Okay. Well, when there's no evidence the food they're being forced to serve is "nutritious" (and nutrition is hard), and some people think it's unhealthy, shouldn't parents in their school district be allowed to tell the federal government to fuck off and serve their kids food they think is healthier?
The sooner we get past arguing about social issues of little consequence
I wouldn't necessarily say the social issues are of no consequence, but they're certainly of no consequence to the elite. The elite do not give a fuck if abortion is legal or not. They are smart enough to avoid unwanted pregnancies, and abortions are never unavailable if you have enough money.
This is why I consider SJWs the useful idiots of the 1%.
Undeniably. If I were an evil capitalist oppressor and I were worried poor people might actually threaten my cheddar with all this talk about "income inequality" and "the gap between CEO pay and worker pay" the way I'd get them distracted would be for the media outlets I own to start harping on "racial income inequality" and the "gender wage gap," or maybe the number of female CEOs. Change the frame from "why are these evil CEO oppressors so damn rich?" to "why aren't more of the evil oppressors women?"
It's an exchange of cultural power for economic power. "Ignore the massive economic power imbalance between classes and we'll give you full license to psychologically abuse the hell out of low status white males."
So if you think they're right, then how can you think race relations are good? Or getting better or that it's even possible to improve them? I'm pretty sure their thesis is that the entire structure of American society and justice is inherently and irredeemably racist.
I said corruption prevents wealth accumulation as an explanation to why that's not a "rather than" statement. It is not a claim that the immigrants understand that connection.
Meaning that they're not going to change their behavior once they're here, because they don't understand that the wealth is produced because the individual actors in the society are averse to corruption. Also, "understanding" isn't even sufficient. These are people who, in the iterated prisoner's dilemma that is civilization, have internalized the benefits of cooperation to the point they're disgusted by those who defect. And in some cases can no longer comprehend that defectors even exist ("Welcome refugees").
Other way around. Do YOU have any evidence. You're the one trying to show how dangerous they are. Onus is on your to prove it. I'm scrutinizing your evidence (your stats) in the same way you scrutinize the stats on crime.
Does it matter? If I bothered to dig up all the social science or evo psych research that shows the great extent to which our behaviors are heavily influenced by our genes, strongly, strongly suggesting that south americans in the US are going to act basically like south Americans in South America would you consider it dispassionately and update your model of human behavior accordingly?
You understand that's an undesirable solution for...essentially everyone involved, right?
Before we invited the muslims in, no one in the community wanted homosexuals thrown off buildings. Now we have homosexuals afraid they may be thrown off a building, heterosexual non-muslims who are concerned their homosexual neighbors may be thrown off buildings, and muslims upset there's all these undefenestrated homosexuals walking around. The only people this maybe works out better for is the government, which now needs more money for police and surveillance to dissuade the muslims from acting on their desire to throw homosexuals from buildings, or punish those who give in to temptation and do it anyway.
So, this is good if you want a police state?
Protecting minorities is a bedrock American principal of democracy.
Then shouldn't we only allow in people who agree that protecting minorities should be a bedrock of society? Remember, extremely few societies in the world or in all of human history have cared about protecting minorities. The default state of mankind is "fuck minorities" and a common reading of Islam is "punish with death anyone who deviates from the majority muslim opinion."
The libertarian way to deal with people who disagree is let those people/groups of people sort it out amongst themselves, without government involvement.
What's the difference between "people sort it out amongst themselves" and "share a common culture" with respect to the pool shitting problem? Remember, we have people who earnestly believe pool shitting is wrong, and people who earnestly believe pool shitting is fine and natural and normal.
It really hurts your claims of being libertarian when you immediately jump to government as the solution.
No, I'm saying government is an undesirable solution. If it's the only solution to the pool shitting problem, then it's self-serving to the left who like maximal government.
My libertarian solution to the pool shitting problem is "don't let pool shitters into the neighborhood." Walled garden if you will. What do you think is the proper libertarian solution to the pool shitting problem? And "work it out" isn't an answer.
Correction, I never said "0% chance of committing a crime." I just take exception to the argument of "illegal immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than the native population" because it's misleading. You're not doing anything to assuage the fears of your countrymen who don't want more crime in their area. When you have a neighborhood with low crime rate, higher crime rate illegal immigrants start coming in, and the natives say "we don't want these people here because crime," it's disingenuous to call their concerns false or irrational because the newcomers are not as criminal as inner-city Chicago. You have real people, victims of real crimes, from real criminals who shouldn't be in the country because the citizens passed laws to keep them out, and when they complain you call them names and try to justify your lack of concern by willfully misreading statistics.
