compromise: ban Muslim men! only 800 million.
still too many? maybe can drop a few countries like Malaysia and Indonesia-
oh shit oh shit that’s Donald Trump’s travel ban
Islamic terrorist organizations are quite content to make female suicide bombers. Also, gender dynamics within Islam may contribute to the total amount of violence. And, for Islam in particular, the disparity. It’s a sad irony.
Just for the record, regarding immigration issues: I feel that the current rate of roughly 1,000,000 immigrants per year is roughly acceptable for the United States. (My statements elsewhere might have implied that I thought this was too high.) I’m not particularly worried about most of the categories of immigrants currently arriving in the US. I could be convinced for a higher number under certain conditions I won’t elaborate on now, partially because I don’t think they can credibly be offered due to political conditions in the United States, including ideological pre-commitments.
I predict at 80% that Trump will not lower the yearly immigration level below 800,000 by the year 2020.
I cannot accurately forecast the numbers on refugees. The Trump administration originally planned to be more selective about refugee groups (particularly persecuted religious groups that are religious minorities in their country of origin), so we may see them make a grab for Christian refugees from ISIS, supposing some sort of support infrastructure (such as American churches) were set up to take them. Alternatively, they may not, and the number of refugee admissions may crash. I predict at 60% that average annual refugee admissions from 2017-2020 will be lower than under the Obama administration.
I predict at 80% that there will not be a new American Middle Eastern war by 2020, so long as Trump remains President and there is no major attack on US soil, defined as an ideologically-motivated terrorist attack with a death count exceeding 100. (For the purposes of this prediction, American forces returning to Iraq and Afghanistan does not count as a new war.)
I predict at 80% that at least one more Sikh is going to get killed by some moron in America for ideological reasons before 2020.
I predict at 70% that one person will die from either Antifa violence, or violence by Antifa rivals by 2020, and this will make the national news. I predict at 90% that this will not be intentional.
Anonymous asked:
argumate answered:
There is a broader question here: to what degree are political movements about outcomes over emotional affiliations.
(And of course, “being about outcomes” is another emotional affiliation!)
Keep in mind that people will see through these kinds of cynical ploys, Anon.
The Left (at least in the US) has parts that have been actively cheering for the death-by-aging and demographic destruction of the native population. The native population, quite frankly, has little reason to believe that movements that treat them as a fulcrum for leveraging the identity politics of all other groups will actually work for their benefit, so why should they believe them? Especially when increasing the supply of labor will increase their competition, not just for jobs, but also for real estate, etc? For that matter, why should they believe it’s in their interests to bring in immigrants on behalf of anti-assimilationists, who want a “salad bowl” instead of a “melting pot” model? Who have shown no reluctance to throw the word “racist” at any criticism of immigration? Who give free passes to actions influenced by foreign religions and ideologies that they wouldn’t to actions influenced by local ones?
Trust will have to be reestablished with actions, not branding. And reestablishing trust is costly. The Left must become willing to actually pay that cost.
Right now, I don’t see a reason to believe that will happen.
@leafyhotdog
hey does it feel good to be so passive aggressive against someone who calls for violence against those calling for genocide instead of the ones actually calling for genocide? cause its pretty fucking sad
Buddy, you and your friends are absolutely horrible at telling who is and is not “calling for genocide”, especially since you include anyone questioning the violence in your calls for violence - you wanted violence against “bigots” and said people against the violence were also “bigots”.
You can block me, but it’s the truth. The reason so many people are saying “hey, wait a minute” about this Punching Nazis thing is because we know that it doesn’t end there.
Maybe if it were enforced consistently and actually ended there we could tolerate it, but hey, “Racism is prejudice plus power, and <ingroup> have no power” people already exist, so realistically that is not going to happen.
Hell, why don’t we re-enact Sherman’s march and raze the US south, the southern US is full of shitty people with shitty politics. Maybe burn down all Mormon churches and compounds, they got both nasty shit going on and nasty politics.
I get you wanna piss your fuckin pants because it’s those dirty furriners doing those dirty furriner crimes, but horrible shit didn’t start with immigration and it won’t end when it’s cut off.
