Earlier quoted context omitted.
Okay I'm going to spell out a major factor then. What this poster was implying that they are against immigrants because they believe immigrants are inherently prone to corruption based on their country of origin. This ignores centuries of confounding factors such as possible imperial rule, internal resources collapse, or failed economic experiments and makes it purely about nationality. Somewhat importantly, op only…
So here's what he/she said: > "Why some places are corrupt and others aren't is poorly understood magic of some sort. One fairly decent guess is something like "cultural factors" - Danish bureaucrats aren't corrupt because they expect that other non-corrupt Danes would punish them for it." How did you make the leap from 'cultural factors' to "immigrants are inherently prone to corruption based on their country of ori…
I hope so, but threads like these are depressing.
It's a good thing to point out that argument is often used as veiled racism, or to explain how the underlying dynamic might be more racist than we might be aware of. But what I'm seeing here is false equivalence: "because racists say , is a racist argument merely by association. or too close for comfort to be able to discuss at all." This shuts down any conversation and the person holding view walks away feeling misjudged and quite likely still holding view because we humans have trouble separating a good argument from any judgment that comes with it.
I would very much like it if we could avoid that here, even if we know for a fact that the person bringing forward argument is an actual racist.