You have real countrymen, with real concerns, and you just don't care. I don't think you have any great love for the illegal immigrants, as I doubt you'd live in a neighborhood with them. You just want to inflict them on others who make the same rational decision you do, but can't afford to move away. Again, I think you just hate your countrymen, because there's no rational reason to deny them the police protection of their own government except for malice on your part.
It's somewhat similar to, but even more unfair than, Israel's immigration laws that allow much easier paths to citizenship for people who are Jewish by faith and/or ethnicity.
But what else are you supposed to do if you're a Jew who wants to live with other Jews so you don't have to put up with gentile bullshit?
Is it immoral for the Japanese to not take in immigrants? It's practically impossible to immigrate to Japan. But I don't think Japan would still be Japan if they suddenly took in 30 million white people or 30 million Australian aborigines.
In the long term, do you think multiculturalism will be stable? Americans for the past few decades have spent enormous resources (both economically and culturally) to try to integrate their society. Educational programs, television stereotype programming, student codes of conduct at universities, anti-discrimination rules in the HR departments in our workplaces, "hate speech" censorship on our social media platforms, etc, and yet polls show a great number of Americans (especially black Americans) think race relations are in the toilet. What hope is there that increasing the diversity of the US will make people get along better rather than worse?
Corruption tends to limit wealth generation and accumulation for everyone (except for the very few in on the corruption)
What makes you think the south american immigrant understands that? It seems to me people immigrate, and then not only tend to keep their original culture, but those who would attempt to change the culture of the immigrants are opposed by multiculturalists.
Do you have any evidence that current immigrants are self-selected for low corruption tolerance rather than high wealth desire?
And if we're talking about illegal immigrants, then I think we have prima facie evidence that "obey the law" is not high on their value stack.
This answer seems to me to be self-serving for the left.
At heart I'm a libertarian, and I would prefer to have as few laws as possible. This means I need lots of people around me who share the same basic ideas about right and wrong (i.e., culture). For instance, I don't need a sign up at the pool that says "no shitting in the pool" when no one in my community would even think of shitting in the pool, because pool shitting is not part of our culture. Now bring in a family who thinks pool shitting is just dandy, and we need to have rules and regulation about exactly to what extent one is and is not allowed to shit in the pool under what circumstances, a Department of Pool Shit Inspection and Enforcement, etc.
This does not seem like a good deal for me in the whiny, "pool shitting is bad" camp. Seems pretty good if you're in the pool shit monitoring business, though.
How do you figure that? Sessions always struck me as a LAW IS THE LAW kind of guy. You may not like him, but if you're pattern matching him to Jean Valjean rather than Inspector Javert then I think your pattern matcher needs recalibration.
More like, my cultural and personal morality state that homosexuals should not be thrown off of buildings. The culture and personal belief of many muslims is that homosexuals should be thrown off of buildings. What should I do with respect to muslims who want to join my society, including having access to the franchise such that their morality eventually influences our laws?
Attorney General Jeff Sessions said at a news conference Thursday that Assange's arrest is a "priority."
"We are going to step up our effort and already are stepping up our efforts on all leaks," he said. "This is a matter that's gone beyond anything I'm aware of. We have professionals that have been in the security business of the United States for many years that are shocked by the number of leaks and some of them are quite serious. So yes, it is a priority. We've already begun to step up our efforts and whenever a case can be made, we will seek to put some people in jail."
I'm very suspicious when the news media writes their own sentence and then quotes a single word from someone. Was Sessions talking specifically about Assange, or about leakers? Assange is not a leaker, he's a publisher of the things leakers leak. It's perfectly reasonable for the Justice Department to go after people who are entrusted with US government secrets who then leak them.
Without the full question and answer, then it looks like Sessions could have just as easily said "we're going after leakers" and then CNN says "Assange is a leaker, therefore Sessions is going to arrest Assange," despite Sessions not saying or meaning that.
But if you're against anyone who carries greater than a 0% chance of committing a crime entering your country, you should be against legal immigration at least as much as illegal immigration.
I am against legal immigration, yes.
Again you want to racially profile the odds of criminality. You seem to think that white people are vastly less likely to commit crimes than average, and therefore that the average is extremely dangerous by "white people standards." You're quite wrong there.
No I'm not. We've done studies of value systems of people from different regions, and for instance south & central Americans are much more tolerant of corruption (hence the famous stereotype of south American government corruption). I do not want lots of other people in my country who are more likely to be okay with corruption, or be corrupt should they be part of the government. This is not good for me or my society. High trust society good. Low trust society bad.
