly lost their characteristic conservatism and distaste for other cultures. They merely see the gains to be made in driving down wages and pumping up property prices. They want slaves for the factory or the farm, and competition for their property portfolios, they don't mind having a few different flavours of restaurant to go to, but they'll still stay, along with many of their left of center allies on this issue, in their waspish cul de sacs and gated communities, thank you very much. Real cosmopolitanism, is still predominantly a street level, working class phenomenon.
But that's always where the life is, and long may it last.
Before anyone else jumps on the bandwagon, in as much as it matters what I think, I favour upping the refugee quota. Obviously, desperate need is a different story.
Neither am I in any way attempting to act as an apologist for Garners recent ham fisted and now infamous "human snake"opinion piece, which quite obviously contains extremely thread bare and thinly veiled strains of racism and xenophobia.
NZ can be a homogeneous, provincial and backward country in certain quarters, we need immigration to enliven our culture and bring new ideas and approaches, and help bear the burden of paying for a looming flood of retiring baby boomers. We have plenty of room, but not presently the infrastructure.
Regards other arguments that were made, lowering immigration is not “punishing immigrant workers” no
one is talking about dawn raids. For those that are already here, there will be less competition for work and housing, which should lead to improved conditions.
At one point, I related a tale about my granddad, who was once a union rep at a mill in Canada. American investors bought the mill and it was a common ploy at the time to ship in a few hundred poor Pakistanis
to break the unions. This is a well known strategy to keep wages low.
Tiso replied with the response, "Were they protected by the law, were they able to unionise?" The jaw dropping naivety of this statement floored me. Claiming that because migrant labour is subject to the same laws as anyone else in absolutely no way counters the argument that those workers are often exploited. Especially in a country with weak unions, and in non unionised workforces, like construction contracting. The stakes of potential unemployment for someone on a work visa are also much higher for obvious reasons.
That’s a facile argument and one that is not born out by reality. Paying people minimum wage for hard, dangerous work, treating them badly, working them ridiculous hours, sometimes while also charging them exorbitant rates for accommodation; these may be legal practices, in fact they are de rigueur for NZ's rentier society on a national scale, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t exploitative.
I suspect that kind of statement could only be made, I’m sorry, by somebody who’s never done a real days hard work on a building site in their lives, has probably never set foot on a farm, orchard or other worksite, and doesn’t know anybody who has either.
This was possibly the most infuriating of Tiso’s patronising calls. “Oh my god, you didn’t even know that immigrants are subject to the same laws, I suggest you shut up now”
- This one comment suggests a level of ignorance and inability to make a rational argument that astounds me, especially from somebody who claims to be “a humanist, a scientist, a saint” and claims to contribute to various humanist publications. It’s the kind of feeble minded idiocy that I would expect from a pimply alt right libertarian Ayn Rand worshipper, not someone on the left who claims to write
professionally.
With these kind of allies on the left, who needs enemies!?
Now, to be fair, on Tiso’s side, I agree that we should be taxing global corporations who do business here and taxing the wealthy who profit most from our tax payer funded infrastructure appropriately, we should be investing in new infrastructure to meet increasing demand, raising the minimum wage and enforcing employment law thereby raising conditions for everyone.
However, again, here in the real world, we can’t just change NZ’s economic landscape overnight, nor can we instantly undo 9 years of the National Party’s inept mismanagement; lax regulation on property investment, including foreign investment, and under investment in infrastructure.
Ramping down immigration while we play catch up is not “punishing anyone”, nor is it inciting “racism” or “dog whistling”. It is a pragmatic and sensible response to stretched infrastructure and a lack of capacity to absorb greater numbers of people, regardless of ethnicity.
I understand that as (I assume as I never got to ask) an immigrant himself, Giovanni might feel threatened by
any discussion of limiting immigration numbers, my friend, an immigrant construction worker and skilled mason from Scotland does, but he also shares the pragmatic concerns that many do regards vast numbers, shonky schemes, and getting people with skills we can use.
Gio’s concerns about James Shaw’s recent comments -something along the lines of “it’s more around the ‘quality’ of immigration”, may bear some consideration.
I would have thought Shaw was probably referring to those dodgy schemes in which people pay middlemen to arrange student visas for questionable sham courses as a back door to residency, and then find themselves exploited in schemes run by unscrupulous employers.
