This is a darkly comical level of ineptness here.
Alright everyone, it’s all better now. Any DNC interns that were thinking of throwing frag grenades into strategist’s offices should put them back.
Honestly, I don’t know if I’m going to even bother voting in the next election. I mean probably, civic duty and all that, rah rah USA, but I’ve seen nothing to convince me that the DNC isn’t a popularity-devoured ideology-huffing institution that will throw me under the bus the first chance it gets.
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,” said the moderate, as the ethnic violence increased in the country and multi-generational child sex trafficking rings set up in the cities, “some may die, but isn’t our vision of a tolerant and diverse society worth it?”
: /
I know, this is very deeply uncharitable of me. Something about this latest attack has me on edge. I think it’s that I see a path from here to ethnic tension criticality in England, which, with the previous attacks being a cycle of terrorism vs military campaigns, I didn’t.
The unfortunate reality is that some of the MRA’s claims are undoubtedly true and deserve serious consideration, yet the overall picture presented to the audience is erroneous at best and outright disingenuous at worst. While men’s issues require genuine advocacy, the heroes of this pathetic diatribe tend to be rather unsavory characters.
http://thelinfieldreview.com/20367/archive/opinion/choking-on-the-red-pill/
Anonymous asked:
mitigatedchaos answered:
There are a few things to understand, here.
Islam does not require cousin marriage, but it doesn’t prohibit it, either, and as far as I’m aware, the practice predates the religion.
Thresholds matter for social behavior. Something that is okay in small amounts may not be okay in larger amounts.
Here is a map of 2nd-degree-or-closer cousin marriages from Wikipedia.
Notice what a deep blue Pakistan is. Also notice that in most Western countries, the level is fairly low.
Now let’s hop over to the Biological Aspects section of the Wikipedia page.
In April 2002, the Journal of Genetic Counseling released a report which estimated the average risk of birth defects in a child born of first cousins at 1.1–2.0 percentage points over an average base risk for non-cousin couples of 3%, or about the same as that of any woman over age 40.
Well now, that doesn’t sound so dangerous - wait, what’s this following paragraph?
Repeated consanguineous marriages within a group are more problematic. After repeated generations of cousin marriage the actual genetic relationship between two people is closer than the most immediate relationship would suggest. In Pakistan, where there has been cousin marriage for generations and the current rate may exceed 50%, one study estimated infant mortality at 12.7 percent for married double first cousins, 7.9 percent for first cousins, 9.2 percent for first cousins once removed/double second cousins, 6.9 percent for second cousins, and 5.1 percent among nonconsanguineous progeny. Among double first cousin progeny, 41.2 percent of prereproductive deaths were associated with the expression of detrimental recessive genes, with equivalent values of 26.0, 14.9, and 8.1 percent for first cousins, first cousins once removed/double second cousins, and second cousins respectively.
Oh dear.
A BBC report discussed Pakistanis in Britain, 55% of whom marry a first cousin.
Oh no. No no no.
Given the high rate of such marriages, many children come from repeat generations of first-cousin marriages. The report states that these children are 13 times more likely than the general population to produce children with genetic disorders, and one in ten children of first-cousin marriages in Birmingham either dies in infancy or develops a serious disability. The BBC also states that Pakistani-Britons, who account for some 3% of all births in the UK, produce “just under a third” of all British children with genetic illnesses. Published studies show that mean perinatal mortality in the Pakistani community of 15.7 per thousand significantly exceeds that in the indigenous population and all other ethnic groups in Britain. Congenital anomalies account for 41 percent of all British Pakistani infant deaths.
Well, fuck. This isn’t good.
The increased mortality and birth defects observed among British Pakistanis may, however, have another source besides current consanguinity.
Oh, you mean it might be some kind of outside oppression? I bet Whi-
Population subdivision results from decreased gene flow among different groups in a population. Because members of Pakistani biradari have married only inside these groups for generations, offspring have higher average homozygosity even for couples with no known genetic relationship.