You keep making it about race or color instead of about what people of that recent genetic or cultural heritage do. And your neighbors say "we don't want that here, it makes it hard to live our lives and raise our children well" and you say "fuck you you're getting it anyway!" I don't think you actually love the foreigners so much as you just hate your neighbors.
I think you're confusing the chance of become the victim of a crime at a certain instant with desire to not be a victim of crime at all.
More criminals = more crime. And the illegals are more criminal than blacks, but not as criminal as whites, so telling a white guy objecting to the increase in overall number of criminals that the illegals are "less criminal than the native population" is misleading.
There are reasons for not wanting foreigners wandering into your country and committing crimes that are not "irrational fear of people who are different." But you're not interested in these, you just call the people who object "xenophobes." This seems uncharitable. Perhaps they're not xenophobes, perhaps you're an oikophobe?
Rough neighborhood! But for every robber you bring in, you reduce your chances of being raped or murdered.
No you don't. Your chances of being raped or murdered stay the same, and now you might also get robbed.
What's the legal immigrant's average "goodness" threshold?
I don't know. All I'm saying is the "lower crime rates than the native population" line is bullshit. By your logic you maximize your safety by flooding your neighborhood with murderers slightly less murderous than the current murderers. This is a very poor choice that I do not think you would make. You seem perfectly fine flooding your poor countryman's neighborhood with slightly less murderous people, though. So long as you get cheap tomatoes and you don't have to live in the more murderous poor neighborhoods it's fine though, right?
No, it's the other way around. According to Johns Hopkins study on sexuality and gender there is zero evidence homosexuals are born that way.
Your political beliefs about sexuality have no basis in science.
Try telling a gay teenager that is struggling with bullying and ridicule that he/she made a choice to be gay.
Just because someone wasn't born that way doesn't mean they made a choice. Culture and conditioning matter, too. But you cannot say homosexuals were "born that way" because they were not. In fact homophobia is more heritable than homosexuality.
Slashdot Mirror
As long as bigfoot's sexual escapades with the aliens were consensual I'm okay with it.
'refuses to wear a condom' and 'has had sex with over 1000 people.'
wondering what kind of sexually transmitted diseases he was carrying?
Apparently all of them.
Okay. Well, when there's no evidence the food they're being forced to serve is "nutritious" (and nutrition is hard), and some people think it's unhealthy, shouldn't parents in their school district be allowed to tell the federal government to fuck off and serve their kids food they think is healthier?
How was the school lunch program doing at solving that childhood obesity epidemic?
Local population are for spanking and corporal punishment, which we know is counterproductive through studies
Have anything recent to support that? Practically everything we "know" about child rearing through studies has perished in the replication crisis.
fake concepts like patriotism and culture.
Culture is fake? Lost me there.
The sooner we get past arguing about social issues of little consequence
I wouldn't necessarily say the social issues are of no consequence, but they're certainly of no consequence to the elite. The elite do not give a fuck if abortion is legal or not. They are smart enough to avoid unwanted pregnancies, and abortions are never unavailable if you have enough money.
This is why I consider SJWs the useful idiots of the 1%.
Undeniably. If I were an evil capitalist oppressor and I were worried poor people might actually threaten my cheddar with all this talk about "income inequality" and "the gap between CEO pay and worker pay" the way I'd get them distracted would be for the media outlets I own to start harping on "racial income inequality" and the "gender wage gap," or maybe the number of female CEOs. Change the frame from "why are these evil CEO oppressors so damn rich?" to "why aren't more of the evil oppressors women?"
It's an exchange of cultural power for economic power. "Ignore the massive economic power imbalance between classes and we'll give you full license to psychologically abuse the hell out of low status white males."
Tillerson is downsizing State Department employees by 9%. It's a start.
So if you think they're right, then how can you think race relations are good? Or getting better or that it's even possible to improve them? I'm pretty sure their thesis is that the entire structure of American society and justice is inherently and irredeemably racist.
I said corruption prevents wealth accumulation as an explanation to why that's not a "rather than" statement. It is not a claim that the immigrants understand that connection.
Meaning that they're not going to change their behavior once they're here, because they don't understand that the wealth is produced because the individual actors in the society are averse to corruption. Also, "understanding" isn't even sufficient. These are people who, in the iterated prisoner's dilemma that is civilization, have internalized the benefits of cooperation to the point they're disgusted by those who defect. And in some cases can no longer comprehend that defectors even exist ("Welcome refugees").
Other way around. Do YOU have any evidence. You're the one trying to show how dangerous they are. Onus is on your to prove it. I'm scrutinizing your evidence (your stats) in the same way you scrutinize the stats on crime.
