![]() |
![]() |
#11 | ||||
Power Femme
How Do You Identify?:
Cinnamon spiced, caramel colored, power-femme Preferred Pronoun?:
She Relationship Status:
Married to a wonderful horse girl Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Lat: 45.60 Lon: -122.60
Posts: 1,733
Thanks: 1,132
Thanked 6,844 Times in 1,493 Posts
Rep Power: 21474852 ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() Quote:
Except people keep bending over backwards to make it clear that they aren't saying that the people HERE believe the law to be just. Now, I am curious if a boycott and/or mass exodus of Hispanics is NOT the answer, what is? Let's grant, for the moment, that a boycott isn't the way to deal with this? What then? Obviously we know how this turns out at the ballot box--the backers, proponent and apologists for this law win. So if money continues to pour into Arizona then there is no economic consequence to be paid for this law. So politicians who backed the law pay no political price and the state, as a whole, pays no economic price. At that point what is there to discourage Arizona from passing an even more draconian law? That pretty much leaves the mass exodus of Hispanics which I still hold would probably be the *most* effective form of protest. At first, one might witness the spectacle of Arizonans singing "na na na, na na na, hey hey hey, good-bye" and that would probably go through the wave. After that, well, it starts to have an economic effect. Suddenly there are a lot fewer people doing everything from washing dishes to teaching classes. As I said yesterday, when they leave their dollars go with them. Tax revenues decline. The tourism and hospitality sectors of the economy will be hit particularly hard as they lose cheap labor. I get it that the Arizonans don't want any of these things to happen to their state. I fully understand that. However, it makes no sense to suggest that those either targeted by this law or horrified by it simply shrug our collective shoulders in order to avoid hurting someone's feelings. Quote:
"In 1940, America was a fundamentally racist country." Now, according to the logic being deployed here, I have just claimed that every single American living in the borders of this country in December 1940 was a racist. I have insulted--personally--every single American living at that time. Except I haven't. My parents were alive in 1940, both of them turned 18 that year. They were the *targets* of racism but they were not, themselves, racism. Does that mean that America wasn't a fundamentally racist country? No, the statement still stands because the *laws* of America mandated segregation in public accommodation, the military, etc. One can make the observation that America was a racist nation in 1940 and *still* not be saying something that any given person alive in 1940 was a racist. Likewise, one can say that Arizona has passed a law that is an invitation to racial profiling without saying that any given Arizonan is in favor of racial profiling. Quote:
However, I'm all ears. If a boycott isn't the answer and a mass exodus of Hispanics isn't the answer, what is? Quote:
Cheers Aj
__________________
Proud member of the reality-based community. "People on the side of The People always ended up disappointed, in any case. They found that The People tended not to be grateful or appreciative or forward-thinking or obedient. The People tended to be small-minded and conservative and not very clever and were even distrustful of cleverness. And so, the children of the revolution were faced with the age-old problem: it wasn’t that you had the wrong kind of government, which was obvious, but that you had the wrong kind of people. As soon as you saw people as things to be measured, they didn’t measure up." (Terry Pratchett) |
||||
![]() |
![]() |
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to dreadgeek For This Useful Post: |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|