I don't know much about American Catholicism, but it seems awfully hard to square:
The USCCB is not "pro immigration", it advocates for treating people (including, but not limited to, immigrants) with kindness and dignity
with:
USCCB affiliates have settled more than 30% of all refugees to the United States since 1980, almost all from the third world
The latter is what my high school history teacher would call 'crunchy' and the former what he would call 'woolly'. Our essays always had to be full of crunchy statements and avoid woolly ones, because an argument full of wooly statements can basically argue anything at all without evidence.
Here's the crunchy parts of what the USCCB actually says:
We bishops advocate for meaningful reforms of our nation's immigration laws
Safe and legal pathways serve as an antidote to such [trafficking] risks.
I would have quoted more but it's an unhighlightable PDF (surely a mortal sin?). But anyone reading can look at it themselves. I don't think it's too uncharitable to say that their solution to America's illegal third world immigration is to simply make that migration legal. Less charitably, to replace de facto open borders with de jure open borders.
That seems pretty pro-immigration to me...
Crowstep
2d ago
This explanation focuses on the culture of Conservative MPs. The author focuses on why the Tories ignored the obvious flaws with the 'invite the entire third world' policy, but I think the trigger was something more short term. The government panicked that cutting off the supply of cheap EU labour would cause inflation as demand came roaring back post-COVID. Combine that with regular old incompetence from the Home Office who simply didn't think consider allowing unlimited numbers of low-skilled migrants from the third world to bring unlimited numbers of dependents with no requirements might have quite a large take-up.
Crowstep
3d ago
In a list of 'least racist countries', western countries make up the top 17, as well as about 25 of the top 30.
Crowstep
4d ago
a scheming point
I assume you meant Schelling Point, but Scheming Point works just as well!
Crowstep
7d ago
Here is everyone We're just RETVRNING to tradition when 17 women reproduced for every man
A reminder for anyone reading what that statistic actually entailed. Clan warfare that wipes out male lineages, not massive harems.
Crowstep
12d ago
Sloot wasn't complaining about adultery, he was complaining about Ukrainian refugee women having sex at all.
Crowstep
12d ago
Sloot wasn't complaining about adultery, he was complaining about (single, presumably) Ukrainian women going on dates while living as refugees abroad.
I know a young Ukrainian woman living in the UK. I don't know if she has a boyfriend, but it would be absurd to demand that she avoid getting one because her male peers are fighting. Nobody benefits from that.
Crowstep
12d ago
I think Lowe actually would, notwithstanding media howling, affect real re migration
And how exactly is he going to do that with 3% of the vote the 1 seat in parliament?
Crowstep
12d ago
Rupert Lowe
He's an admirable man, but his decision to found a splinter anti-immigration party to split the Reform vote in order to spite Nigel means that he, individually, could well end up contributing to the rape of thousands of more girls if our next government ends up as a Labour/Green/Islamist coalition.
Crowstep
12d ago
Ukrainian men, getting bombed and shot at in trenches while their countrywomen are riding the carousel through nightclubs and Tinder dates in Germany, Poland, Czech Republic.
Only you Sloot, could hate women so much to conclude that Ukrainian men dying to defend their homeland from foreign invaders makes them cucks because their women-folk might be having sex. What are Ukrainian women living in Poland meant to do, live out their lives as chaste old maids waiting for dead men?
Crowstep
13d ago
You hand out a $1 million cheque with every newborn, and that money will go to the one, absolute max two, kids that have to have all the resources poured into them because now the Red Queen's race got even hotter with all the money that can be poured into the meat grinder.
That isn't what the studies show. What the studies show is that governments can increase birth rates with financial incentives.
Korea is the perfect example of the Red Queen race you're talking about, where families spend huge amounts of their income on private schooling. So if the Korean government introduces marriage and baby bonuses, you shouldn't expect it to have much effect, right?
Korea's March Births Surge 19.4%, Largest Jump in 33 Years. Births rising 21 months straight. Marriages also up 10% . And Korea didn't spend nearly as much as $1 million per child. Lyman Stone estimates that if Korea increased its tax rate to the standard found in European countries, it could reach replacement fertility. And Korea is playing on the hardest difficulty level. For more normal countries, it is absolutely possible. America spends 7x as much on old people as it does on children. Change that ratio even slightly and watch the baby boom happen. The reason governments don't do this isn't because it won't work, but because pensioners vote and unborn children don't. Governments had tried (almost) nothing, and they're all out of ideas.