Does it matter? If I bothered to dig up all the social science or evo psych research that shows the great extent to which our behaviors are heavily influenced by our genes, strongly, strongly suggesting that south americans in the US are going to act basically like south Americans in South America would you consider it dispassionately and update your model of human behavior accordingly?
So what's your opinion of the BLM movement?
You understand that's an undesirable solution for...essentially everyone involved, right?
Before we invited the muslims in, no one in the community wanted homosexuals thrown off buildings. Now we have homosexuals afraid they may be thrown off a building, heterosexual non-muslims who are concerned their homosexual neighbors may be thrown off buildings, and muslims upset there's all these undefenestrated homosexuals walking around. The only people this maybe works out better for is the government, which now needs more money for police and surveillance to dissuade the muslims from acting on their desire to throw homosexuals from buildings, or punish those who give in to temptation and do it anyway.
So, this is good if you want a police state?
Protecting minorities is a bedrock American principal of democracy.
Then shouldn't we only allow in people who agree that protecting minorities should be a bedrock of society? Remember, extremely few societies in the world or in all of human history have cared about protecting minorities. The default state of mankind is "fuck minorities" and a common reading of Islam is "punish with death anyone who deviates from the majority muslim opinion."
The libertarian way to deal with people who disagree is let those people/groups of people sort it out amongst themselves, without government involvement.
What's the difference between "people sort it out amongst themselves" and "share a common culture" with respect to the pool shitting problem? Remember, we have people who earnestly believe pool shitting is wrong, and people who earnestly believe pool shitting is fine and natural and normal.
It really hurts your claims of being libertarian when you immediately jump to government as the solution.
No, I'm saying government is an undesirable solution. If it's the only solution to the pool shitting problem, then it's self-serving to the left who like maximal government.
My libertarian solution to the pool shitting problem is "don't let pool shitters into the neighborhood." Walled garden if you will. What do you think is the proper libertarian solution to the pool shitting problem? And "work it out" isn't an answer.
Correction, I never said "0% chance of committing a crime." I just take exception to the argument of "illegal immigrants commit crimes at lower rates than the native population" because it's misleading. You're not doing anything to assuage the fears of your countrymen who don't want more crime in their area. When you have a neighborhood with low crime rate, higher crime rate illegal immigrants start coming in, and the natives say "we don't want these people here because crime," it's disingenuous to call their concerns false or irrational because the newcomers are not as criminal as inner-city Chicago. You have real people, victims of real crimes, from real criminals who shouldn't be in the country because the citizens passed laws to keep them out, and when they complain you call them names and try to justify your lack of concern by willfully misreading statistics.
You have real countrymen, with real concerns, and you just don't care. I don't think you have any great love for the illegal immigrants, as I doubt you'd live in a neighborhood with them. You just want to inflict them on others who make the same rational decision you do, but can't afford to move away. Again, I think you just hate your countrymen, because there's no rational reason to deny them the police protection of their own government except for malice on your part.
It's somewhat similar to, but even more unfair than, Israel's immigration laws that allow much easier paths to citizenship for people who are Jewish by faith and/or ethnicity.
But what else are you supposed to do if you're a Jew who wants to live with other Jews so you don't have to put up with gentile bullshit?
Is it immoral for the Japanese to not take in immigrants? It's practically impossible to immigrate to Japan. But I don't think Japan would still be Japan if they suddenly took in 30 million white people or 30 million Australian aborigines.
In the long term, do you think multiculturalism will be stable? Americans for the past few decades have spent enormous resources (both economically and culturally) to try to integrate their society. Educational programs, television stereotype programming, student codes of conduct at universities, anti-discrimination rules in the HR departments in our workplaces, "hate speech" censorship on our social media platforms, etc, and yet polls show a great number of Americans (especially black Americans) think race relations are in the toilet. What hope is there that increasing the diversity of the US will make people get along better rather than worse?
Corruption tends to limit wealth generation and accumulation for everyone (except for the very few in on the corruption)
What makes you think the south american immigrant understands that? It seems to me people immigrate, and then not only tend to keep their original culture, but those who would attempt to change the culture of the immigrants are opposed by multiculturalists.
Do you have any evidence that current immigrants are self-selected for low corruption tolerance rather than high wealth desire?
And if we're talking about illegal immigrants, then I think we have prima facie evidence that "obey the law" is not high on their value stack.
This answer seems to me to be self-serving for the left.
At heart I'm a libertarian, and I would prefer to have as few laws as possible. This means I need lots of people around me who share the same basic ideas about right and wrong (i.e., culture). For instance, I don't need a sign up at the pool that says "no shitting in the pool" when no one in my community would even think of shitting in the pool, because pool shitting is not part of our culture. Now bring in a family who thinks pool shitting is just dandy, and we need to have rules and regulation about exactly to what extent one is and is not allowed to shit in the pool under what circumstances, a Department of Pool Shit Inspection and Enforcement, etc.