Oh. Nope, having kids with people who are too genetically similar to each other.
Now remember, we’re talking about information from Wikipedia and the BBC, not Evil Hatefacts from an Evil Hatesite.
So that’s the genetic aspect. So why do they do it?
To keep wealth within the family and stick close to the father’s genetic line.
It isn’t some huge, secret magical diverse cultural benefit that the Middle East has and we don’t. It’s just clannishness. (In fact, I suspect the clannishness is even responsible for some of the issues in their armies.)
Now, the Alt Right seems to think that as a result of this and other issues, all Muslim immigrants must be kicked out of the UK.
That is not necessary. Also it would probably get a lot of people hurt or killed, which is bad. So let’s not do that.
For the Liberals, we should keep in mind that cousin marriage likely promotes clannishness and amoral familism (”my family, right or wrong”), due to increased genetic similarity and insulation from the outer world. In fact, that’s pretty much the purpose of the practice.
Remember that social atomization that was supposed to melt away the religions and make everyone into happy Liberals? That isn’t going to happen if they all marry their cousins, which enables and incentivizes close, repressive, tight control of women, and insular culture.
If we want Islam to chill out and liberalize and soften, like Christianity, and we want the Muslim immigrants to become happy Liberals, then we must ban cousin marriage.
No excuses because “it’s their culture,” or “you’re just a repressive [ethnic majority].” That isn’t helping them.
That’s enabling them. Cousin marriage is bad. It’s self-destructive behavior. It’s other-destructive behavior for the kids, too.
Human beings are resilient. It won’t take that long to start removing the most negative effects, if we start now.
You went straight from “this is a problem” to “we must make this illegal” without any consideration of non-violent solutions.
Considering the current level of ongoing cousin marriage, the current “compromise” clearly is not enough. It is better to have a new “compromise” which is substantially more opposed to cousin marriage than the current one.
So tell me, how do you stop the Progressive Left from decrying the new Reproductive Genetic Risk Assessment Tax as Evil Racism? And how do you prevent it from expanding to other categories?
“Don’t marry your cousin, the government will no longer issue any new marriage licenses for it after [DATE]” is a pretty clear line that draws on the pre-existing taboo in the West against incest and is therefore unlikely to dramatically expand, or cost much to administer.
Broke: Lowering immigration is racist because immigrants are predominantly non-white, and therefore any opposition to immigration necessarily stems from white supremacist racism.
Woke: Not lowering immigration is racist, because bringing in better unskilled or low-skilled employees disproportionately hurts those in our society who are the worst off in terms of health, education, family structure, and contact with the criminal justice system, and that is very much skewed, racially, in our country. Support for mass immigration is just white people showing off how tolerant they are while pushing off the costs on other groups.
I am here to tell you how to achieve the Happy Liberal Land through the steps you refuse to enact, and to leverage you to enact them by creating and supporting an alternative that you want to destroy.
I wish that “It’s a moral imperative to enact libertarian policies even if they result in mass starvation“ got people even a quarter as mad as “Punching Nazis is good.“
But apparently endorsing mass death makes you an interesting person to ask economics and ethics questions to as long as you do it in the right way.
Brah, I argue with Right Libertarians pretty often, and even accused a man in a “Taxes Are Theft” shirt of being an enemy of humanity due to automation once.
Anonymous asked:
sinesalvatorem answered:
And, like, phoneworkers and people in brothels; both of which might be considered “secure”, but neither of which is really an imitation of anything like courtship.
Sure, there’s intimacy, because this is someone you’re being sexual with - but I think that’s kind of the point. These are people who can’t let their guard down around anyone else because they can’t feel intimate with anyone else.
You: “I am noticing a way in which men are experiencing suffering.”
Anon: “Men don’t experience suffering, they’re, uh, just trying to woo [generic] you .”
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.