Crowstep
14d ago
I propose we introduce an equivalent to Miss for young men without children. Maybe "Squire", or "Cadet".
We already have that in British English for unmarried men, it's 'master'. As in 'young master William'. Of course, it doesn't work so well since it abbreviates to the same as Mister.
Crowstep
14d ago
My personal guess is that social status is a far larger driver of fertility than economics
You're right, but to quote demographer Lyman Stone, the solution to a problem doesn't need to reverse the cause of the problem to be effective.
Poor eyesight is caused by genetics, but we don't treat it with genetic engineering. We treat it with glasses, contacts or laser eye surgery.
Similarly, if modern status hierarchies are suppressing fertility, that doesn't mean we can't fix it with money. If every newborn came with a $1 million cheque, you'd bet the US birth rate would skyrocket. Suddenly all the people who were ambivalent about having kids would become enthusiastic parents.
It's a toy example, but it demonstrates the obvious fact that there is an amount of money that will work. There's even a calculator online to see how much, and what kind of fertility policy it would take to get birthrates up, with all the data based on studies of real policies.
And of course, if taxpayer money does succeed in increasing birth rates, that also strengthens the norm of having more kids, which builds on itself.
Crowstep
19d ago
how good are you at detecting when you've been cheated on
I've definitely been in relationships where I wouldn't be surprised if she'd cheated, but those kinds of doubts weren't asked about in the survey. It's tricky.
it had been ongoing since the mid-90s.
The earliest newspaper report about a Pakistani rape gang is from 1955!
Crowstep
21d ago
One can make an argument that "they vote against immigration but get immigration anyway" - however, the reality is that if people consistently voted against immigration as one of their absolute upper-echelon top priorities, they would get politicians who actually stop immigration.
That's really not a fair claim to make about a country with an electoral system that penalises voting for anyone but the two main parties through FPTP. If I'm an anti-immigration voter in 2010, the rational thing for me is to vote Conservative, because if I don't then it increases the chance of Labour winning, and they are likely to increase immigration even more.
Of course, the Tories committed electoral suicide through the Boriswave so now the mantle of the right has finally passed to a truly anti-immigration party, but you can hardly blame previous British voters for refusing to throw away their votes on the BNP or whatever.
Crowstep
21d ago
Why would you assume it's about race? There have been minorities in Britain for centuries
Ah yes, they've been here from the start.
Until 1948, Britain's non-European population was effectively zero. Sure, you can find isolated individual's like Henry VIII's trumpeter or whatever, but to jump from that to claiming 'there have been minorities in Britain for centuries' is just motte and baileying.
Otherwise you're right. People are very good at telling good immigrants from bad ones. The state, unfortunately, is not.
Crowstep
22d ago
She's not a courtesan getting the king horny, she's his stepdaughter
Historian estimate she was a literal child as well. Later writers invented the titillating stuff with the veils, whereas the original story was that Herod saw a little girl do a dance, thought it was cute and promised her anything she wanted (expecting her to not ask for much, since she's a child).
Her mother then made her ask for John the Baptist's head.
Crowstep
22d ago
I'm broadly in favour of surveys on here. I want to find out more about our weird little community.
Crowstep
24d ago
The process may well be long and messy, but a ratio of 36 couples to one child is not a shortage of parents or an oversupply of kids.
Crowstep
24d ago
Adoption would be a realistic solution if there wasn't an oversupply and under demand for adoptable foster kids as is.
Depends what your threshold for 'adoptable' is. The internet tells me there are 36 couples for every child available for adoption so evidently the market must be clearing at a pretty low 'price'. I assume downs kids would be in less demand, but with 36 couples per child, beggars can't be choosers.
Crowstep
26d ago
I don't speak British slang well, but it seems to me, it looks like he said "Wow what a bad ass you are, such a tough guy, I bet you think you are so cool you fucking coward"
Well I do, being from the UK. And taking what we know about Nowak's outgoing and friendly character, what he was snapchatting before, and the fact that at no point during the trial did anyone suggest that what Nowak had said was aggressive, I can conclude that he was being friendly, not aggressive.