Though perhaps an unfortunate choice words, the phrase could also be referring to the “quality” of the skills of immigrants when matched to shortages.
If we are determined to dissect and read meaning into every word of every statement, we are bound to find things to get offended by, but I understand the sentiment of warning he expresses around this. As if we
might be talking about the “quality” of human beings and whether or not they meet our “standards”.
From a humanist perspective, this is a dangerous worldview to entertain, but I’m also pretty confident that James Shaw is a good sort and that’s not what he meant, otherwise I wouldn’t have voted for him. Unlike Giovanni, I don’t purport to have telepathy and know exactly what he meant in the few sentences he gave in reply to the journalists question, but I've seen nothing to mark him out as some kind of closet elitist fascist.
Finally, if Giovanni, or anyone else, wishes to quote any one of the points I’ve made and characterise them
as “toxic” then I think they have utterly failed to understand the issues at hand, have no respect for the
valid concerns of a great many well meaning people, and that such an attempt to pillory somebody for positing rational viewpoints and observations is itself highly toxic.
Toxic to debate and the exchange of ideas, unjustified and delusional. Those who wish to seize such observations and consign them to a basket of unacceptable views have consigned themselves to the wasteland of irrelevancy.
They may parrot their sentiments in their various echo chambers, but they will have negligible affect on opinions generally, or on any real world outcomes other than stifling debate and damaging the progressive cause -a loss to the world as it really is, a world to which it appears ideologues on both the left and right
have lost all but the most tenuous thread of connection.
It is true, to be fair, that Twitter, like most social media platforms and internet forums, is is a treacherous forum for the discussion of ideas.
It’s far easier, in such a forum, less time consuming and in some ways more entertaining to use simplistic arguments, slang and well known lines like “chardonnay socialist” (for which I was soundly chastised) than it is to clearly communicate your ideas.
- But when you have limited space, when every body knows that the unbending air of the moral high
ground is often affected by those who are in a comfortable position and have little personal experience, or much to do with those on the receiving end of the repercussions of particular positions they defend, everybody knows what “Chardonnay Socialist” means.
Ultimately, I share Tiso’s contention that we can’t lay the blame for all our woes at the foot of immigration, that deeper structural problems are at play, including broadening the tax base, and not least, bank created
debt based currency providing almost unlimited reserves for our housing ponzi scheme; something none of the party’s will discuss, and a problem, as Chris Trotter recently wrote, blatantly denied by Michael Cullen who still mystifyingly makes the laughable and demonstrably false assertion that “banks lend other peoples deposits”.
Immigration is, however a piece of the puzzle that does need regulating, at least until those deeper
structural problems can be reckoned with.
To claim that we can continue to grow our population by a factor equivalent to a smaller city
(around 70,000 people) every year without consequences is ludicrous, especially when the majority are moving to one place. Auckland.
Regardless, as I said, after attempting to reverse the digression of the exchange, I stated that I agreed with ‘Gio’ on 99 percent of issues, I was happy to leave it at that and agree to disagree.
It was his foolish decision to attempt to characterise grounded statements of fact, that no one who understood the issues would disagree with as “toxic”.
It is here that I, many humanist allies, and I think most reasonable people, part ways with the delusional,
self righteous, logically and rationally impaired identity politics left.
All together, it’s true that the last thing the left needs is infighting. Inflexible ideology, knee jerk responses and personal insults both are best avoided if possible, and I am guilty of both on occasion.
It seems for some, no party will be left enough, hence why tie right often get in.
His concerns related specifically to a comment along the lines of "I think its more about the 'quality' of immigration", Made by James Shaw- currently solo co-leader of the Greens.In attempting to point out what I think are pragmatic arguments for reducing immigration numbers, at least for the time being, I inadvertently got into a twitter spat with Giovani Tiso, a self described writer, humanist "scientist and saint" with aroung 8,000 followers. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and assume this last part of his description is tongue in cheek, as it turned out he's mostly a translator.
In an attempt to be more diplomatic, and on the advice of another twitterite, and entertaining for a moment the spurious proposition that my opinion actually matters, this is a rewording of my initial flaming.
- Here goes.
