I mean what other word would you use to mean “likes ethnic and cultural difference?” “Xenophilia” would work but that’s even less commonly used than ‘cosmopolitan’.
Oh, there was plenty wrong with Acosta’s comment that the only english speaking immigrants to come to the US would be from Australia and the UK.
So Miller was right to criticize him for that comment.
But to accuse Acosta of being “cosmopolitan” in the same breath completely undermined Miller’s position. Words have meaning.
Yep. Most of them would be from Canada.
Why would the choice of one word undermine his entire position? As noted, the word doesn’t make sense int hat context. So, the proper thing to do is to challenge the use of the word, if you are so inclined.
But Mr. Miller, why would “cosmopolitan” people be so unaware of the widespread use of English in places like India and the Philippines, for example? “Cosmopolitan” people are “wise to the ways of the world” and are exactly the type of people who would know that, no?
My objection wasn’t to the definition of, “Cosmopolitan.” It was to, “Commonly used to deride.”
Are you kidding?
The word cosmopolitan means a person who is free from local, provincial, or national bias or attachment; someone who is a “citizen of the world.”
“Cosmopolitan bias,” means a viewpoint that tracks with such a position. In a debate over whether to use the last available bit of school funding to run an auto shop class or an Asian studies class, the person with “cosmopolitan bias,” would likely favor the Asian studies. In a discussion concerning the relative merits of an afternoon of laser tag and an afternoon at the Guggenheim Museum, the person with “cosmopolitan bias,” would likely advocate for the museum. In a discussion about broadening immigration policies or narrowing them, the participant with “cosmopolitan bias,” would likely support broadening them.
It’s very difficult for me to understand how this information could possibly be so mysterious to you, so impenetrable, so beyond your ken that your best analysis was that if it’s not a coded anti-Semitic message, “it makes no sense whatsoever.”
You might well argue that the coded message is more likely, for example. But I cannot understand how you can believe that any other interpretation is not simply less likely, but “makes no sense whatsoever.”
But since you did believe that, I hope my explanation above has helped you move move the realm of impossibility.
This being Great Debates, you have a cite for that, right?
Build that wall!
The conversation devolved into folie à deux. Acosta made a factual error and Miller compounded it with an alt-right talking point.
Commonly used among people who dislike ethnic/cultural/political difference.
Great. Show. Don’t tell.
In a discussion of whether English was spoken by people only in the UK and Australia or by people all over the world, which way would the person with cosmopolitan bias lean?
Acosta was factually wrong. That doesn’t make Miller right in his rhetorical accusation of Acosta.
Here’s the second accusation of cosmopolitan bias.
Does that sound to you like a natural and correct usage of cosmopolitan or does that sound like someone trying to shoehorn a particular word into a conversation where it doesn’t really belong?
It shows that Miller is choosing to label Acosta rather than form a cogent argument. Labels are sticky. Cogent arguments are hard to make and often make whooshing noises over the heads of intended audiences.
The point of labeling speech a dog whistle is precisely to have the ability to demonize one’s opposition without having any proof or evidence. How in the hell does dog whistling even attempt to work? A secret package containing code words that no one leaks is disseminated to a group?
Allow me to make the counter argument, thus:
The point of [del]labeling speech[/del] a dog whistle is precisely to have the ability to demonize one’s opposition without having any proof or evidence.
It does not alienate the people on the fence.
It does alienated those who are opposed to racism, but that doesn’t move any votes.
It encourages those who recognize and appreciate them, as they pretend that they don’t know what they mean.
If anything, it ends up making the people on the fense side wit the people who act oblivious about the message that they receive, as they sometimes end up looking the reasonable one in their denials.
It’s nudging the base and trolling the opposition, and I think the trolling of the opposition is the greater motivation.
And how does a dog whistle accomplish that when an ordinary whistle would not?
Cowards use cowardly actions for a reason.
The person with cosmopolitan bias would lean towards the argument that people all over the world may be found who speak English.