Things being bad is not a reason to make them worse. (This part of the problem with arguments about alcohol/drugs, too.)
We have no obligation to import these people. We do not have an obligation to import people that will make the country worse. We don’t have an obligation to tolerate criminal acts favored by their cultures, or tear our national social cohesion to shreds to tolerate those acts.
So some fringe groups of Mormons are still polygamists and practice shady things with young brides and that sort of thing. Oh look, Westerners doing a bad thing. Better import enough people that have similar practices so that it becomes normalized and gains political power! That’ll sure improve things! Yay justice!
but horrible shit didn’t start with immigration and it won’t end when it’s cut off.
How much FGM was happening in the US before it was imported? It won’t stop now if immigration is shut off only because we won’t literally kick all those who practice it out of the country.
Kicking out only individuals who are actually convicted of it is the individualist approach. And it makes sense. The preconditions for citizenship included not bringing foreign criminal/terrorist activity to this country. Those preconditions were violated.
In light of that, how does removing citizenship not make sense?
And I don’t really think the problem we have is “We don’t execute criminals grotesquely enough.“ I think there’s a reason why we don’t do that sort of thing anymore. If you wanted to heighten investigation, that could make sense, but public executions don’t really help anyone.
It apparently cost $500,000 to prosecute three guys, and the number of crimes committed is far worse.
However, “diversity” ideology covered up that the crimes were even happening in the first place. Admitting that some cultures practice this bullsht more than others was “racist”. I mean it’s just economics, right? Cultural differences beyond food aren’t real, right?
What is your plan to force assimilation on this issue?
Maybe we don’t have to publicly execute them. Maybe we can just ordinarily execute them and make sure it gets in the news where their buddies we read it.
Maybe I don’t even want to go that far. Maybe I just want to throw the Overton Window far enough to the right that Cultural Antirealism will die and Left/Libs will at least start admitting that there is a problem and we can get a gentler solution that actually works.
Of course, part of the issue with whether the guy in the CNN story is an actual wannabe doxxer, is that there is no reason to trust that Leftists (that you don’t know personally) are telling the truth. They lie so fucking much as a group. They lie about the conditions in Europe. They lie about sexism. They lie about who is and is not a Nazi, and then commit violence based on those lies. They twist statistics, by, for example, making “made to penetrate” not be counted as rape and then using those same stats to claim that sexual violence by women does not exist.
The issue here being that for the correction to go around, there has to be some credibility. That credibility has been burned repeatedly, much like we shouldn’t trust anything non-trivial that former President GWB says (or many of the GOP pols generally).
It isn’t that the Trumpists don’t care about the truth more than other ideological groups, it’s that they know their enemies control the loudspeakers and non-governmental institutions, and they expect their enemies to always lie and not care about the truth. It’s similar to the phenomena of right-wingers shitposting because they know they’ll be called Fascists regardless, so they’ve decided to wind people up over it and make them look ridiculous.
But, if we leave race out of it… the fact that nearly all land has been taken by violence undermines the idea of “well this was violently transferred” in principle, I don’t think it makes the case that the Japanese government cannot opt to restrict immigration, since all land ownership is effectively created by force of arms anyway. Even by the basis of “well some specific Japanese might object,” there is almost never going to be complete unity of opinion in government, so their objection does not necessarily invalidate the entire project, especially if emigration is permitted and there are states to emigrate to.
In fact, there is a thriving market in governance already, with hundreds of options to choose from. As criticisms of “but the market doesn’t have what I want” can be shut down as the market not being obligated to supply it, so too, here.
@lets-talk-about-politics replied to your link: Politico: I Found HanAssholeSolo’s anti-Semitic…
So this backlash, the death threats, the intimidation, the violence, all of that is justified?
The backlash in terms of people rightfully decrying CNN and raising cain, I think that’s a very good thing. Obviously the more extreme response I don’t condone, much in the same way I don’t condone a bear eating the drunk moron who tries to wrestle it. But much like trying to wrestle a bear while shitfaced, trying to police public discourse in the age of the internet has consequences, and reporters are not magically immune to the consequences of their extremely poor decisions.
We teach people that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. We seem to forget, however, that the same thing applies to freedom of the press.