Apparently suggesting that Labour's policies on immigration are pretty reasonable and that families sleeping in cars can't afford “comfortable bourgeois neo liberal globalism” is, as later claimed by Giovanni, "toxic".
I also infer that suggesting that right now we possibly don't have the housing, infrastructure or services, at least in the main centers, to keep up with the current extraordinarily high rates of immigration would also
be considered "toxic” by Tiso and others.
Perhaps he would take a different view if he had niece in pain who needed surgery and was constantly neng put off because the hospital was under resourced.
I assume this adjective, judging by Tiso's replies, would also apply pointing out that many immigrants are being paid crap wages and exploited, which could reasonably be expected to put downward pressure on wages and undermines all workers.
Who knew?
Giovanni also stated that Labour & The Greens et al campaigned on a platform of "slashing immigration",
I guess I must have missed that campaign advert.
It has been said that this kind of knee jerk, ideological response to anyone pointing out that their may
be valid reasons for limiting immigration is exactly why the UK and US have ended up with
Brexit and Trump.
I'm inclined to agree, along with of course the corrosive neo liberal policies and the great inequality they bring that have held sway in the west for 35 years.
I think it's fair to say that some on the left need to put reality ahead of some aspects of their intractable ideology and realise that they are being manipulated by the very arch capitalists they claim to despise, that tthey are effectively if inadvertently, taking a dirty great dump on the workers they claim to
represent.
Neolibrealism, and it's policy partners globalism, mass immigration, and 'free trade' are all very well and good when you live in a charming villa in a leafy suburb of Auckland or else where and and are not struggling to survive.
In reality of course, Labour at least, are talking about reducing the numbers a bit, not ethnic bloody cleansing, lets not start frothing at the mouth here.
To counter another point made, I'm pretty damn sure, but correct me if I'm wrong, that trying to match skills to shortages in immigration policy is pretty bloody standard practice in many countries.
Making things up to bolster a failing argument is never particularly admirable.
I did agree with Giovanni that a lottery system could perhaps be a workable system, however, I fail to
see the point of bringing in people for whom jobs will be scarce, adding to our unemployment problems, and
for whom there is little affordable housing available, especially when those already here are struggling to
find a home as it is.
It's likely best for all concerned therefore, if we match immigration to skills we actually need, those who can help make New Zealand a more prosperous country, in numbers we can house and for whom decent jobs actually exist.
Some times, when you’re dealing with intractable ideologues, it feels a bit like the classic chess board analogy, it’s like playing chess with a pigeon, they run around in circles knocking all the pieces over,
shit all over the board, and then strut around acting like they won.
After failing, I feel, to meaningfully counter a single point I had made, Giovanni then had the bad taste to
go back to his coterie of followers and complain that one statement – “bringing in loads of people who are willing to work for low wages (because it’s a comparative fortune compared to what they earn at home)
puts downward pressure on wages for other workers” – simply an observation of an economic reality that I think few would seriously attempt to debate - was "toxic".
I say good luck with that, many observers have surmised that not acknowledging this truth is how you hand power to right wing fascists, that this sort of lack of insight is predominantly why Clinton lost (and not as is argued by the democratic establishment apologists, because of Russian interference, discredited by Chris Hedges among others), not to mention how that nutter Nutall of Ukip was able to successfully bring about a
referendum in favour of Brexit, a move which may yet prove not be with out merit in the long run.
The argument goes that many workers feel left behind by the establishment "left" neo liberal policies of
recent decades.
Their jobs have been shifted overseas in order to create incalculable profits for the corporations. Wages
have stagnated and unrestrained immigration has created competition for scarce jobs at home, thereby
contributing to the tension and sentiment that Giovanni professes to fear.
Some on the left need to stop undermining workers and the ordinary people they’re supposed to represent, in effect playing into the hands of the right wing cryptofascist capitalists they claim to despise.
You know something is wrong when those on the left are defending the policies of the national government, and parroting the views of right wing pundits.
The right have not suddenly lost their characteristic conservatism and distaste for other cultures. They merely see the gains to be made in driving down wages and pumping up property prices. They want slaves for the factory or the farm, and competition for their property portfolios, they don't mind having a few different flavours of restaurant to go to, but they'll still stay, along with many of their left of center allies on this issue, in their waspish cul de sacs and gated communities, thank you very much. Real cosmopolitanism, is still predominantly a street level, working class phenomenon.