This does not seem like a good deal for me in the whiny, "pool shitting is bad" camp. Seems pretty good if you're in the pool shit monitoring business, though.
the immigrant who is trying to flee from that corruption.
What makes you think the immigrant is fleeing corruption, rather than seeking wealth?
How do you figure that? Sessions always struck me as a LAW IS THE LAW kind of guy. You may not like him, but if you're pattern matching him to Jean Valjean rather than Inspector Javert then I think your pattern matcher needs recalibration.
More like, my cultural and personal morality state that homosexuals should not be thrown off of buildings. The culture and personal belief of many muslims is that homosexuals should be thrown off of buildings. What should I do with respect to muslims who want to join my society, including having access to the franchise such that their morality eventually influences our laws?
Anybody have the exact quote from Sessions?
Attorney General Jeff Sessions said at a news conference Thursday that Assange's arrest is a "priority."
"We are going to step up our effort and already are stepping up our efforts on all leaks," he said. "This is a matter that's gone beyond anything I'm aware of. We have professionals that have been in the security business of the United States for many years that are shocked by the number of leaks and some of them are quite serious. So yes, it is a priority. We've already begun to step up our efforts and whenever a case can be made, we will seek to put some people in jail."
I'm very suspicious when the news media writes their own sentence and then quotes a single word from someone. Was Sessions talking specifically about Assange, or about leakers? Assange is not a leaker, he's a publisher of the things leakers leak. It's perfectly reasonable for the Justice Department to go after people who are entrusted with US government secrets who then leak them.
Without the full question and answer, then it looks like Sessions could have just as easily said "we're going after leakers" and then CNN says "Assange is a leaker, therefore Sessions is going to arrest Assange," despite Sessions not saying or meaning that.
So what am I supposed to do with people whose personal morality is not the morality of my culture?
But if you're against anyone who carries greater than a 0% chance of committing a crime entering your country, you should be against legal immigration at least as much as illegal immigration.
I am against legal immigration, yes.
Again you want to racially profile the odds of criminality. You seem to think that white people are vastly less likely to commit crimes than average, and therefore that the average is extremely dangerous by "white people standards." You're quite wrong there.
No I'm not. We've done studies of value systems of people from different regions, and for instance south & central Americans are much more tolerant of corruption (hence the famous stereotype of south American government corruption). I do not want lots of other people in my country who are more likely to be okay with corruption, or be corrupt should they be part of the government. This is not good for me or my society. High trust society good. Low trust society bad.
You keep making it about race or color instead of about what people of that recent genetic or cultural heritage do. And your neighbors say "we don't want that here, it makes it hard to live our lives and raise our children well" and you say "fuck you you're getting it anyway!" I don't think you actually love the foreigners so much as you just hate your neighbors.
I think you're confusing the chance of become the victim of a crime at a certain instant with desire to not be a victim of crime at all.
More criminals = more crime. And the illegals are more criminal than blacks, but not as criminal as whites, so telling a white guy objecting to the increase in overall number of criminals that the illegals are "less criminal than the native population" is misleading.
There are reasons for not wanting foreigners wandering into your country and committing crimes that are not "irrational fear of people who are different." But you're not interested in these, you just call the people who object "xenophobes." This seems uncharitable. Perhaps they're not xenophobes, perhaps you're an oikophobe?
Rough neighborhood! But for every robber you bring in, you reduce your chances of being raped or murdered.
No you don't. Your chances of being raped or murdered stay the same, and now you might also get robbed.
What's the legal immigrant's average "goodness" threshold?
I don't know. All I'm saying is the "lower crime rates than the native population" line is bullshit. By your logic you maximize your safety by flooding your neighborhood with murderers slightly less murderous than the current murderers. This is a very poor choice that I do not think you would make. You seem perfectly fine flooding your poor countryman's neighborhood with slightly less murderous people, though. So long as you get cheap tomatoes and you don't have to live in the more murderous poor neighborhoods it's fine though, right?
No, it's the other way around. According to Johns Hopkins study on sexuality and gender there is zero evidence homosexuals are born that way.
Your political beliefs about sexuality have no basis in science.
Try telling a gay teenager that is struggling with bullying and ridicule that he/she made a choice to be gay.
Just because someone wasn't born that way doesn't mean they made a choice. Culture and conditioning matter, too. But you cannot say homosexuals were "born that way" because they were not. In fact homophobia is more heritable than homosexuality.