There is a strong correlation between immigration—particularly illegal immigration—and wages. This should be obvious to anyone familiar with the fundamental principle of supply and demand: more supply (workers) means lower prices (wages), and vice versa.
Despite the fact that this correlation between immigration and wages is well-documented, it is not obvious to many liberal economists, who see immigration as an unfettered economic benefit. The evidence suggests otherwise, including a new data reported by Fox.
According to the National Association of Home Builders, more than 56% of America’s developers are reporting labor shortages, which is forcing them to increases wages and improve working conditions to attract new talent.
Why?
Because President Trump’s crackdown on illegal immigration is preventing them from hiring illegal aliens, who undercut the labor market, shortchanging American workers. The impact of this (while often ignored) is significant.
According to Stan Market, CEO of Texas’ Marek, “half of the workers in construction in Texas are undocumented.”
He goes on to say that many of them are leaving Texas, either to find refuge in sanctuary cities and states, and “many of them are going back to Mexico.”
This is good news for American workers, who have been hammered in recent decades. In fact, real wages have not risen for the median American worker since 1973, in part because of the deflationary effects of illegal immigration.
And just to be clear, this is not an isolated event—wages will rise in tandem with deportations and other labor restrictions (such as if, and when, the RAISE Act becomes law).
We know this because it’s happening elsewhere already. For example, the restriction of temporary work visas in Maine earlier this year led to higher wages, better working conditions, and lower unemployment—all good for the average American citizen.
Look, I know you guys all think this is evil. And it’s probably not preferable to ending jus soli and issuing more legitimate agricultural visas/etc.
But despite all the people on Facebook talking about how the guy is a nightmare monster from the darkest dreams of the Alt Right come to life, I’m telling you right now that he has a non-trivial chance of re-election unless the Democrats get their shit together.
I pegged it at 50% earlier, reduced it to 40%, but it isn’t a 10% chance or less.
Very very few people are actually anti-immigration. It’s the ILLEGAL part that people don’t like.
seriously tho? a shit-ton of people are actually anti-immigration, this is hardly a fringe view, jesus.
I’ve never inderstood why the legality or not of immigration is supposed to have moral force. a) Its pretty commonly agreed that hte current immigration laws arent fit for purpose, and are only that way due to political deadlock. b) The moral obligation to obey a law comes from being part of the country/community that sets the law, if you are not an american citizen you have no obligation to obey US law.
A) Just ignoring them is almost equivalent to Open Borders, which if you’re a Nationalist, is something you don’t want. (Maximum rates of assimilation, wanting to be allowed to have a country of your own to at least some level culturally, effects on wages, effects on crime, etc.) Ignoring them isn’t really a compromise, either, it’s basically just giving the Leftists what they want.
What they really want is more complicated, but using legality as a fence is much simpler and faster to communicate, and is part of expressing that they are not-racist.
B) You should really be careful with that knife since it has a two-sided blade. If they don’t have any obligations, then they don’t have any rights, either. Furthermore, isn’t that like saying a trespasser has no obligation to obey the property owner when they aren’t even supposed to be trespassing in the first place?
SAN FRANCISCO—In an effort to reduce the number of unprovoked hostile communications on the social media platform, Twitter announced Monday that it had added a red X-mark feature verifying users who are in fact perfectly okay to harass. “This new verification system offers users a simple, efficient way to determine which accounts belong to total pieces of shit whom you should have no qualms about tormenting to your heart’s desire,” said spokesperson Elizabeth James, adding that the small red symbol signifies that Twitter has officially confirmed the identity of a loathsome person who deserves the worst abuse imaginable and who will deliberately have their Mute, Block, and Report options disabled. “When a user sees this symbol, they know they’re dealing with a real asshole who has richly earned whatever mistreatment they receive, including profanity, body-shaming, leaking of personal information, and relentless goading to commit suicide. It’s really just a helpful way of saying to our users, ‘This fuck has it coming, so do your worst with a clear conscience and without fear of having your account suspended.’” At press time, Twitter reassuredly clarified that the red X was just a suggestion and that all users could still be bullied with as little recourse as they are now.