But that's always where the life is, and long may it last.
Before anyone else jumps on the bandwagon, in as much as it matters what I think, I favour upping the refugee quota. Obviously, desperate need is a different story.
Neither am I in any way attempting to act as an apologist for Garners recent ham fisted and now infamous "human snake"opinion piece, which quite obviously contains extremely thread bare and thinly veiled strains of racism and xenophobia.
NZ can be a homogeneous, provincial and backward country in certain quarters, we need immigration to enliven our culture and bring new ideas and approaches, and help bear the burden of paying for a looming flood of retiring baby boomers. We have plenty of room, but not presently the infrastructure.
Regards other arguments that were made, lowering immigration is not “punishing immigrant workers” no
one is talking about dawn raids. For those that are already here, there will be less competition for work and housing, which should lead to improved conditions.
At one point, I related a tale about my granddad, who was once a union rep at a mill in Canada. American investors bought the mill and it was a common ploy at the time to ship in a few hundred poor Pakistanis
to break the unions. This is a well known strategy to keep wages low.
Tiso replied with the response, "Were they protected by the law, were they able to unionise?" The jaw dropping naivety of this statement floored me. Claiming that because migrant labour is subject to the same laws as anyone else in absolutely no way counters the argument that those workers are often exploited. Especially in a country with weak unions, and in non unionised workforces, like construction contracting. The stakes of potential unemployment for someone on a work visa are also much higher for obvious reasons.
That’s a facile argument and one that is not born out by reality. Paying people minimum wage for hard, dangerous work, treating them badly, working them ridiculous hours, sometimes while also charging them exorbitant rates for accommodation; these may be legal practices, in fact they are de rigueur for NZ's rentier society on a national scale, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t exploitative.
I suspect that kind of statement could only be made, I’m sorry, by somebody who’s never done a real days hard work on a building site in their lives, has probably never set foot on a farm, orchard or other worksite, and doesn’t know anybody who has either.
This was possibly the most infuriating of Tiso’s patronising calls. “Oh my god, you didn’t even know that immigrants are subject to the same laws, I suggest you shut up now”
- This one comment suggests a level of ignorance and inability to make a rational argument that astounds me, especially from somebody who claims to be “a humanist, a scientist, a saint” and claims to contribute to various humanist publications. It’s the kind of feeble minded idiocy that I would expect from a pimply alt right libertarian Ayn Rand worshipper, not someone on the left who claims to write
professionally.
With these kind of allies on the left, who needs enemies!?
Now, to be fair, on Tiso’s side, I agree that we should be taxing global corporations who do business here and taxing the wealthy who profit most from our tax payer funded infrastructure appropriately, we should be investing in new infrastructure to meet increasing demand, raising the minimum wage and enforcing employment law thereby raising conditions for everyone.
However, again, here in the real world, we can’t just change NZ’s economic landscape overnight, nor can we instantly undo 9 years of the National Party’s inept mismanagement; lax regulation on property investment, including foreign investment, and under investment in infrastructure.
Ramping down immigration while we play catch up is not “punishing anyone”, nor is it inciting “racism” or “dog whistling”. It is a pragmatic and sensible response to stretched infrastructure and a lack of capacity to absorb greater numbers of people, regardless of ethnicity.
I understand that as (I assume as I never got to ask) an immigrant himself, Giovanni might feel threatened by
any discussion of limiting immigration numbers, my friend, an immigrant construction worker and skilled mason from Scotland does, but he also shares the pragmatic concerns that many do regards vast numbers, shonky schemes, and getting people with skills we can use.
Gio’s concerns about James Shaw’s recent comments -something along the lines of “it’s more around the ‘quality’ of immigration”, may bear some consideration.
I would have thought Shaw was probably referring to those dodgy schemes in which people pay middlemen to arrange student visas for questionable sham courses as a back door to residency, and then find themselves exploited in schemes run by unscrupulous employers.
Though perhaps an unfortunate choice words, the phrase could also be referring to the “quality” of the skills of immigrants when matched to shortages.