Come to Chicago and say that to a bunch of hood rats
But he wasn't in Chicago talking to a bunch of hood rats. He was in a leafy, middle class surburb talking to an individual.
So dude just called him out as a "bad man" for no reason? Novak stopped walking for what reason?
That was obviously a reference to the knife. Nowak stopped walking because he wanted Dugwa to join in his banter.
I'm sorry, but normies, which Nowak was, do not look at crime states, education rates, and salaries.
No, but they do take into account e.g. every Sikh I have ever met or read about is a middle-class professional. Imagine if Dugwa was Asian American, that's the kind of (correct) socio-economic stereotype someone raised in the UK would be working with.
Honestly this whole discussion, is an example on how people don't want any personal responsibility for their own actions.
To me it looks like you trying to assign as much of the blame as you can on the murder victim, with the necessary commensurate reduction of blame on the murderer.
Trust me, to British people this whole thing is jarring. It isn't like he was talking to a surly black kid with his hood up. This is more like seeing a Japanese guy on the streets of San Francisco dressed like a Samurai, making a jokey comment about his katana, and then the Japanese guy actually drawing his sword and attacking. Or maybe seeing this guy playing his bagpipes, saying 'nice sword mate' and then him reacting violently.
Crowstep
26d ago
Regardless, trying to start shit with someone who is spoiling for a fight and has a deadly weapon on them, no matter how "dweeby" they look, is darwin-award level stupid. Just. Keep. Walking.
I don't think that's true at all, for a couple of reasons.
-
Nowak had no reason to think Digwa was violent based on the fact he was carrying a ceremonial blade. Sikhs are known to be particularly well-behaved, with low crime rates, high education rates and high salaries. Scotsmen wearing kilts wear daggers and sometimes larger dirks (a similar size to the knife used in the murder) and nobody assumes danger because it doesn't mean danger.
-
Nowak had no reason to know that Digwa was spoiling for a fight based on his behaviour. Read the Millennial Woes summary of what happened. By the time Nowak realised that Digwa was looking for violence, Digwa had already decided to stab him.
-
Nowak didn't 'start shit'. He was bantering in a friendly way. Nowak didn't touch Digwa or say anything rude or threatening to him. He was extremely unlucky that the guy he was trying to banter with happened to have violent fantasies.
There are about 200,000 Sikh men in the UK, along with maybe 2.5 million Scotsmen. Most adult Scotsmen have worn a sgian dubh and maybe 10% of Sikh men are initiated and so wear the kirpan. Plus tradesmen carry knives openly. Bantering with a guy wearing a knife isn't acting stupidly, and it's only with the benefit of hindsight (plus some falsehoods I have detailed) can you say that he was.
Crowstep
27d ago
It sounds like he was drunk and drunkenly his called out to the non-drunk guy with a big fucking sword
Henry had drunk so little that he was still below the drink-driving limit.
But you're right, this is what happens when a high trust society interacts with a low trust one.
Ignoring all the platitudes and bible verses, there is only one concrete change they propose, increasing legal migration to (somehow) eliminate illegal migration. Since demand to migrate to the US is extremely high and, more importantly, outwith the control of the US, the only way to stop illegal migration through legal migration is to grant literally everybody in the world who wants one a visa. Even with the lip service about secure borders, that's the only way that policy can work. You may say that doesn't count as 'open borders' (because every still has to apply for a visa) and they may say it still counts as 'secure borders' (because only legal migrants are allowed in) but come on, legalising all immigration from everywhere is open borders by any reasonable definition.
Saying that the organisation is 'pro-immigration' is frankly underselling it. Their policy proposals, slim as they are, are radical open-borders extremism that are far beyond the political mainstream. They may dress them up in nice cuddly language, but these boys are anarchists in frocks.
That document is a perfect example of why men of the cloth shouldn't get involved in politics. They've put out a special message that is 99% nothing and 1% childishly naive extremism with no addressing tradeoffs (simply stating that 'Human dignity and national security are not in conflict' doesn't count).
They are not serious people.
More options
Context Copy link