More race-baiting in the immigration debate

Here's an interchange from the NYTimes Exiles Immigration forum. A participant named theCap0 quoted part of a posting of mine, to wit:

me:
...So in that light, perhaps "European" would care to enlighten us about Europe's no doubt vastly superior model for accommodating large numbers of illegal immigrants (and legal ones, for that matter). How all those Muslims and Blacks and Caribbeans and Pakistanis and Indians work and live happily shoulder to shoulder with native Euros in the UK, Germany, Italy, Spain, France etc.

theCap0:
Your little essay on logic (and, BTW, it was Mill, not Locke, who developed the theory of utilitarianism) was fairly convincing, until your last paragraph, which is quoted above.
There you, like all the 'phobes on this forum demonsrate that your issue, once again, is not migration but non-white migration.

The simple fact was, is, and forever will remain the color of the migrants at issue. Whether in the deep recesses of your being you want to admit it or not, the issue with you and your ilk is what you see as the loss of domination of the culture by white, Christian folks. If today the migrants were blond haired, blue eyed Scaninavians, we would not be hearing a peep from you.

To which I responded:
Still trying to change the topic from immigration to people's motives, I see. When this website starts a forum titled "Ehkzu's motives" we can talk about my motives. Until then you're off topic. Try to address the actual arguments for once.

And once again, for the benefit of readers who may fall into this little trap, I'll explain:

In any debate the motives of the debater matter when the debater has based her argument on her personal reputation--some variant of "trust me." However, when the debater relies on logic and independently verifiable facts--and not on personal reputation--accusations about motives are a dirty trick--the sort of thing Karl Rove specializes in, though he's got plenty of company.

It's a dirty trick because it's at attempt to change the subject, and it's so emotionally charged you'll be tempted to forget what you were discussing and rush to defend your honor. Resist! Call the other person on it and challenge her to deal with the actual items being debated.

And of course I've done no such thing here. How could I? We're all anonymous in this forum, so I couldn't reasonably ask anyone to trust me personally even if I wanted to. My arguments are based on logic and independently verifiable facts. Period. So feel free to imagine that I'm a card-carrying member of--what's that called?--the Christian Identity Church, which champions a racist theology. Or the Aryan Nation. Or Mecha. Whatever.

Reader, you'll run into this sort of underhanded tactic so often when discussing politics that you really need a slime shield. I recommend "Crimes Against Logic" by Jamie Whyte, a past lecturer of philosophy at Cambridge University who lives in London. It's only 157 pages long and well worth reading. Especially because he's so readable. Here's an example that's germane to this discussion:

Political Motives

The Motive Fallacy is so common in politics that serious policy debate is almost nonexistent. The announcement of a new policy is greeted, not with a discussion of its alleged merits, but with a flurry of speculation from journalists and political opponents regarding the politician's motives for announcing it.

...

Journalists and politicans now devote their attention to instegigating the possible causes rather than the likely effects of their opponents' policies.

...

Good actions can be performed for bad reasons. Equally, bad actions can be well intended. [I believe that's the case with those advocated amnesty for illegals, for example].

...

The difficulty with the Motive Fallacy is not so much seeing that it is a fallacy, but spotting its instances in everyday life. It is so common that we have become desensitized, and it can be committed in subtle ways.

...

Here's a tip for spotting it: watch out for the word just, as in 'You're just saying that.' Why has the 'just' been included in such sentences? Everyone knows that when I say something I'm saying it...Well, it is supposed to show that what I am saying is also not true...The mere addition of the word just can, of course, achieve no such thing--it has no magical power of persuasion. Nevertheless, people try it all the time. Beware!

Whyte also points out in a later chapter that a related way of winning an argument is to shut up your opponent. I recall listening to a liberal talk show as a listener called in to brag that he and his pals had silenced Ann Coulter as she was scheduled to speak on some midwestern college campus. The host, Ed Schultz, congratulated this guy on his liberal achievement. It didn't seem to occur to Schultz that this kid's action involved some heavy ironies.

In this case, theCap0 is playing the race card. Heaven forfend that anyone be thought of as racist. Better to be accused of being a bank robber. As Whyte says, watch out for "remarks that serve only to shut you up, without showing that your position is wrong...In public debate, the idea that you can refute a view by claiming its advocate is not entitled to speak is pervasive, especially on race-related issues." And "We mustn't confuse being sensitive with being right. Nor rudeness with error.

Refutation by association, which Whyte also talks about, comes into play here. Amnesty advocates will observe that some acknowledged racist opposes illegal immigration--therefore [i]anyone[/i] who opposes illegal immigration must also be a racist. And if they're a racist their facts and logic must be wrong, or at least needn't be dealt with, since racists have no right of free speech--that's only accorded to folks who agree with you.

I've also observed that left- and right-wing zealots tend to hold a lot of beliefs in common, many of which are not logically related to the concept of liberalism or that of conservatism. For example, Democrats ought to oppose illegal immigration and Republicans ought to favor it, according to the traditions of each party before both were taken over by special interests. And conservatives ought to be conservationists--heck, it's the same word. Yet it has become an article of faith on the far right to celebrate the extermination of animal species in the service of some corporatist's short term profits.

In Whyte's words, "most social groups, even those that are not explicitly ideological, have membership opinions."

Lastly, theCap0's comment also commits the fallacy of confusing messenger with message. My comment about European immigration focused on the groups that have been having and giving the most trouble assimilating. There are lots of Caucasion Eastern Europeans flooding into Western Europe, but their challenges to assimilation are far less than that of people who are more obviously different. Someone named Fyodor can get a job. Someone named Muhammed can't in many areas. This reflects the general cultural homogeneity of traditional European countries. America started out multicultural, and we've had centuries to get into it. The Euros have only had 50 years or so, and it shows.

Many years ago there was a TV show called "All in the family," derived from a Brit show about a bigoted working stiff and his family. In America that character, Archie Bunker, was played by the actor Carroll O'Conner. Archie Bunker was a right wing bigot. Carroll O'Conner was a stereotypical Hollywood liberal. Yet people on the street would constantly clap O'Conner on the shoulder and praise him for sharing their (and Archie's) racist worldview.

Depiction is not advocacy. The Bible does not advocate fratricide, even though it leads off with one. I might or might not be a racist, but observing that there are race-based issues in Europe says nothing about the observer unless that observation is incorrect and you want to start a new topic about the observer's motives.

I like freeways. Hitler invented the freeway (for military purposes, actually). Therefore I'm like Hitler.

Basic logic ought to be a high school graduation requirement. Maybe we'd elect fewer buffoon and scoundrels then.