If we are determined to dissect and read meaning into every word of every statement, we are bound to find things to get offended by, but I understand the sentiment of warning he expresses around this. As if we
might be talking about the “quality” of human beings and whether or not they meet our “standards”.
From a humanist perspective, this is a dangerous worldview to entertain, but I’m also pretty confident that James Shaw is a good sort and that’s not what he meant, otherwise I wouldn’t have voted for him. Unlike Giovanni, I don’t purport to have telepathy and know exactly what he meant in the few sentences he gave in reply to the journalists question, but I've seen nothing to mark him out as some kind of closet elitist fascist.
Finally, if Giovanni, or anyone else, wishes to quote any one of the points I’ve made and characterise them
as “toxic” then I think they have utterly failed to understand the issues at hand, have no respect for the
valid concerns of a great many well meaning people, and that such an attempt to pillory somebody for positing rational viewpoints and observations is itself highly toxic.
Toxic to debate and the exchange of ideas, unjustified and delusional. Those who wish to seize such observations and consign them to a basket of unacceptable views have consigned themselves to the wasteland of irrelevancy.
They may parrot their sentiments in their various echo chambers, but they will have negligible affect on opinions generally, or on any real world outcomes other than stifling debate and damaging the progressive cause -a loss to the world as it really is, a world to which it appears ideologues on both the left and right
have lost all but the most tenuous thread of connection.
It is true, to be fair, that Twitter, like most social media platforms and internet forums, is is a treacherous forum for the discussion of ideas.
It’s far easier, in such a forum, less time consuming and in some ways more entertaining to use simplistic arguments, slang and well known lines like “chardonnay socialist” (for which I was soundly chastised) than it is to clearly communicate your ideas.
- But when you have limited space, when every body knows that the unbending air of the moral high
ground is often affected by those who are in a comfortable position and have little personal experience, or much to do with those on the receiving end of the repercussions of particular positions they defend, everybody knows what “Chardonnay Socialist” means.
Ultimately, I share Tiso’s contention that we can’t lay the blame for all our woes at the foot of immigration, that deeper structural problems are at play, including broadening the tax base, and not least, bank created
debt based currency providing almost unlimited reserves for our housing ponzi scheme; something none of the party’s will discuss, and a problem, as Chris Trotter recently wrote, blatantly denied by Michael Cullen who still mystifyingly makes the laughable and demonstrably false assertion that “banks lend other peoples deposits”.
Immigration is, however a piece of the puzzle that does need regulating, at least until those deeper
structural problems can be reckoned with.
To claim that we can continue to grow our population by a factor equivalent to a smaller city
(around 70,000 people) every year without consequences is ludicrous, especially when the majority are moving to one place. Auckland.
Regardless, as I said, after attempting to reverse the digression of the exchange, I stated that I agreed with ‘Gio’ on 99 percent of issues, I was happy to leave it at that and agree to disagree.
It was his foolish decision to attempt to characterise grounded statements of fact, that no one who understood the issues would disagree with as “toxic”.
It is here that I, many humanist allies, and I think most reasonable people, part ways with the delusional,
self righteous, logically and rationally impaired identity politics left.
All together, it’s true that the last thing the left needs is infighting. Inflexible ideology, knee jerk responses and personal insults both are best avoided if possible, and I am guilty of both on occasion.
BUT, (there is always a but…). I won’t accept being pilloried for expressing
views that are grounded and reasonable, and I guarantee I can give any
dismissive, self satisfied ideologue a decent run for their money, I’ll trade
scathing insults with the best of them, if it comes to that, though it’s less than
constructive.
I do wonder, however, if it isn’t easier to just block those who refuse to respect other views and engage reasonably, who are so self assured of their own superiority they feel they can dismiss others on a whim and attempt to make them the victim of some sort of social media borg mind lynching.
Because the alternative, like this belaboured minor essay, seems highly likely to elicit the simple response
of “Who cares, TL:DR”
I do wonder, however, if it isn’t easier to just block those who refuse to respect other views and engage reasonably, who are so self assured of their own superiority they feel they can dismiss others on a whim and attempt to make them the victim of some sort of social media borg mind lynching.
Because the alternative, like this belaboured minor essay, seems highly likely to elicit the simple response
of “Who cares, TL:DR”
Comments
Post a Comment